what is the identity of the united states of america? there are so many analogies out there, but do any really fit? it feels like we are constantly figuring out and freaking out about our identity. the truth is, as was mentioned to me, our nation's identity is constantly changing--i guess that is reason enough to not know who or what we are.
with this presidential election behind us now and the country looks forward to having it's first president of color how will the description of who the u.s. is change?
are we a melting pot?
do we all come together in one big space and melt into one another? cultures and heritages melting, changing, and becoming something new. how much is lost with this analogy? when a culture melts, is it anything like it was when it came into the pot? me, i don't want to melt. the wicked witch in wizard of oz melts and i don't want to be her, nor do i want someone else making the decision that my duty as an american is to melt. i do not want my culture lost, my language to be stripped, and my values to change to meet a different criteria for right and wrong.
are we a salad bowl?
are we all tossed together rather than melting together? each piece distinct from one another, enhanced when together? i don't know about you, but my salads are usually covered with white dressing. this makes for an interesting and unappealing analogy. it tells me that america can have difference, but it will always be smothered with whiteness and white culture.
are we a mosaic?
mosaics are beautifully put together. are we separate pieces shattered and then glued next to one another? even though i think mosaics are beautiful, when this is an analogy used to describe the country i live in, i wonder how do mosaic pieces interact with one another? what messages are sent when we adopt this analogy?
are we a patchwork quilt?
somewhat similar to a mosaic, except each piece is sewn together rather than glued separately. can we move once we are sewn down? are there boundaries that keep us from getting too big?
no matter what analogy we use to describe the country--we need to look at what those words mean. what implications they have. what implicit messages exist in how we choose to describe our country--the people in it, how we interact, and what we expect from one another.
even though it might seem trite, our language is important. our choices of descriptors do have impact on our self-image just as much as on our effectiveness of communication. who we are is a product of how we are able to identify what we believe in and why.
i for one am not about to say that who i am is melted where my true self can no longer be identified. likewise, i resist being covered by white culture and described that way. to say that we should all melt into a single pot is a perfectly logical explanation (ple) for resisting difference. i wonder how our new president will effect the way people talk about this country. people who live here and also people who do not. what perceptions will change and what ones will remain/persist? will we continue to have ples for resisting the existence of difference? ples claiming we are free from racism because we have a biracial black president?
in what ways will we have to shift our perspectives in order to challenge these ples? i am expecting this change. i don't know what the future holds. i am afraid that it will become more of an intellectualized battle for understanding and awareness, and in it, we will lose our focus on social justice. i fear we will make too many assumptions about our progress and lose sight of the work that needs to continue being done.
i hope though that my fears are not fulfilled, and that i can say that i was wrong. here's hoping to being wrong (and pleasantly surprised).
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
turning the other cheek
privilege and ignore are scary words to me when they are in the same sentence. a couple months ago now i helped lead a training about privilege. a man at the training said that he would just ignore his privilege and that would serve as a solution for the system of privilege.
it’s scary to think that the two-year-old child’s solution of covering up your eyes—if i can’t see you, you can’t see me—is suddenly a viable solution for adults in regard to privilege. when we see two-year-olds do this, it’s cute and endearing. when adults do this, what do we think? it’s sad to me because i have seen covering one's eyes as an acceptable solution. it’s sad and scary to think ignoring privilege and pretending not to have it all of a sudden seems a likely way to solve the problem. is it true that in reality when it happens, we think it's okay? why is this funny for a child to do and serious for an adult? to me, this indicates something very wrong is going on. something we are not willing to acknowledge but is there nonetheless.
the real problem of privilege, however, is systemic, cultural, and personal. we might not be able to see it because we are not really looking. it’s a pervasive system wrought with expectation and entitlement, fear and blame whether we acknowledge it or not. when people have privilege and acknowledge they do the guilt that accompanies is overwhelming. let me ask though---who makes guilt an overwhelming emotion? only the person feeling it, that’s who...rightfully so to some degree being that the system is so insidious. it chokes everyone, suffocating people into consciouslessness.
i am not trying to knock the tactic of ignorant bliss altogether. sometimes it is useful; i recognize it as a defense mechanism, but i think it’s important to unpack that. why is there a need for defense when it comes to acknowledging privilege? my best guess is the lack of readiness to accept responsibility for privilege. responsibility for how the system currently is, responsibility for contributing to oppression, and responsibility to do something about it and with it. that’s a huge mental and spiritual undertaking. avoiding such an undertaking, such a responsibility, is certainly easier than facing the reality.
on the other hand, people lacking privilege face reality everyday. there is no option of defense—of ignoring, of pretending, of avoiding responsibility. privilege truly is having this luxury. the option of avoidance if and when you choose.
ignorance by choice is just one more perfectly logical explanation (ple) to not change; to not have to try to live and achieve social justice.
stay awake people! don’t use a ple because it’s easy. be in it (in your privilege) even though it’s hard and brings about emotions that are difficult to face up to. reality in its fullest is difficult to face up to. what’s worse is when you don’t see what is truly going on around you and how you are a part of it. don't continue to contribute to oppression. it doesn't benefit anyone. how is ignoring privilege beneficial to anyone--including yourself?
so, what do you do with your privilege?
it’s scary to think that the two-year-old child’s solution of covering up your eyes—if i can’t see you, you can’t see me—is suddenly a viable solution for adults in regard to privilege. when we see two-year-olds do this, it’s cute and endearing. when adults do this, what do we think? it’s sad to me because i have seen covering one's eyes as an acceptable solution. it’s sad and scary to think ignoring privilege and pretending not to have it all of a sudden seems a likely way to solve the problem. is it true that in reality when it happens, we think it's okay? why is this funny for a child to do and serious for an adult? to me, this indicates something very wrong is going on. something we are not willing to acknowledge but is there nonetheless.
the real problem of privilege, however, is systemic, cultural, and personal. we might not be able to see it because we are not really looking. it’s a pervasive system wrought with expectation and entitlement, fear and blame whether we acknowledge it or not. when people have privilege and acknowledge they do the guilt that accompanies is overwhelming. let me ask though---who makes guilt an overwhelming emotion? only the person feeling it, that’s who...rightfully so to some degree being that the system is so insidious. it chokes everyone, suffocating people into consciouslessness.
i am not trying to knock the tactic of ignorant bliss altogether. sometimes it is useful; i recognize it as a defense mechanism, but i think it’s important to unpack that. why is there a need for defense when it comes to acknowledging privilege? my best guess is the lack of readiness to accept responsibility for privilege. responsibility for how the system currently is, responsibility for contributing to oppression, and responsibility to do something about it and with it. that’s a huge mental and spiritual undertaking. avoiding such an undertaking, such a responsibility, is certainly easier than facing the reality.
on the other hand, people lacking privilege face reality everyday. there is no option of defense—of ignoring, of pretending, of avoiding responsibility. privilege truly is having this luxury. the option of avoidance if and when you choose.
ignorance by choice is just one more perfectly logical explanation (ple) to not change; to not have to try to live and achieve social justice.
stay awake people! don’t use a ple because it’s easy. be in it (in your privilege) even though it’s hard and brings about emotions that are difficult to face up to. reality in its fullest is difficult to face up to. what’s worse is when you don’t see what is truly going on around you and how you are a part of it. don't continue to contribute to oppression. it doesn't benefit anyone. how is ignoring privilege beneficial to anyone--including yourself?
so, what do you do with your privilege?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
oh, propositions
let's talk about politics and some current ballot propositions. i'm in california and there are a couple of heavy, controversial ones. protecting marriage is one. the title says it all: eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. let's talk about this.
eliminates right. well, to me that means there is a right present. the right that is present is marriage.
how is taking away rights in any way what we want to happen in this country? a country of freedoms and equality for all. an amendment to a state's constitution and over the california supreme court ruling allowing same-sex marriage is threatening to disallow freedoms and grant inequality.
proposition 8 discriminates in two ways--one favoring heterosexual couples by continuing their right to marriage and the other oppressing and discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (lgbt) couples who will lose the right to marriage. it is a proposition that segregates the population and chooses in favor of or against based on religious values. i say this because the writers of and primary fiscal contributors to the proposition are from religious organizations. should the right to access marriage be decided upon my religiously affiliated beliefs?
my issue is there are all these protections and freedoms we are supposed to have, namely equality and separation of church and state. neither of which seem to be occurring in this proposition. as a sidenote, i am aware that separation of church and state (and proponents of proposition 8) is not all or nothing; there are religious organizations who oppose eliminating the right to marriage for same-sex couples. it is their stance that actually attempts to keep a separation of church and state. unfortunately, it must be a pretty small separation.
throughout all this, there are some lovely perfectly logical explanations (ples) for taking away equality/eliminating rights/ruling the state through church. it is okay to eliminate rights because proposition 8 will:
restore marriage.
"It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be."
not an attack on the gay lifestyle.
less government.
"It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people."
protect families.
"Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father."
protect children.
"It protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage."
"As social and legal norms change, there would be many unwanted consequences for families. For instance, all children would be taught that they can marry someone of the same or of the opposite sex when they grow up. Their parents would be unable to object to such teaching. Experts predict such misinformation will cause developmental insecurity in many children and encourage experimental behavior, with disastrous outcomes."
protect marriage.
and my favorite, proposition 8 doesn't take away the rights of gays.
"Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else."
why are these ples, you might ask. i have some thoughts...
restore marriage--before the 1970s in california there was no definition of marriage being between a man and woman. which means that since california became a state over a hundred years ago (1850) the definition of marriage was written in gender-neutral language. so, from what time period does marriage as being between a man and a woman need to be restored?
less government--it sounds like when there needs to be a constitutional amendment that overturns a state's supreme court ruling, that is more government that is involved in people's personal lives. we are all part of the government! when you have an elected official, you are part of the government. when you vote, you are part of the government. when you write legislature, bills, or propositions, you are part of the government. all propositions on their face are for more government. also, this proposition is about amending the constitution, not about reversing the ruling of judges. this proposition is about amending the constitution in order to take rights away from lgbt couples.
protect families--children are not in danger with both of their legal guardians/parents are able to marry. children are not in danger when raised by lgbt individuals or couples, on the sole merit of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity and expression. this ple is all about fear. the logic is there, but the need for this argument is based on fear. when fear of the lgbt community is so high that there is a movement to try and remove children from settings with these individuals, there is a problem. families are not threatened or in need of protection when all people have access to the right to marriage. in fact, when all people have access, more families can be legally recognized. why would families need protecting when there can be more of them?
protect children--this is a similar ple to "protect families." although, in this ple, it is important to note the assumptions that are made...there is not one word, one mention of education in proposition 8. current california law gives parents the overall authority over their children's education in terms health and family issues. parents have an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. this ple is saying that it is okay to eliminate rights of lgbt people because of the potential that kids will be taught that everyone (straight and lgbt folks) has the right to marry. ultimately, this once perfectly logical explanation becomes perfectly ludicrous explanation--we should eliminate rights to one group for fear that we teach our kids about equality. that's interesting reasoning. let me know how that works out.
doesn't take away the right of gays--heck yeah it does! that is exactly what this proposition says it will do--IN IT'S TITLE! for this reason, i wouldn't say it is actually logical, however i suppose it could be read as such. on the radio i heard this ple used because "gay people are allowed to marry; gay men just have to marry women." this is another topic altogether, but this is why we need to begin recognizing the differences between equality and equity--this argument raises the need for equity.
the value of marriage is not lost when all people have the right to marriage. the value grows exponentially. i challenge the thought of marriage losing its value as fewer people have access to it, and more people are prevented from choosing to enter into it.
now, i am not saying vote this way or that; i am saying think about the effects and impacts of your vote. what do you want your vote to stand for?
eliminates right. well, to me that means there is a right present. the right that is present is marriage.
how is taking away rights in any way what we want to happen in this country? a country of freedoms and equality for all. an amendment to a state's constitution and over the california supreme court ruling allowing same-sex marriage is threatening to disallow freedoms and grant inequality.
proposition 8 discriminates in two ways--one favoring heterosexual couples by continuing their right to marriage and the other oppressing and discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (lgbt) couples who will lose the right to marriage. it is a proposition that segregates the population and chooses in favor of or against based on religious values. i say this because the writers of and primary fiscal contributors to the proposition are from religious organizations. should the right to access marriage be decided upon my religiously affiliated beliefs?
my issue is there are all these protections and freedoms we are supposed to have, namely equality and separation of church and state. neither of which seem to be occurring in this proposition. as a sidenote, i am aware that separation of church and state (and proponents of proposition 8) is not all or nothing; there are religious organizations who oppose eliminating the right to marriage for same-sex couples. it is their stance that actually attempts to keep a separation of church and state. unfortunately, it must be a pretty small separation.
throughout all this, there are some lovely perfectly logical explanations (ples) for taking away equality/eliminating rights/ruling the state through church. it is okay to eliminate rights because proposition 8 will:
restore marriage.
"It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be."
not an attack on the gay lifestyle.
less government.
"It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people."
protect families.
"Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father."
protect children.
"It protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage."
"As social and legal norms change, there would be many unwanted consequences for families. For instance, all children would be taught that they can marry someone of the same or of the opposite sex when they grow up. Their parents would be unable to object to such teaching. Experts predict such misinformation will cause developmental insecurity in many children and encourage experimental behavior, with disastrous outcomes."
protect marriage.
and my favorite, proposition 8 doesn't take away the rights of gays.
"Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else."
why are these ples, you might ask. i have some thoughts...
restore marriage--before the 1970s in california there was no definition of marriage being between a man and woman. which means that since california became a state over a hundred years ago (1850) the definition of marriage was written in gender-neutral language. so, from what time period does marriage as being between a man and a woman need to be restored?
less government--it sounds like when there needs to be a constitutional amendment that overturns a state's supreme court ruling, that is more government that is involved in people's personal lives. we are all part of the government! when you have an elected official, you are part of the government. when you vote, you are part of the government. when you write legislature, bills, or propositions, you are part of the government. all propositions on their face are for more government. also, this proposition is about amending the constitution, not about reversing the ruling of judges. this proposition is about amending the constitution in order to take rights away from lgbt couples.
protect families--children are not in danger with both of their legal guardians/parents are able to marry. children are not in danger when raised by lgbt individuals or couples, on the sole merit of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity and expression. this ple is all about fear. the logic is there, but the need for this argument is based on fear. when fear of the lgbt community is so high that there is a movement to try and remove children from settings with these individuals, there is a problem. families are not threatened or in need of protection when all people have access to the right to marriage. in fact, when all people have access, more families can be legally recognized. why would families need protecting when there can be more of them?
protect children--this is a similar ple to "protect families." although, in this ple, it is important to note the assumptions that are made...there is not one word, one mention of education in proposition 8. current california law gives parents the overall authority over their children's education in terms health and family issues. parents have an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. this ple is saying that it is okay to eliminate rights of lgbt people because of the potential that kids will be taught that everyone (straight and lgbt folks) has the right to marry. ultimately, this once perfectly logical explanation becomes perfectly ludicrous explanation--we should eliminate rights to one group for fear that we teach our kids about equality. that's interesting reasoning. let me know how that works out.
doesn't take away the right of gays--heck yeah it does! that is exactly what this proposition says it will do--IN IT'S TITLE! for this reason, i wouldn't say it is actually logical, however i suppose it could be read as such. on the radio i heard this ple used because "gay people are allowed to marry; gay men just have to marry women." this is another topic altogether, but this is why we need to begin recognizing the differences between equality and equity--this argument raises the need for equity.
the value of marriage is not lost when all people have the right to marriage. the value grows exponentially. i challenge the thought of marriage losing its value as fewer people have access to it, and more people are prevented from choosing to enter into it.
now, i am not saying vote this way or that; i am saying think about the effects and impacts of your vote. what do you want your vote to stand for?
Saturday, October 25, 2008
blindspots
the past couple days i have been thinking about the concepts and connections of colorblindness and pansexuality. my guess is this will come out a little convoluted though, so hang on until the end.
i don’t believe in colorblindness, but i hear so many people saying it has advantages (not necessarily what the advantages are, just that advantages exist) and how they believe in it. the lack of explanation makes me wonder: what exactly are the advantages to colorblindness?
seeing someone for who they are not for the race they are. that’s the advantage, right? i struggle to figure out whether this is a perfectly logical explanation (ple) to the question/dilemma of living in a race-conscious world. a way to minimize that consciousness. or is it something other than a ple--is it a cultural shift in consciousness around the importance of race? is race beginning to lose its power over how a person, and how groups of people, are perceived and treated?
then, i think about cases like jena 6. doesn’t what happened there--in a segregated louisiana prove that we are not yet blind and don’t have the capacity to be so? i know this potentially is a rhetorical question, but i don’t wish it to be one. i want to talk about it.
i don’t think we actually talk about race enough. talk about it to understand it, and to understand the impacts it has. likewise, i think colorblindness should be talked about more as well. what it means and the impacts of its existence--in theory and in practice.
about colorblindness...i think it’s the not caring that gets to me. when a person says the world should be colorblind and follows that sentiment with the fact that they don’t care about a person’s race, it scares me. it feels like an attempt to wipe away belief systems, traditions, and experiences. if i say i am colorblind and i don’t care about your race, it seems like the additional message i send it that i also don’t care about your history and experience in this world.
i’m no expert, but i do believe race matters. on the systemic and cultural levels, race matters because it is used to advantage some and disadvantage others. on the individual level, race matters because it shapes how we see ourselves and how we are able to see and connect with others. there are high stakes in one’s race. i believe a person’s experience is impacted by race and i don’t want to be blind to that.
similarly, i don’t want to be blind to a person’s gender. pansexuality describes a sexual orientation where gender doesn’t matter. it’s attraction regardless of gender identity and expression.
intellectually, i know that the concept of pansexuality is about acknowledging there is a continuum of gender and not a binary system of gender. which i agree to; gender identity and expression are continuums, not a rigid system of two and only two. however, because pansexuality is attraction regardless of gender identity and expression i think there is blindness present. blindness to how we live gendered (and sex-roled) experiences. even if they are genderqueered experiences.
pansexuality is also viewed as being more open-minded. a more progressive perspective of gender and sexual orientation. if that’s the case, am i lacking open-mindedness because i don’t believe in its reality? perhaps it is not even about open and closed-mindedness. maybe a better way of thinking is on, off, and idle. much like our machines and technology. as gender is seen as a binary, it is on; when it is seen as a continuum, it is idle; when it is not seen at all, it is off. now, after writing that i think with that logical that pansexuality is an interesting mix of idleness and off. idle because it acknowledges the continuum, but off because of its practice of blindness.
everything is so gray and unresolved. i don’t even know how to continue to describe these two concepts and their connections. i am riddled with questions i just don’t have answers to...
do race and gender still play the same roles now as they did when i was a kid and teenager? what role do they play?
am i stuck in an archaic way of thinking about race and gender?
is the attempt at non-judgment actually judgment after all?
are colorblindness and pansexuality applications of social justice or movements away from social justice?
dear void of the unknown, please help me find pathways of thinking and articulating these dilemmas i have laid out before you.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
hard work
i was listening to a song the other day that had kids singing the chorus--something along the lines of "if i work hard at it, i can be what i want to be." hearing this song made me think how that message to kids is both harmful and beneficial.
of course i want kids to believe they can be anything. this unwavering belief is one of many benefits, i am sure. there should be more done for this belief to become a reality. i want to focus on that aspect--reality.
i know that not all kids will grow up to become what they want; some kids might fail, but not due necessarily to a lack of hard work. some might fail simply because of the systems in which they are living. it's incredibly disheartening that reality is the harmful part of the message.
let me be specific about what i am really writing about; not a song necessarily, but the false belief in how to achieve the american dream. the belief that a person can be successful and achieve the american dream through hard work alone. that there is nothing that prevents some from achieving and advances others into achievement. this is the PLE (perfectly logical explanation) we tell ourselves (as a country) that some people just don't try hard enough. that some people didn't work hard enough to be successful.
stereotypes of who is (or should be) smart, aggressive, obnoxious, boisterous, disruptive, and a leader begins to separate our culture into the haves and have-nots. the haves truly have it all--looks, race, religion, leadership traits, intelligence...or do they? why do we assume glasses make us look smart? or asians have the answer in math class? or white men are inherently better leaders then...well, anyone? those are stereotypes at their finest. when we apply those stereotypes to individuals, we are making a judgment about them before knowing them. when stereotypes are applied to systems, like laws for example, that is systemic stereotyping. if this stereotyping grants an unearned benefit or opportunity to a group of people, that's privilege. if this stereotyping limits access to opportunities, that's discrimination.
stereotypes are but a mere beginning to systemic privilege and systemic discrimination. such systems are powerful because they are pervasive, cyclical, and commonly viewed as what is right. i don't believe there is anything right with saying one person should be treated better than another. that one person (or a whole darn group of people), based on their social group identity, should be given rights that are beyond the rights of others. i believe these systems and these beliefs are what create gaps--divides that stamp a label of have or have-not.
there are many such divides in america (historically and presently) that manipulate a child's ability to "be what they want to be"--less than equal pay for equal work, digital divide, glass ceiling, school segregation, white flight, racial profiling, redlining, capitalism, slavery, what i will call less-than-human laws, and even (dare i say it) democratic voting.
when the obstacles set out for a child to overcome are laden in the same system that promotes hard work to achieve, there is a problem. there is a problem in this country when we say "go, achieve. be what you want to be" with an asterisk (*) attached.
*if you are poor, a racial minority, in the lgbtq community, not christian, a woman, or are a person with a disability, then try hard, but you are not meant to achieve in this country. we didn't actually mean you.
should children really have to carry with them this asterisked american dream?
of course i want kids to believe they can be anything. this unwavering belief is one of many benefits, i am sure. there should be more done for this belief to become a reality. i want to focus on that aspect--reality.
i know that not all kids will grow up to become what they want; some kids might fail, but not due necessarily to a lack of hard work. some might fail simply because of the systems in which they are living. it's incredibly disheartening that reality is the harmful part of the message.
let me be specific about what i am really writing about; not a song necessarily, but the false belief in how to achieve the american dream. the belief that a person can be successful and achieve the american dream through hard work alone. that there is nothing that prevents some from achieving and advances others into achievement. this is the PLE (perfectly logical explanation) we tell ourselves (as a country) that some people just don't try hard enough. that some people didn't work hard enough to be successful.
stereotypes of who is (or should be) smart, aggressive, obnoxious, boisterous, disruptive, and a leader begins to separate our culture into the haves and have-nots. the haves truly have it all--looks, race, religion, leadership traits, intelligence...or do they? why do we assume glasses make us look smart? or asians have the answer in math class? or white men are inherently better leaders then...well, anyone? those are stereotypes at their finest. when we apply those stereotypes to individuals, we are making a judgment about them before knowing them. when stereotypes are applied to systems, like laws for example, that is systemic stereotyping. if this stereotyping grants an unearned benefit or opportunity to a group of people, that's privilege. if this stereotyping limits access to opportunities, that's discrimination.
stereotypes are but a mere beginning to systemic privilege and systemic discrimination. such systems are powerful because they are pervasive, cyclical, and commonly viewed as what is right. i don't believe there is anything right with saying one person should be treated better than another. that one person (or a whole darn group of people), based on their social group identity, should be given rights that are beyond the rights of others. i believe these systems and these beliefs are what create gaps--divides that stamp a label of have or have-not.
there are many such divides in america (historically and presently) that manipulate a child's ability to "be what they want to be"--less than equal pay for equal work, digital divide, glass ceiling, school segregation, white flight, racial profiling, redlining, capitalism, slavery, what i will call less-than-human laws, and even (dare i say it) democratic voting.
when the obstacles set out for a child to overcome are laden in the same system that promotes hard work to achieve, there is a problem. there is a problem in this country when we say "go, achieve. be what you want to be" with an asterisk (*) attached.
*if you are poor, a racial minority, in the lgbtq community, not christian, a woman, or are a person with a disability, then try hard, but you are not meant to achieve in this country. we didn't actually mean you.
should children really have to carry with them this asterisked american dream?
Saturday, September 20, 2008
hey, it's just a joke.
i recently attended a training for my job as a property manager. the training was three days long for an online based management program i use. the training was held at an apartment complex that houses low income senior citizens. the trainer was kind of a strange fella. he kept making jokes that i felt were somewhat strange for someone who worked in property management and who was hired as a trainer.
during the second day, things got entirely out of control. as we were sitting during the break, a group of residents who lived at the complex walked through open room where the training was being held. the residents were speaking in loud voices, unaware of our training, and also speaking in korean, their native tongues. the property manager of the building asked the residents, politely, to please step out because we were in the middle of a training. they happily obliged. however, the trainer, found the need to make a snide remark. he said that the manager should have spoken to them in their native tongue, moo goo gai pan and kung pao chicken. i looked at him with shock and disgust. to justify his remark, he used a perfectly logical explanation (PLE). he said that he was an equal opportunity picker, he says that kind of stuff about everyone, so it is perfectly alright to make the remark that he did. i wanted to scream. i gave him one of the dirtiest looks ever and tried to make him feel terrible for his remark with my dirty looks. after a few moments, he came up to me and apologized for if he said anything that offended me. i did not accept his apology, because i felt his PLE was a cop out for someone, who says they are not racist, to justify their racist remarks.
so many times i have had to sit back and listen to people make stereotypical, snide, rude, racist remarks about other ethnicities, in supposedly good fun. and i feel like the person who is offended is often made to feel bad if the person making the remark apologizes for what they say. an apology doesn't make it right. understanding that such a comment is wrong, in bad taste, and terribly offensive to all kinds of people. and no one should have to stand for that.
the training continued for the rest of the time. i refused to awkwardly laugh at the trainer's jokes during awkward moments. i think that something small like that can make a difference. i don't know if it will make a difference to the trainer, if he will be conscious of what he says. but maybe, it will make him think twice before he says something like that to someone else.
i won't let that PLE stand anymore. because it isn't right and it should not be used as a justification anymore. we'll see how that works out.
during the second day, things got entirely out of control. as we were sitting during the break, a group of residents who lived at the complex walked through open room where the training was being held. the residents were speaking in loud voices, unaware of our training, and also speaking in korean, their native tongues. the property manager of the building asked the residents, politely, to please step out because we were in the middle of a training. they happily obliged. however, the trainer, found the need to make a snide remark. he said that the manager should have spoken to them in their native tongue, moo goo gai pan and kung pao chicken. i looked at him with shock and disgust. to justify his remark, he used a perfectly logical explanation (PLE). he said that he was an equal opportunity picker, he says that kind of stuff about everyone, so it is perfectly alright to make the remark that he did. i wanted to scream. i gave him one of the dirtiest looks ever and tried to make him feel terrible for his remark with my dirty looks. after a few moments, he came up to me and apologized for if he said anything that offended me. i did not accept his apology, because i felt his PLE was a cop out for someone, who says they are not racist, to justify their racist remarks.
so many times i have had to sit back and listen to people make stereotypical, snide, rude, racist remarks about other ethnicities, in supposedly good fun. and i feel like the person who is offended is often made to feel bad if the person making the remark apologizes for what they say. an apology doesn't make it right. understanding that such a comment is wrong, in bad taste, and terribly offensive to all kinds of people. and no one should have to stand for that.
the training continued for the rest of the time. i refused to awkwardly laugh at the trainer's jokes during awkward moments. i think that something small like that can make a difference. i don't know if it will make a difference to the trainer, if he will be conscious of what he says. but maybe, it will make him think twice before he says something like that to someone else.
i won't let that PLE stand anymore. because it isn't right and it should not be used as a justification anymore. we'll see how that works out.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
religious privilege
i often do diversity trainings and use social justice as the foundation of my trainings. a few weeks ago, i led a training on religious privilege. it was only an hour long session; aimed at getting people to talk about how religious privilege affects and impacts all our lives.
the group was certainly slow to talk with one another and i attempted to roll at their pace. talking about religion over lunch is, afterall, a little unusual and potentially scary. i gave that to them. so i am nearing the 45 minute mark--we still needed to verbalize concrete examples of religious privilege. i pulled out my old stand-by, the academic year vacation schedule. christmas break and easter break, now of course, politically corrected to be winter and spring break respectively. from no where i expected came an absurd PLE! our vacation schedule is based on the farming season. that's why we have winter break. logical, perfectly. accurate, debatable.
first, i was blown out of the water and stumped with this response. it made me a little disappointed; disappointed for a few reasons actually. i was disappointed in myself because i wasn't prepared for this answer. i was disappointed in the answer itself because it blocked that person and the rest of the group from having a dialogue about religious privilege. and, i was disappointed because at the end when i asked the group for something new they took from the session, the first few answers were that our vacation breaks were based on the farming season.
why is it that what people who came took away something that wasn't even about the topic? this PLE totally took center stage to the potential learning and exploring that could have happened.
i do want to say that yes, we still farm in this country. however, we are an industrialized, technology-driven country and society. we have been for a long time. if our vacations were in fact determined from farming, why isn't farming a greater part of our current culture? i still believe that religion is the greater determinant of why we center our annual vacation breaks around december 25 and easter sunday.
when i was younger, the holidays i celebrated were not given as school holidays. that continues to be the case even now with the changed language of what our vacations are called. i always had christmas and easter off, including the week around each of those holidays. in order to take the two holidays celebrated in my non-christian religion, my mom had to lie. taking holidays that were not christian, and therefore not already blocked out in the academic year, was unacceptable. how is it that to practice religion in a country that grants freedom of religion is unacceptable? all i knew as a kid was that my holiday, my religion was not valid enough for the school system. being "sick" was valid, even without a cough, headache, illness, or symptoms of illness. so, on holidays--just two days in the whole year, i was called in sick. yet, no one had to be sick to get christmas off.
that PLE just took away my experience...i think that's why it took me by such surprise.
the group was certainly slow to talk with one another and i attempted to roll at their pace. talking about religion over lunch is, afterall, a little unusual and potentially scary. i gave that to them. so i am nearing the 45 minute mark--we still needed to verbalize concrete examples of religious privilege. i pulled out my old stand-by, the academic year vacation schedule. christmas break and easter break, now of course, politically corrected to be winter and spring break respectively. from no where i expected came an absurd PLE! our vacation schedule is based on the farming season. that's why we have winter break. logical, perfectly. accurate, debatable.
first, i was blown out of the water and stumped with this response. it made me a little disappointed; disappointed for a few reasons actually. i was disappointed in myself because i wasn't prepared for this answer. i was disappointed in the answer itself because it blocked that person and the rest of the group from having a dialogue about religious privilege. and, i was disappointed because at the end when i asked the group for something new they took from the session, the first few answers were that our vacation breaks were based on the farming season.
why is it that what people who came took away something that wasn't even about the topic? this PLE totally took center stage to the potential learning and exploring that could have happened.
i do want to say that yes, we still farm in this country. however, we are an industrialized, technology-driven country and society. we have been for a long time. if our vacations were in fact determined from farming, why isn't farming a greater part of our current culture? i still believe that religion is the greater determinant of why we center our annual vacation breaks around december 25 and easter sunday.
when i was younger, the holidays i celebrated were not given as school holidays. that continues to be the case even now with the changed language of what our vacations are called. i always had christmas and easter off, including the week around each of those holidays. in order to take the two holidays celebrated in my non-christian religion, my mom had to lie. taking holidays that were not christian, and therefore not already blocked out in the academic year, was unacceptable. how is it that to practice religion in a country that grants freedom of religion is unacceptable? all i knew as a kid was that my holiday, my religion was not valid enough for the school system. being "sick" was valid, even without a cough, headache, illness, or symptoms of illness. so, on holidays--just two days in the whole year, i was called in sick. yet, no one had to be sick to get christmas off.
that PLE just took away my experience...i think that's why it took me by such surprise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)