Public displays of religiosity still make me thoroughly uncomfortable and unnerved.

Just because I'm American, don't assume I'm Christian.

Just because you worship a particular deity, don't assume that I do too.

And, if your organization's purpose is not for the proselytizing of a particular faith, do not waste my interest and insult my identity by implicitely, or explicitely, telling me I should follow your faith or assuming that I have religious belief (and that belief is yours).

I was going to say I've said before I really like discussions, about just anything, but I actually can't remember if I've really mentioned that here. I suppose it means little to say those statements considering there's probably only one person reading this thing still that's read it since even just high school (or knows me well enough to recognize the trait in me regardless of whether they've read it on here or not).

Anyway, point is that I enjoy discussions. I like ideas and I like wrestling with concepts. Besides, as I know I've harped on over and over again before, I love personalities and any discussion is bound to tell you something about a person, let alone the argument the individual decides to take. Unfortunately, though, most people won't take you up on discussing a topic. Well, except maybe Connor, I'm finding more and more each time I talk to him.

My brother, however, has the same kind of thirst for mental engagement that I do. The only real problem with this is that we tend to agree on most things, more often than not. So, often enough, our "conversations" turn into agreeing with how much we agree on a particular topic - or ranting, considering how much the topic infuriates us.

The one thing we have continued to not agree on, however, is morality. I'm a moral absolutist, while he takes the route of moral relativism. I should, at this point, make clear that when I saw moral relativism, I do not mean of the kind that says, "In certain situations, certain moral concepts apply differently." For example, if you have the moral requirement You Shall Not Kill, that holds true if you just feel like killing someone but you would not be held guilty if you killed someone during the act of self-defense. Regardless the fact that any morality that's that rigid is idiotic (a debate we can pursue at a later time), that's not my brother's philosophy (or, at least, it might be but that would only be coincidental here). Rather, he believes that there is no real morality, only what people have decided as morality; in other words, what makes something particularly evil or good other than what people have said is good or evil? There's just things which are helpful to people or hurt people, not really morality.

You might ask how we've come to such a concept (since it isn't, to my knowledge, the way most people think about morality). Basically, both my brother and I are secularists. So, if there is, indeed, a god, then ze dictates what is right or wrong. There, done. Morality in a nutshell. Of course, what if there isn't a god? Does morality go to shit? Can I go and steal anything I want? Can I commit adultery? Will the world IMPLODE?!

Scary thoughts.

As I said above, I would answer, "No." Morality is independent of god, I would argue. Being the religious one of the two of us, I'd in fact say that morality is dictated by god; the entire purpose of a god/gods dictating morality is because ze/they are supposed to watching over us. Of course, that in itself could lead on to many other fascinating discussions and then even more when you consider the concept of a god/gods not dictating a proper morality. However, I'll try not to splinter like I usually do.

My brother, on the other hand, would respond that there, indeed, is no morality. I'd say I'm guessing at this point, but I imagine he would say that people would likely come together, realizing they dislike being hurt/whatever and then construct a society that matches this. And, what do you know, isn't that kinda what our society is like? I think he'd argue that the fact that there is no morality is not an invitation or argument for lawlessness but simply a statement of fact. How can something be good or evil unless something commands it to be so? I mean, what we fall back towards is having to define good and evil and then defining why particular actions are so, if they even are. Or maybe even more simply than that, why should we not kill someone? Why is it something we shouldn't do? What makes it, to counter my own argument, universally a thing we shouldn't do? After all, if such moors and concepts of good/evil change over time and from culture to culture, are they really as inherently bad as we see them now or are they only so terrible in our time, in our society?

It's a hard argument to counter, I'll most certainly give him that. One, in fact, that I wasn't sure I could counter half the times we debated the topic. Yet, he pushed me to parse it out, and I believe I've come to a conclusive counter argument to bring our debate to a close. So, dear brother, here is my answer - hopefully for good (both he and I have a taste for hyperbolic language and winding and long speech too, I admit...).

 

Let me start by saying that I think all human labels are social constructions. The world comes to us as is and then we make labels and containments for everything. However, that doesn't make everything any less real, right? This isn't a new concept and one we'd all readily recognize if we were to think of any time we've had a conversation with someone where we didn't define something the same way. "You define a hand as having five fingers? I simply call something a hand if it's able to hold something." Okay, the realism of my example is being stretched here. But it makes a very valid point. For humans, there physically is a thing, for most, which has five of what we call fingers and a very specific shape and make up. The particular specifics may vary (size, size of knuckle, etc.) but certainly something of a similar and universal makeup physically exists. As such, we've come up with a name for such an physical thing that, generally speaking, has five finds and is attached to what we call a wrist - a hand. The name may change, it may alter over time (due to evolution or otherwise), and it may have deformations, but it still is real, exists, and is actual.

So, our labels can be used to define a specific thing. They can become more specific (for example, including size to specify Jill's hand) or less specific (to define an appendage), but they talk about something which is concretely real. Of course, they can become abstract and, as such, more subjective (do we consider a paw to be a hand as well or, at least, similar to a hand) but that does not remove the actuality of either a paw or hand. The words "paw" and "hand" simply are our way of defining these actual things.

Of course, labels can sometimes be insufficient. When I say, "Race is a social construction," I guess I really don't mean that race doesn't exist. I simply think it's a poor thing to label. Yes, people have different skin colors. This is readily clear. But is it even useful to use such categorizations in this present day as "black" and "white" when so many are, for example, being multiracial? Or when we consider that just a century ago the Irish were considered to be "another race" before the concept of a monolithic "white race" was established? Or when some (I hate to point fingers, but here's looking at you Italians (or Greeks, really)) seem dark enough to be questionably "white"? Or perhaps we just have, for centuries of time, done a sloppy job of defining race, seeing as often things beyond just skin color are taken into consideration, such as nose size and shape or shape of jaw (yes, I'm going old-school racist here). Or how about the many ways ethnicity and race tend to be conflated (so that, for the longest time, I had no friggin' idea what either stupid thing was). Let's be honest - "race", whatever that ambiguous label is, is a poor means of measuring things.

But that does not remove the existence of those physical things such as skin color or nose shape.

Of course, these are all items we can literally grasp. What about abstract concepts? Do they function the same way? Well, is there an action that actually exists under the label of killing?

Yes. Yes there is.

So, here is my argument: perhaps morality is poorly defined. Perhaps the definition has changed from culture to culture. Perhaps the word didn't have any meaning to a particular culture but historians, recognizing certain trends in the culture that fit under their vague and general definition of morality, gave certains actions and customs this label in the history books.

My point is, let's abandon the labels for a second. A very difficult and confusing way to talk about things, yes, but bear with me. So morality is undefined. We know things like jelly are already defined. So we can probably agree (assuming you don't want to redefine things at the moment) that morality isn't going to define anything like that. Likewise, certain abstract concepts are defined (such as the act of killing or the concept of philosophy or logic). So, we know that morality has to be defined as something specific generally. And, I would argue, we would find that (to be general enough) morality is always defined as (or at least pertaining to) the ways we should or should not act towards people. Should we do this or do that? Given the need to define both good and evil to include this definition, I won't say what is good or evil. But what we should or shouldn't do.

Alright, workable definition. We're making progress.

The next question, of course, is how do we make a decision about what we should or shouldn't do? And here, of course, is where we enter into many different wonderful arguments. Should it concern what allows a society to survive the longest? Should it pertain to how the action makes a person feel? Why or why not for all of these?

And it is here that I will not provide some concrete example to guide us. After all, the question this argument is trying to settle is not "What should be the right morality?" but simply "Can there be a universal morality?". I will simply say that once a morality that guides what our actions should or should not be in daily life is chosen, we can move on.

Of course, this still allows for multiple moralities, yes? I define morality one way, they define it a different way. Same problem we had at the beginning of this discussion.

My argument is that such moralities would be first determined by the worthwhile-ness of their Whys. As I said above, "Should [morality] concern what allows a society to survive the longest? Should it pertain to how the action makes a person feel? Why or why not for all of these?" The Why. For example, you might argue that everyone's actions should focus around making you happy and only you, regardless of how it effects anyone else. However, you would probably have a difficult time justifying how that form of morality has any use for anyone else outside of you and how it makes any logical sense as pertanent to anyone else in terms of why they should or should not do certain actions.
(you could probably ask why use enters into this discussion, to which I would counter back that morality would then have no point whatsoever if not to rest upon its use to you. Basically, why you should or should not do something either has no use that's derived from it or benefit or result and then it's basically pointless, or there's a reason we should do it, whether that reason be personal benefit for every individual or to keep the planet from dying, etc. But, as you can see, there needs to be some use or reason for its existance. We then decide which reason is the best)

The Why decided, we must then commence with defining our basic actions (and then complex actions) around this particular focus of this morality. Of course, you could easily counter back that this isn't how morality generally works. Interesting concept. Does morality have to circle around a particular point? Or does it just have to instruct us on what to do and what not to do? Or, could that particular point simply be "God told us so"?

And it is here that I must appease to logic. If you choose not to use logic, sure, fine. That's your personal choice. And if you choose to engage in a morality that does not follow logic, that - again - is your personal choice. But if you choose to transgress outside of a morality that follows logic, those who follow this logical morality are in the right to prosecute you since their morality has a purpose which is of some use (see argument two paragraphs above for each morality following logic having a use). "Why is theirs superior?" you might ask. And I would allow you to argue your case but, alas, that requires logic. And, were you to concede this and enter into logic to make you argument, you would instantly defunct your morality given that it does not adhere to logic and therefore fails in logic.

So, working within the confines of logic, we can agree that something which follows logic must have a justification for why it works. Given that we defined morality as what we should or should not do, our morality should focus around some reason for our actions which justifies that basic tenant (what we should or should not do), likely found in the Why.

So, back to two paragraphs ago: we must then commence with defining our basic actions (and then complex actions) around this particular focus of this morality. And the final justification to clear out any conflicting points is that our morality must follow logic too. Therefore, having a commandment "You shall not kill" and yet also having a commandment to kill anyone born with only one leg just for the Hell of it would not make sense and, therefore, be defunct in a morality. Given that moralities should have a specific purpose, such illogical points should be striken. We might also argue, then, that there isn't a satisfiable reason as to kill people with only one leg. Perhaps it doesn't match the purpose of the morality (really, the purpose of all moralities, given that only one would be chosen after logically assessing all of the Whys for the various moralities).

If we do that, we must logically come to an all encompassing morality that reaches a point. Even if there are some things we decide people can individually decide whether to do or not to do, we are still agreeing that it isn't something that should be repremanded either way. Every action is chosen whether or not to be looked down on or not. By logical deduction, we can come up with a completely superior morality.

And this is what we mean by an absolute morality. It is a morality that makes complete sound sense logically and that answers the only question that morality can point to (of course, it doesn't matter if our word for morality changes for the question is still there and can be answered, as I explained at the beginning of this).

An absolute morality exists, Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.”
-Matthew 7:21

 

"Severely disturbed" is the only way I can respectfully put it.

So, the baptism was fantastic.

I ended up finding out right before rehersal as alter server that I had no time to set up later for work, so I had to run to the music building and set up the chairs and stands for Symphonic Winds practice tonight. However, I managed it in roughly 25 minutes and made it back.

The alter servers all got last minute preping in the back as we got ready to go out. We pulled out five of us for the occassion, all regulars (in terms of serving).

There was also three people getting their confirmation (including the one getting baptised). It was really just awesome. We were all kind of emotional the entire time.

However, pressed as I was (Sunday's always are my busiest days, sadly), I couldn't stay for the dinner and had to run off immediately afterwards.

Oh well. Back to some last minute homework, before turning in for the night.

I'm actually on top of my homework this weekend. I've had to keep my nose to the grindstone since Friday (thereby disallowing me to give anything else attention, for the most part), but I'm on a proper schedule. I don't think I've done that since the semester started.

The reason I've been so down and aloof this whole past month (sorry Xanga!) was because I was just bombing my classes and had no idea how to do better. And I'm someone who needs control (I'm pretty sure I've talked about that in some past entry). I need a plan, I need to know what's going on - things don't go well otherwise (such as borderline panic attacks during midterm week).

Aaaannnnnndddddd, to make things even better, one of the girls who joined Williams Catholic at the beginning of the year is getter baptized tomorrow. As I remember it (with my shaky memory), her parents aren't the most religious or fell out of the faith, so she's pretty much rediscovering it for herself and coming back by her choice.

Now, she's having her baptism, confirmation, and the eucharist all tomorrow and all of the alter servers are going to be there to help plan and facilitate it.

Also, in celebration for this, we had a party today at 10:30 (only break I've taken from my homework, so that was an added bonus).

It was fantastic to just hang out with Williams Catholic again. I've missed two Masses due to my stress and work and I had to miss serving for one of them (and alter serving is one of those things I absolutely love doing). They're a great group, and it was great to congratulate our new "convert" (as we've jokingly refered to her as).

So, all of this is just great. It's gonna be a good weekend (haven't had one of those in a while...).

Okay, I know I make the mistake often of assuming certain things are a given and common knowledge, but please bear with me because I honestly thought people knew this as a matter of course.

1. NEVER use two condoms at once. Friction, people. While condoms are quite impressive in some fashions (such as being able to stretch incredibly and not break), they are quite sensitive in others. Asher Roth - you will hate college quite soon at that rate.
2. Do not use oil lubricants. For the sake of keeping your genitals safe from disease and to avoid pregnancy, stick to water. When in doubt, two letters - KY.
3. Please don't put a condom in your wallet. PLEASE. Again, friction. Magazine images should not be casually showing condoms in a wallet (it pertained to the article, don't worry); that's misleading and someone someday will regret it. When in doubt about where to keep condoms, follow the chocolate bar routine (except for the fridge!).
4. If he says he's too big for them, they'll break - he's probably lying.
5. If you pinch the very center of the condom package and your fingers touch, find another condom.
6. Condoms have a roughly 99% chance of working. They are extremely effective, but they are not invincible. AND - that number is only if you put the condom on completely correctly, don't deteriate the rubber by friction or chemicals, etc.
7. Anyone, any age can buy condoms. Do not let anyone ever tell you you cannot have them - they will not be paying the doctor bill. Further, most health centers and similar non-profit organizations/institutions will give them out for free.

Really, it's bad when the virgin and Catholic is giving you condom advice. Sexual knowledge is your priority and duty - and, more than anything, it can never hurt and will always benefit you.

/Health class over

I guess I should have an actual entry by now? It's been a bit of a while. Then again, my xanga has been more just my thoughts than an actual journal of my days. On the other hand...I haven't really given you guys much of actual entries as of late (either that or I'm just exercising my excellent inability to estimate time). So, for those who actually read this still, if any, what I've been up to as of late:

 

It's currently Winter Study, which means three weeks of one class chosen before Winter Break. I decided to take Atheism in part out of interest and in part because I thought a decent amount of the Williams Secular Community would sign up as well. Well...not exactly. A Freshman who attended some meetings at the beginning of the year and someone who had been abroad the past semester, so - at first - I thought that I knew no one in the class.

It's interesting. The class is basically entirely discussion based. We do some assigned reading the night before and then discuss the points made in them, which often unravels into many other related topics.

As for class makeup, there's 8 atheists, a Christian who's in Williams Christian Fellowship, and myself (Roman Catholic, born and raised (the raised part is a joke)). Andy is, I think, Evangelical, but he's ever so slightly more liberal in his theology (believes in evolution without discrediting the notion of a relative creation story). It adds an interesting element to the discussions.

I haven't revealed my own religious convictions to the group yet but that's largely because I don't want to commit myself to anything when I'm wrestling and weighing different types of arguments as much as because I like to play with expectations and it's easier to play the Devil's advocate when your identity is ambiguous (and, I suppose, passing has just become second nature to me by now).

However, Andy (the Christian of the group) did happen to catch me outside of class when my crucifix was outside my shirt, so he was happy to find a fellow Christian in the class. In a situation that seemed so ironic it just has to be beautiful, it soon became clear that not all our same tenets aligned as I disagreed with him on what tends to be, regardless of sect, something most Christians believe in - whether belief in God is necessary for entry into Heaven. Neither of us left the conversation persuaded by the other, but I absolutely loved the conversation regardless.

It's an interesting class and I'm really enjoying it, though disliking the 10 page paper due at the end. Plus only 2 weeks left of Winter Study....

As most of my friends know by now, I sprained my wrist playing broomball with the Marching Band. We won the game (quite beautifully with 3 or 2 to 0), though. It seems to be on the mend, which shocks me because it's only been 48 hours and I've been expecting at least a week for recovery. This, of course, doesn't discourage my general motto towards my body that if I let it take care of itself, it'll mend any sort of pain, disease, or cut on its own without any assistance.

Speaking of which, staying over Chelsea's dorm for the night to watch Tinman (sci. fi. version of The Wizard of Oz (she knows me too well...). Apparently the same person's also made a sci. fi. version of Alice In Wonderland) while Chels was sick turned into me catching whatever she had. I woke up this morning with the worst throat ache I've ever had. Taking my temperature confirmed also that I had a slight fever. It being 7:48 in the morning, I didn't want to deal with it and went back to sleep. By 2 today, the throat pain was barely noticeable anymore and (I assume) my temperature has returned to normal.

 

The less pleasant portion of this story started at lunch (though flared up partially yesterday). I was just sitting there and, well, I just wanted to curl up right there. It's odd to explain. It's like you want to be alone yet hate it, wanting to do something but all that ends up being is just rocking back and forth. It often happens when I just leave the presence of other people. The thing is, you can't really tell when it's gonna come. I'm pretty sure it's a result of depression - I mean, what else am I going to blame random, out-of-the-blue, tormenting, unsettling feelings on? While I can generally expect a downer after having a great time, it also seems to go in cycles. Combined, this can throw off expectation. The other possibility is that I'm just losing control more as time goes on. The depression (as it goes untreated) could be getting worse. I have a distinct feeling I'm going to suffer a panic attack someday soon, which will be a clear sign things have gone very, very differently. Then again, I've been talking about me losing control on things I once had since Sophomore year of high school, so who knows. I have to admit, there'd be a bit of comedy (that I couldn't well enough just ignore) if I avoided suicide those many times just to lose control of myself by wearing out depression.

But now I'm just being a downer. They say that there's two parts to therapy - changing the way you think, see things, et cætera, and the chemicals. Well, I know my shit is chemically based by now. Again, such mood swings that are so disturbingly strong are not normal. It's the changing the way I think part that bothers me. For one, I'm pretty sure my thought process and certain ideas and opinions (in relation to depression) are formed by the mental disorder itself. If I can be happy, the depressing is generally miles from my brain (though that might be a polarized effect - when I'm happy, I'm just happy and I'm over the top with it, a result of the fact that when I'm neutral I'm slightly depressed and "tainted" and then everything else from there is just worse; but I may be generalizing so don't take this as necessarily fact).

However - as I've said many, many times - there's a great beauty to the sad, the depressing. I still stand by my belief that pain makes the most beautiful people. To me, we can be breathtaking in anguish. And we cannot forget the amazing delicacy and beauty in recovery. To be allowed past those walls others construct is humbling when we remember just what it means to be allowed to enter those places of another person.

In many other innumerable ways, I find the depressing to be intensely amazing. Sure, too much of such a thing hurts (I've gone over this perilous system a million times in the past, no need for repetition). So, I'll pass on the therapy. Just give me something to fix this imbalance. I suppose it's void, however, since I'm likely never to seek treatment. Once you get past that hump around Sophomore to Junior year (those with this know what I'm talking about), it's easy to deal with for the most part there on out.

 

Gah, I'd really like to be in bed now...it's 4:43. So, while I was running to grab food as quick as I could for dinner, I stopped by the grill for pizza (bad choice, but oh well). As I was sitting, eating, this guy (I think) was looking at me. I just remember I made eye contact, it seemed I might know him, so I nodded as acknowledgement just in case. He nodded back and said, "They're not that bad." He was regarding my Black Sabbath t-shirt. "I've been getting into them lately, listening off of YouTube, you know; they're pretty good. I like Paranoid, and Sabbath Bloody Sabbath." Admittedly, it sounded so damn weird the way he said it, like they were a new band or something. But perhaps I'm biased, since I happen to think that Black Sabbath happens to sound downright Godly.

Now, I'm absolutely awkward socially and this is the most apparent in people I don't know extremely well. So, I nod, say that's cool, keep nodding, not sure what else to say. He nods, then kinda turns away and waves his hand in a dismissive fashion while saying, "Yeah." It basically looked like he wasn't sure what to say as well and then decided that that's all he could say and was confirming that this was, indeed, a good moment to just stop talking. Totally fair enough.

Then, for a split second, I think, "Wait, was he trying to hit on me?" Now, such random questions tend to pop into my head regularly, largely because I question everything (regardless if it deserves such skepticism or not) anyway. I generally dismiss such thoughts, as I did. But then I saw the guy talking to another guy I recognized who I know is gay but not really involved in the gay/Trans community on campus and not really with much of a gay identity.

So...maybe I wasn't so off after all. Which then makes his shyness just plain cute (but I'm a romantic, so I find any sort of stuff such as this by anyone as cute). He should've just gone for it; you might get a no, but you never know unless you try (alright, I realize I'm a downright hypocrite for saying this, but I'm trying to do better).

I got up to leave shortly afterwards but then The River by Springsteen came on, and I just froze where I was. I have to wonder if it's just nostalgia that makes me so affected by his songs. I literally just stopped. Then again, I was also still tripping off of these odd depression emotions (and drinking soda, laced with sugar, probably helped nothing). In any case, I ended up staying until the song finished.

 

Now I sleep!

As the holidays approach, have passed, or are in the process of going this month, I just want to wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Ashura (or solemn mourning, depending on your sect), Happy Hanukkah, and a Happy New Year. You're fantastic people and I hope the holidays end up being the best for you.

Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation - An Intelligent Assessment of Controversy

 

 

This is NOT the past.

 

We, in America, do not teach about marginalized groups in an appropriate way.

The general conception is we've to treat everyone equally and fairly and everything is solved. Everyone gets along happily and everything is fixed.

As idealistic as this mindset is, it is not adequate to truly understand marginalization.

The first issue we run up against is the way that racism is thought of. I read once somewhere that a man visited high schools and found that black and white students consistently talked past each other on terms of race. The white students see racism as discriminatory actions towards others while the black students see racism often as institutional.

And there is our first problem. I'll give you a hint: it's not that the students see racism in different terms.

The man observing these students makes the claim that the black students see racism one way and the white students another. Ignoring that this binary excludes every other possible race, it makes the mistake of claiming that a certain way of thinking belongs to each race. Not only is this statement momentary and will likely change as time passes (not to mention it is a generalization), it doesn't get at why this is the current way these two races view racism.

Frantz Fanon put out the fantastic argument that systems create racism. Trying to fight racism as actions and opinions is futile because these opinions and views of people will continually be created by the systems in society. Destroy the systems, destroy racism. While I don't entirely agree with this paraphrased version of Fanon, it gets at a point. For example:

Some of the school systems in Chicago are based on (either) a tax system or where the student is living, with each place having a different level of taxes needing to be payed (I can't entirely remember). However, the other drawback is that the schools that receive students from low-tax areas are also poorer in quality. That means the ability to move up in society is greatly reduced. Combination of lower education and poverty (and all the frustration that goes with poverty)? Higher criminal rate and antisocial and -cultural habits within the people. And, as you might've guessed, the majority of people located in these areas are minorities.
This system creates people who act out a role which allows the solidification of racism.

And think about it - don't the stereotypes about blacks include poverty, living in a ghetto, being uneducated, and acting unruly? It's important to remember that this system originated in our nation's racist housing situation starting in the 50s (I won't take the time to explain that one here; I'll just take it on faith that your education in life has covered that part of history).

Of course, you could object - that's not a racist institution. It's discriminatory, sure, but along class lines, not race. It was started by racist intentions, sure - but it's motivated by a monetary situation now. Switch out the blacks for any other race or put a mix of races there and you get the same situation. And, for the most part, I would agree. I actually do take the mainstream opinion that race is based upon the actions people take and views people hold. Racist institutions and groups can be formed, but whether that depends upon the group trying to promote racist ends (KKK) or it only requires a system to be founded with originally racist intentions in mind (the previous Chicago example) is not an important debate.

Fine, don't fight it on arguments of racism. It's still a poor system that needs to be reformed. However, we must understand all of this I've just explained to understand why certain racial groups may argue about racism and the changes necessary to combat it in the way that they do.

Which brings us nicely to Affirmative Action. I right now admit I don't believe I know enough about AA to speak wholly intelligently on it. I already know there are different forms of Affirmative Action; and it doesn't work quite like it is generally portrayed in the mainstream (you're black? Get a full ride for college!). Actually, GodlessLiberal did a well done post on AA quite a while back (if you happen to meander over, check out how the guy's been doing; he's been fading in and out of Xanga for a bit now). To summarize, he argued that AA should be based upon class rather than race (again, I stress, I do not fully understand the ways AA works. I'm assuming that GodlessLiberal's descriptions of it are correct. His serves as a good example, regardless, because of the lesson in perspective learned from it). I agree with his argument. This makes sense. However, if AA is based on race in implementation, we have to see why.

Arguing against a staunch black AA defender that AA is an unfair system will not win the person over. As far as they're concerned, you're simply arguing for further suffering in a system that specifically picks out blacks economically. AA should reverse the inherent racism of the system that holds most blacks back. However, as we've already discussed (at least in this specific example of economic injustice situated in Chicago), the system is not racially motivated (though, even in millions of years, with no change to the system, it's unlikely any large amount of blacks will break from this system in a way that will reduce the number of blacks caught in the system. The most likely difference would be to add and trap other races in this system). The argument really should be that the system is abolished, thereby allowing equal economic opportunities, regardless of race.

All that I've just said? That's the amount of unsaid material that happens in our current discussions on race. Now, I'm not entirely sure what types of systems may exist out there for other marginalized groups and how they may work off the top of my head. Since discussions of race and racism are so large and plentiful in our country, however, it's the easiest example. But this is only one side of the coin (if you've made it this far, I'm impressed; we need more people like you who are willing to adapt their mindsets).

Two topics related to each other, this side of the coin is split in half. The first half is representation.

Often, marginal groups will bring up issues that the majority of the country rolls their eyes at and don't understand the fuss over it. The perspective of the marginal group is lacking. You cannot just apply a veil over everyone and expect to treat and see them all the same. As much as I'd like that (and I do agree with the mainstream again and believe that is the goal), reality keeps us from doing so.

The history of marginalized groups is important and must be taught - because it does inform the present. It explains why things are the way they are (think of the Chicago example above).

Last week, there was an article on the front page that questioned whether Miley's possible use of the word Gay as an insult is offensive or not. Hell, why is it even important? Same question we've heard many times before. And it's here that the picture above draws relevance as well: defamation, ignominy, contempt.

There's a reason why when an artform first created and performed by a marginalized group is taken in and performed by the mainstream and majority, some get angry. The artform was born out of struggle and persecution. Its history is often erased. The representation of your suffering is gone.

"That's so gay!"

Around the world, millions of 15-year-old boys and girls will be told they don't exist. And one of the few non-offensive words (faggot, lesbo, pederast, etc.) that they have to define themselves has been reduced to a mere petty insult. When you spend most of your life growing up being told that you're a fad or a phase and that you really can't be gay, this trivialization is more than just a changing of the meaning of a word and insulting to the very personage.

I AM A MAN; I exist: do not deny me.

The other half of this side of the coin is how we view marginal groups. I'll use myself as an example.

I was raised in the suburbs. As a result, most of my tastes, interests, and what I think was formed by what is generally mainstream society. I consider myself a goth, identifying with the sub-culture. I love rap, writing some of my own as well. Reasonable Doubt by Jay-Z is, to me, one of the best albums ever. I was pretty much raised on Bruce Springsteen. Around high school I discovered Black Sabbath - and fell in love. Most of Freshman to Junior year, actually was stuck somewhere between Atreyu, Slipknot, and Cradle of Filth.I consider myself a nerd, loving video games and the such. My ethnicity is German, Haitian, Spanish, Polish, French, English, Scottish, and American. I grew up eating almost always Haitian food. I was raised Catholic and still piously practice Catholicism.

I don't think I need to be the one to tell you that you could racialize pretty much every single one of those descriptions. But, in that context, some of them seem to contradict each other.

The mainstream (and when I say that this time, I mean the intelligent faction that doesn't make generalized statements about particular races (I'm sure you could think of plenty race jokes for examples)), for the most part, holds the view that race is not attached to culture. As just seen, I'm a decent example of the types of cultural influence that may affect a person.

I actually don't even have a racial identity. I don't see myself in terms of race. Sure, I'm aware that I'm a mixed child. I'm aware that most view me as "black" and that sometimes I'm confused for being mostly Hispanic (or other nationalities). But I don't see race in terms of culture. That makes no sense to me. I recognize my heritage (as listed above) and the cultures associated with each respective culture, and I identify as American and with the American culture. Again, I don't have a racial identity. I would actually argue that race is a socially constructed mechanism for labeling others.

Alright then, why the Black Panthers? Why Afro-centric movements? Why a Latino culture? I remember finding a personal opinion someone had put into Wikipedia under the Harlem Renaissance that both offended me and put the answer quite clearly. Towards the end of the entry on the Harlem Renaissance it's explaining the goals of the movement, particularly in terms of the New Negro and trying to create a unique black culture that would legitimize blacks on the same level as whites of that era. The person who wrote the entry finishes it off with, "But the positive implications of American nativity have never been fully appreciated by them. It seems too simple: the African-American's history and culture is American, more completely so than most other ethnic groups within the United States."

Because the positive implications of American nativity was blatantly clear (or not at all possibly offensive at the time) in contrast to slavery, Jim Crow South, and continual prejudice on many levels from other Americans.

Why might the writer of that quoted statement not understand a refusal of the mainstream culture by blacks?

I believe cultures evolve out of an isolation of specific people (whether voluntary or involuntary) and the creation of rituals, ideals, etc. out of that isolation. America has isolated blacks for years. That is why there is such a thing as a Black Culture.

For those who want that race-blind view, that is problematic. I remember my mother bringing home an Ebony magazine one time. I tried reading the first few pages and stopped. It was too weird. As I said before, I have no racial identity. Having something have meaning out of the concept of being a person of color, as a form of identity, is just weird to me. I wouldn't fit too well into all of current black culture.

But why do these cultures exist? Why might what is considered specific attributes to "blackness" be extolled?

In the case of our example of blacks in America, because of previous prejudice. There would be no Black Panthers if not for prejudice.

And (this is important to understand for those who honestly do believe in a color-blind view of humanity) we cannot simply expect blacks in America to join back into the mainstream culture. For one, they have probably been raised in a different culture most of their lives. Further, racism still exists in America (as we all well know) or, at least, institutions which continue the creation of racism do. These alternate cultures built along the lines of race came into existance due to something. Finally, harking back to the concept of representation - often the mainstream portrays blacks poorly on a consistent basis or doesn't portray them at all (and, yes, that is direly important).

Now, I'm of one of the mainstream opinions. I believe in treating people in a color blind fashion. I believe in associating the culture of a person not with what "race" they are but simply by which culture the person says they identify with (the notion of someone of Korean ethnicity partaking entirely in Irish culture isn't as impossible as some would have us believe, especially if the person was adopted by Irish parents when they were just a baby).

However - this is not realistic in terms of our world. Many people don't see themselves simply as people and identify heavily and strongly with concepts of "race" - for a multitude of reasons which we would do well to know. And while I would argue that the eventual goal is to see marginalized people as simply people rather than in terms of what caused them to marginalized (for example, think of how we see brunettes as people despite a characteristic which does set them apart from others), the history of the marginalized group and what it means is direly important in terms of giving the proper respect to a marginalized group - and understanding that group. In trying to view the world entirely as the same, it often erases the past of marginalized groups and that past does inform the future. A "insert group here"-blind viewing means that equal representation isn't necessary - and in this world, right now, that often means a mainstream dominated by the majority with mindsets thinking that is how the world is. And for many who probably aren't racist, sexist, sexualist, etc. they will still subconsciously think of their world in terms of the majority. I'll save you further examples; I'm sure you can think of others on your own.

I've said twice on here before that race relations in this country were heading toward a complete train crash. I take that back now. We are so talking past each other on issues of race that we couldn't possibly hit, even if we wanted to. Everyone has these different concepts of marginalized groups, for a variety of reasons, and they only understand their own beliefs. Only once we get on the same footing of understanding can we move forward (though quite difficultly) in addressing these issues.

 

 

***note: you'll notice that most of this addresses race (and only in terms of black and white) and touches on sexuality while biological sex (and any other groups) isn't addressed at all. The largest reason for the large focus on race is because of the great attention it has received in our country and, therefore, the familiarity of knowledge with it by most Americans.

This post also makes some pretty generalizing statements and those statements must be understood fluidly for marginalized groups to be fully understood (for nothing stays stagnate). For example, gays and women have less of any type of culture outside the mainstream because they have had less isolation from the majority than those of different races. Another example is that if the concept of looking at everyone as being equal and the same does eventually someday come to fruitation, these concepts will likely become obsolete or must be thought of differently. That day is far, far, far, far off - but we cannot allow our thinking and understanding of concepts to become mired.

Also, the title is an allusion to this Xanga post: http://www.mancouch.com/716194723/race-sex-sexual-orientation-and-abortion/