blame

can blame be a form of a perfectly logical explanation?
socially, we, this current generation of which i am a part, have been brought up to put ourselves first. to believe we are special, unique, and different from other people. that we should stand out and be rewarded for merely being ourselves. for meeting expectations. with exterior messages that affirm all of this--including school curricula and this new social norm of giving certificates/medals/memorabilia to everyone despite one's abilities or talents, we believe and expect to be treated as the special people we are.
i hear a lot --a precise number is completely beyond me-- of people within my generation who put blame onto the outer world about what they (we) are and are not able to do. for instance, "i didn't pass the test because the professor isn't a good teacher." or, a blame that centers on the greatness of oneself--"i didn't learn anything new because i already knew everything that was being taught." i find myself lost in these statements. i don't know what to say or how to have conversations. i am astounded that people, college students specifically, actually believe these things. also, i am astounded that these explanations have been considered acceptable.
i do wonder though...when this blame is present is it a ple? or is placing blame on people/sources other than our selves an expectation of this (my) generation? is it an outcome of the environment and culture in which we have been brought up? funny, the last two questions sound like blame! i do, however, mean it in all seriousness. in my mind, externalizing blame is the most primary ple because it can be seen as perfectly logical that something/someone outside of myself is responsible for what happens to me. meaning, my life is not my life. what happens to me is not of my own making or contributions. then, i think about a contrasting perspective--blaming the victim for their being a victim, and for the crime for which they are a victim. this is where some of my struggle comes with the use of blame and ples.
the concept of generational cultural norms and expectations is another situation in which i struggle to decipher concepts of blame and providing (perfectly logical) explanations for injustice. is using blame as a strategy just a tool in our tool belts? yep. sad, but most likely true. there are many outside sources to blame too. we, each and every one of us is important, which means that attention should be paid to us. individual attention should be paid to us, and when it's not, that simply indicates an error in the system. a system in which we are not responsible.
in california proposition 8 passed, which gave voters the right to block gay marriages from being recognized in the state. what i hear from people (specifically in my generation) who voted no is blame of communities who did not turn out to vote. blame for the advertising tactics of the voting yes camp. no critical dialogue about their own in/action around educating and promoting the no on prop 8 vote. no responsibility for not working hard enough. just a "it's not my fault" response and attitude.
what i saw was not very much work at all. there seemed to me to be gaps between what people said they stood for, the actions they took, and the outcome altogether. there was another gap still--between all of those things and the responsibility for the injustice. is blame here deserved, or is it just being used as a shield to block our sense of self-importance and self-esteem?
what do other, older, generations expect from us? how can we have responses that connect outside of our own experiences when we don't know how to do that and when it's never been a cultural value/ideal? my initial question remains...can blame be yet another ple, or in the case of generations, does its use have a deeper (or just plain different) root?

judgement and action

forgive me for judging...
i am starting to think that a ple for people whose awareness about social justice issues is high centers around action. or lack of action to be precise. for a socially-aware person, the perfectly logical explanation for inaction is the simple fact that they are aware. somehow having heightened awareness and knowledge of information about the world is enough.
if ignorance is not an excuse, then when you do know (when awareness/knowledge is present), inaction is not an excuse either.
try telling a police officer after being pulled over: "i didn't know that was a law." that is not a valid excuse for breaking the law. furthermore, when you do know the law and are pulled over for breaking it, whose responsibility is that?
knowledge alone does not solve problems. in the case of being pulled over, knowledge that the law exists does not mean you follow the law. with social justice, knowing the "laws," or statistics, experiences, cycles of oppression does not mean that you are affecting social justice change.

yesterday i had started this same blog but it came out much more angry than now. and, in a very me fashion, riddled with pointed questions that i would never actually ask someone. just think and occasionally write.
i do think, however, it is important to share a little of where i was at yesterday when i sat down to type my thoughts...
please practice what you preach.
help me understand the gaping hole between what you say and what you do.
why is it that you say you understand about sweatshops, but make no effort to not buy their clothes? what is the knowledge worth then? show me. show the clothing manufacturers. show the workers behind the clothes. show your values. show how knowledge affects your choices. make new choices.
you want to know what you can do?!? use your knowledge! think critically AND act critically. have your actions connect directly to your thoughts. my gosh. is it really that difficult to figure out what to do?


help me understand how you can expect respect, but have no idea how to demonstrate it? how can you expect something you don't really understand yourself? the congruence of expectation and demonstration should be apparent. i can show you respect when you can also show it.


how can you say you want an advanced version of a training when you can't say one thing you gained from it in the first place? i have to say, as a trainer, this is frustrating. what it sounds like you are saying was those few hours you and i both spent were pointless. what value was your time if you did not gain something? then, you have the gall to request a more advanced training on the same topic? why would i waste my time on developing, planning, and implementing it when there is a possibility you will disregard it as well?

don't tell me something is broken when you have the knowledge and tools to fix it. freaking fix it yourself, then tell me you fixed it.

tolerance

tolerance is not the same as acceptance. acceptance of a person inclusive of their identity takes an act of intent, of will, of understanding. tolerance means a person is someone to put up with.
like a rude customer, for instance. i could tolerate a rude customer because perhaps they will only be there a short while, or i know we need their business. i tolerate the rude behavior they demonstrate, but i do not want more of it, i don't seek to have it, and i don't want it to be in my life--i could live without the rude behavior and the rude customer.
to accept a person means that i have put effort into them in some way. i can see that we are intertwined. my life is affected by that person and i am, in fact, the person i am because--in part, of them. i intentionally might seek this person out. seek out their opinion, their experience. their presence is valuable to my life. i accept who they are and what they believe because i can see that these aspects of them make life richer, deeper, and more full.
acceptance does not have parameters. there are not borders and restrictions to acceptance. there is no asterisk. no fine print. acceptance just is. tolerance just is, except...

muslim world

the other day i heard a news anchor say that president obama is "extending a hand to the muslim world..."
i just want to inform the news anchor, the president, and the rest of the country who doesn't know already---muslims live in this country. they live all over the world. there is not really a muslim world. muslims, like all people, live in this world. i know i am picky about semantics, but come on.
what does this statement mean then? what does it imply?
to me, it implies that muslims are not here. they are there. they meaning, muslims are not among us. they are not the normal, not really a true part of this country. there meaning muslims are in other countries; countries that we can choose to have a relationship with or choose otherwise.
it seems like people from the u.s. fear muslims. for example, there was an uproar and media frenzy when there was false information circulating about the president being muslim. it was an accusation. it was reason not to vote for him. it was controversial. all out of fear, and quite possibly hatred.
fear that muslims are out to destroy the country. fear that muslims are terrorists. the fear and assumption that muslims cannot (and should not) lead this country. fear around the potential of a muslim leading the country. fear that allah is something/someone different than god. might i suggest, fear of upsetting the status quo.
it's not wrong to be muslim. it's not a crime. muslims as a whole are not terrorists. muslims as a whole are not fanatics. islam is not a religion based on hate, or war, or revenge.
these fears and assumptions have stacked one on the other, making it impossible for muslims to be seen as people in this country. muslims are stuck under the thickness and weight of such fears. instead of being of a peaceful religion, muslims are described as being in their own world. that's a ple i would like to change as i am an american muslim woman and i live right here.

words with meaning

i am amazed by the numerous meanings and contexts of words. with intention or not, words and phrases can be taken as harmful, oppressive, and bias.
like today...i said that i was the master quilter. not really harmful in and of itself. however, i was talking about leading a group of people who would quilt under my direction. calling myself the "master" quilter was reminiscent of times of slavery with masters and their slave workers. wow. that's not what i meant at all, but it is a meaning that could definitely be understood in that moment. and i have to own that.
now that someone else pointed it out, i feel a bit sheepish. that, however, i can live with. in the future (which starts right this second), i will need to be more aware of that term as well as to other relational/hierarchical terms that i may use in harmful manners. slavery is not okay in my book, and it is important to me that my language is consistent with my beliefs. this is my overarching reason for seeking to use inclusive language. it is important to me for my beliefs and actions to align and demonstrate consistency.

we all mess up. we all need to be okay with messing up and being messy in general. social justice is a tough thing to work on/toward. it is messy and that is a fact. every day is a journey. i need to remember that as much as the next person...especially when i am feeling a bit sheepish.

what is privilege?

simply put, privilege is when one person/group has unfair advantage due to opportunities available only to that person/group. people can have privilege because of laws that are passed (or still on the books), bias presented in news stories, hiring practices, personal cultural capital, and countless other ways. power is having (either personally or through group affiliation) privilege through ideological control, control of resources in society, ability to determine "normal," "real," and "correct," and the imposition of culture onto other groups. typically, when we have power and/or privilege, we are blind to it.
it is easy to see what we don't have and quite difficult to see what we do and how we got it. we have to re-train our brains, our biology and psychology to acknowledge our privilege, as well as the effects of our privilege. from a young age, we are taught to ignore differences and believe in equality. with such teachings, we successfully ignore advantage because we have been told too often it does not exist. we only notice this advantage when we do not have it or when we use it to taunt others.
i am reminded of the "survival of the fittest" theory...biologically, any advantage we have as humans will help us survive. that is biologically though, not socially. advantage given to us socially does not mean we are biologically fittest. social advantage is based on choice and hierarchy. the choice to exault one group over another. the choice to advantage some and simultaneously disadvantage others. biologically, we have all survived. socially, we have not accepted this survival as the biological sign that we all should be here--equally.

i am tired of hearing privilege is having a job or that a person should feel privileged to have a job. unless the job was given based on unfair hiring practices...for instance, if a job was never posted and the owner of the company is having dinner with friends, the friends mention their child doesn't have a job, and the owner agrees to hire this person because their families have been friends so long. something like that is privilege. where people who were qualified for the job didn't even get the opportunity to apply for such a position. instead, a person's social capital granted them this job unfairly. in this case, having this job is an example of privilege. not a privilege as in it's an honor.
i am tired of hearing examples like this because the fundamental definition is different. when you use an example under a different definition yet apply it to the original situation, you are just creating chaos. in the messiness of such chaos, it is easy to dismiss having privilege.
changing the definition of privilege to avoid acknowledging you have it is just a perfectly logical explanation (ple) and more specifically, an excuse. this ple is like an ostrich who just sticks its head in the sand--it doesn't work and it doesn't take away reality. end of story.

our identity

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).