After our intriguing in-class discussion regarding the quote, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” I returned to my dorm in Tappan Hall and “discussed” the topic further with anyone who was willing to hear me rant about feminism, Gloria Steinem, and the often mutilated definition of love. I later found out that many of my friends thought that I was becoming overly passionate about certain ideas- which were nothing more to them than my philosophical, perhaps romantic reverie. As Professor Dunning said in class- it is simply “naïve” to believe in the ideal of “romantic love”… …of “soul-mates”…of “completion of self through another.” So I’ll admit it now. I am a romantic…and if romantics are naïve, then I accept that title as well. I am a naive romantic. And I am proud of that.
I believe that it is a fundamental human condition to “need” companionship in the form of romantic love- whether that is love between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. That type of companionship is based on “need”- and in fulfilling that need, one does not lose his/her self-respect or independence. Moreover, between two people in love, that basic need is mutual. Dr. Dunning asked me- the only male student in the class- the question: “Do you believe you ‘need’ a woman.” There was no hesitation in my reply.
In this “treatise” of my beliefs, let me begin by offering my definitions of certain key elements of the quote being discussed. The quote, which is often attributed to the American feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, can be interpreted as the feminist principle to scoff at the mere notion of a woman’s dependence on a man. Steinem, who was known to use the saying repeatedly, was allegorically articulating the absurdity of any scenario in which a woman needs a man. In fact, in the feminist context, the saying actually implies that in “needing” a man, a woman would lose her self-identity, her self-respect, and most importantly, her independence. Because the word, “need” is so fundamental to the meaning of the quote, it is important to offer its definition. Merriam Webster Online provides a succinct, but apt definition of “need”: a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism. The online dictionary further defines “necessity” as, “of an inevitable nature: inescapable b (1): logically unavoidable (2): that cannot be denied without contradiction.”
It is important to note that when the quote’s meaning was discussed in class, the discussion was problematized in two main ways: first, by taking into account the element of a woman’s sexual orientation (women may not necessarily seek a romantic relationship with a man) - and also debating the difference between “need” and “want” in regards to a romantic relationship. I truly believe that the central meaning of the quote doesn’t change even if one takes a woman’s sexual orientation into consideration. The meaning of the quote is rooted in very feminist ideas regarding loss of self, loss of independence, loss of identity through reliance on “men” OR through partaking in ANY romantic relationship based on “need.” In other words, if the word “man” was replaced by “lover,” I do not believe that the true meaning of the quote would be lost or altered.
And through this matter of “lovers”, we come to the issue of “need.” Why must “need” exist in any romantic relationship? More importantly, why do some (including myself) believe that everyone needs love- romantic love?
All you need is love?
Romance. Romantic love. Such love is different from the love one has for a parent (and love for any relative for that matter), for a pet (after all, even pets provide companionship), and even for a good friend. That much is obvious. Any well-read person also knows that love is one of the 5 basic needs described by the great psychologist, Abraham Maslow- proposed in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation. Part of that description of “love” is the “love of belonging”- felt through kinship. The other type of love is based on “sexual intimacy”- closest in meaning to the phrase that I have used- “romantic love.” Thus, being in love inherently implies “need”- but not necessarily a need for sex. Romantic love is so much more than just sex. The following passage was written by an online blogger:
A colleague who married at the relatively late age of 35 says that she's slowly realizing why marriage is such a good idea.
"It really is like having a 24-hour best friend," she says.
"Wake up together, go to work together, come home to someone to complain to, have hobbies together, go to sleep together. Ultimately, marriage is not about sex, financial security or even kids. It's about companionship and having a 24-hour friend who makes life easier most of the time."
I suppose you could argue that companionship and fulfillment needn't necessarily be from, and with, a man.
Surely what we all hunger for is just someone or something to love, and from which we get some feelings of love and appreciation back, and must this be in the form of only a husband [or a wife]? Can't it also be from a parent, sibling or child? From a pet, even, or an exciting career?
But, oh, who are we kidding? Let's be honest. Nothing beats the frisson of commanding the time and attention of someone…whom you fancy and who fancies you…
No amount of cake and coffee with your girlfriends (sorry, girls, but you do know what I mean), or a pet dog's unconditional love, can give a woman the same happiness as when she is in the company of [a lover] she adores and who loves her back.
Even Merriam Webster’s Online offers a poetic definition of love: “affection and tenderness felt by lovers.” Yet even this definition is more of a description than anything else. Love is above the realm of definition because it is, by its very nature, so all-encompassing that to define it would be impossible. AND EVEN SO- WE KNOW that love- specifically romantic love and companionship- is necessary for psychological and physiological well-being (Maslow). And it is this conception love that is at stake when feminists overuse the quote in question: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” A woman does need a man…or a lover…to fulfill her need for romantic love- that is a fact. Why then is this fact being denied? The answer is simple: because feminists are afraid to admit that they need anyone but themselves to “function” as independent beings in society. They are also afraid of men “hurting” them or taking advantage of them in a relationship. That is why feminists create distance between themselves and their lovers- by denying the very existence of “need-based” love.
Yet, feminists would never say that because they must drink water to survive they have lost their independence or their self-respect. Such a reliance on a commodity for survival is not shameful. Then why is the reliance on a lover (man or a woman)- who provides a basic need of romantic love and companionship- such a disgraceful idea?
What feminists also fail to realize- as is apparent through Steinem’s quote- is that MEN ADMIT THAT THEY NEED WOMEN- not for bearing children or doing domestic household tasks. MEN NEED WOMEN because their companionship and their LOVE is priceless! So, my answer to Professor Dunning’s question was quick and emphatic: “YES. I need a woman in my life.” Why must feminists demonize men who actually admit that there is a human condition that is based on mutual affection? Why must women deem men-who understand the definition of love- naïve romantics? Aren’t feminists being naïve when they deny the existence of a fundamental part of human nature?
The proof of working relationships based on romantic love is everywhere. Over Thanksgiving break, I discussed this topic with my parents. My mother and father had an arranged marriage in India and have never been the type of people to overtly express their love for one another. In essence, they do not go around the house blowing kisses at one another and mouthing “I love yous.” I am well aware that this condition does not manifest itself in the average home either. However, there has always been a real sense in my mind that they do indeed love each other very much. After all, they have been happily married for 20 years. So I asked them about it. Initially, the topic made for an awkward conversation…
Nonetheless, it is important to note that my parents barely knew each other before they were married. Thus, they did not marry for love. They married one another out of respect for their parents’ wishes. Therefore, when I asked them if they “needed” one another, I did not expect a romantic reply regarding love. However, they both answered in a similar fashion. They both said that they had come to love one another and they both required the company of the other because they felt like they could not “be whole” without the other. There was an intangible force (which they both described as “true love”) that kept them together for the past 20 years. When asked if their love had caused them to lose their self-sufficiency or independence, my parents replied by saying they both believed that they retained their independence as persons. They go about their own lives during the day- my father is an accountant and my mother is a teacher’s aide in a pre-school. However, neither of them would trade each other’s company in the evenings and on the weekends for anything. As my father said, they need that companionship to “function as normal human beings.”
In the end, perhaps feminists should take a leaf out of their heroine’s book. This is the very woman that spent a lifetime condemning marriage. She saw it as nothing more than a feudal property contract- something to be abolished, dismissed, and avoided at all costs. She even once said, “You became a semi-nonperson when you got married.” And still, in September of 2000, at the age of 66, Gloria Steinem got married to man named David Bale, a South African-born anti-apartheid activist who also happened to introduce the skateboard to England. So…even the staunch feminist found her need for romance and love too hard to resist.
Thus, feminists should change their saying to the title of this blog- A Woman Needs a “Lover” like a Fish Needs Its Fins.” It is the truth. It is a truth that even applies to all men- those men who are “naïve romantics” and even those men who are not. A famous Hindi film ends with the line, “Somewhere, someone is made for you.” Steinem found that man and my parents found each other…as billions others across the world have found their companions. Then why is this need for love so hard to swallow for some people?
As C.S. Lewis famously remarked: “Why love if losing hurts so much? The answer is simple.
We love to know that we are not alone.”
Monday, November 26, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
What Color is Jesus? ... By Kaitlin McCune
Some people may have never wondered this and some people may have been troubled by the question. James McBride shares in his essay, "What Color is Jesus?" and in his novel, "The Color of Water" about a time when his brother Richie was troubled by the fact that the books they used in Sunday school depicted Jesus as being white. He wondered why Jesus was not gray in the picture if He was not supposed to be white or black. There have been numerous guesses as to what Jesus actually looked like.
In 2002, Israeli and British anthropologists and computer programmers got together in order to construct an image of what they believed Jesus' phenotypic appearance would have looked like. Since there was little evidence about Jesus' appearance they based Him off of a typical man found during the time He would have lived in the Middle East. He is depicted as a smaller man, a little over 5 feet tall and weighing about 110 pounds, with a broad face, short curly hair, a bigger nose, and a dark olive skin tone (here's the link to see this depiction http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/). This portrayal is quite different than the popular Christian idea of what Jesus looks like. But is this scientifically produced phenotype the actual truth? Is it wrong for people to view Jesus differently?
One man by the name of David Learner shares how he has noticed that children of different races, if asked to draw Jesus, will draw Him like themselves. He found that this seems to be a natural response among children unless they have been taught differently. In my opinion, this makes a lot of sense. I believe that God has made everyone in His own image. I believe that he can be black or white or tan or olive because we are made in His likeness. But after reading James McBride's work I have become to think of Jesus in a somewhat different light.
When James asks his mother what color Jesus is, she tells Him that Jesus does not have a color because He is the color of water. Thinking about this makes my belief that Jesus can be like any of us even stronger. Obviously to Christians Jesus did have a phenotype since He was a person, but I personally prefer to think of Him in a more spiritual sense, rather than a physical sense since it is His spirit that connects me with Him. Being the color of water, or colorless, or clear actually, Jesus really can be any color He wants. In a way He's kind of like a chameleon I suppose, taking on the color of His surroundings. I think that if Jesus was clear and He stood in between a black person and myself, He would look black just like that person. Likewise if He were standing between me and a white person, He would look white, and I could go on to say the same for any race, or complexion. So I have come to the personal conclusion that Jesus does not have a color, yet He can be any color. I also find it amazing that there is an entire Book about God and Jesus, yet there is little evidence as to what He actually looked like. I believe that this is because appearances didn't matter to Him, and He made all of us as His children to look the way we are. He is the color of water, and for anyone who believes, He can be whatever color they choose to view Him as.
In 2002, Israeli and British anthropologists and computer programmers got together in order to construct an image of what they believed Jesus' phenotypic appearance would have looked like. Since there was little evidence about Jesus' appearance they based Him off of a typical man found during the time He would have lived in the Middle East. He is depicted as a smaller man, a little over 5 feet tall and weighing about 110 pounds, with a broad face, short curly hair, a bigger nose, and a dark olive skin tone (here's the link to see this depiction http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/). This portrayal is quite different than the popular Christian idea of what Jesus looks like. But is this scientifically produced phenotype the actual truth? Is it wrong for people to view Jesus differently?
One man by the name of David Learner shares how he has noticed that children of different races, if asked to draw Jesus, will draw Him like themselves. He found that this seems to be a natural response among children unless they have been taught differently. In my opinion, this makes a lot of sense. I believe that God has made everyone in His own image. I believe that he can be black or white or tan or olive because we are made in His likeness. But after reading James McBride's work I have become to think of Jesus in a somewhat different light.
When James asks his mother what color Jesus is, she tells Him that Jesus does not have a color because He is the color of water. Thinking about this makes my belief that Jesus can be like any of us even stronger. Obviously to Christians Jesus did have a phenotype since He was a person, but I personally prefer to think of Him in a more spiritual sense, rather than a physical sense since it is His spirit that connects me with Him. Being the color of water, or colorless, or clear actually, Jesus really can be any color He wants. In a way He's kind of like a chameleon I suppose, taking on the color of His surroundings. I think that if Jesus was clear and He stood in between a black person and myself, He would look black just like that person. Likewise if He were standing between me and a white person, He would look white, and I could go on to say the same for any race, or complexion. So I have come to the personal conclusion that Jesus does not have a color, yet He can be any color. I also find it amazing that there is an entire Book about God and Jesus, yet there is little evidence as to what He actually looked like. I believe that this is because appearances didn't matter to Him, and He made all of us as His children to look the way we are. He is the color of water, and for anyone who believes, He can be whatever color they choose to view Him as.
Appreciating the Best of Both Worlds by Deepika Chona
I enjoyed reading "The Double Helix" because I found it interesting that the author, Roxane Farmanfarmaian, was able to incorporate both the American and the Persian aspects of her identity into her lifestyle. Although she initially has misconceptions about each country and its culture, Farmanfarmaian is able to overcome the obstacles of her new surroundings and eventually accept and love the cultures for their special characteristics.
Prior to her arrival in the United States, Farmanfarmaian states that she considered herself American, only to find a stark difference between her perception of American and the true classification. After her first year in the United States, she notes that she has become more American than ever. This author experiences a similar culture shock when she visits Iran for the first time. While she always knew that she was an outsider in terms of being familiar with the country and its people, Farmanfarmaian still believed there was an innate connection that would allow her to recognize her fatherland. Although she felt estranged in Iran, this author gradually became so accustomed with everything about the place that even today she regrets not being able to return.
What struck me about this piece was the author's courage to overcome her differences and willingness to learn about the cultures that compose her identity. Characters in other novels we have read, such as Maibelle in Face, considered themselves outsiders even though they truly did belong to the society in which she lived, Farmanfarmaian never feels isolated from the people around her regardless of whether it is in Iran or the United States. I also found this story interesting because I can relate to the author in that I am also bicultural.
Although I have lived in the United States all my life, I still consider myself both American and Indian. Like the author was able to incorporate both cultures into her lifestyle, I have grown up learning all the Indian traditions in addition to those of the American culture. When asked which culture I like better, I always have trouble answering the question because I have come to love both equally, each for different reasons. For instance, while I eagerly await Christmas, when my family decorates the tree with all the ornaments collected over the years, I count down the days until Diwali, or the Festival of Lights, when we distribute sweets to friends and light candles all over the house in hopes of lighting the path for the Goddess Lakshmi to come bless us in the new year. Someday, I hope to go stay in India for a couple months, but until then, I'm glad I there are sufficient resources in the United States that enable me to maintain awareness of my Indian heritage. I have to say, as a biracial individual, I truly do get the best of both worlds!
Prior to her arrival in the United States, Farmanfarmaian states that she considered herself American, only to find a stark difference between her perception of American and the true classification. After her first year in the United States, she notes that she has become more American than ever. This author experiences a similar culture shock when she visits Iran for the first time. While she always knew that she was an outsider in terms of being familiar with the country and its people, Farmanfarmaian still believed there was an innate connection that would allow her to recognize her fatherland. Although she felt estranged in Iran, this author gradually became so accustomed with everything about the place that even today she regrets not being able to return.
What struck me about this piece was the author's courage to overcome her differences and willingness to learn about the cultures that compose her identity. Characters in other novels we have read, such as Maibelle in Face, considered themselves outsiders even though they truly did belong to the society in which she lived, Farmanfarmaian never feels isolated from the people around her regardless of whether it is in Iran or the United States. I also found this story interesting because I can relate to the author in that I am also bicultural.
Although I have lived in the United States all my life, I still consider myself both American and Indian. Like the author was able to incorporate both cultures into her lifestyle, I have grown up learning all the Indian traditions in addition to those of the American culture. When asked which culture I like better, I always have trouble answering the question because I have come to love both equally, each for different reasons. For instance, while I eagerly await Christmas, when my family decorates the tree with all the ornaments collected over the years, I count down the days until Diwali, or the Festival of Lights, when we distribute sweets to friends and light candles all over the house in hopes of lighting the path for the Goddess Lakshmi to come bless us in the new year. Someday, I hope to go stay in India for a couple months, but until then, I'm glad I there are sufficient resources in the United States that enable me to maintain awareness of my Indian heritage. I have to say, as a biracial individual, I truly do get the best of both worlds!
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Mixed Race Identity and Relativity - Michelle Filanovsky
Our discussions in class about how one's environment and the people someone surrounds themself with affect the way they identify themself has got me thinking about how this idea can be applied to many other aspects of our lives. For instance, someone may be considered rich in another country, but upon immigrating to the US, they may be considered to be poor. Even small things in our lives that we may not even realize are dictated by comparisons of ourselves to those who surround us. For example, I've heard some honors students here at Miami say how, at their high school, they were at or near the top of their class; but at Miami, especially in the honors program, these same people find themselves as being just average. Someone who is of average size when compared to their friends may define themself as being large compared to models. The examples of how we define ourselves based upon others are endless. All of this has made me realize how so many ways in which we categorize ourselves are all relative. We may be considered one thing in one place, but we may be something polar opposite in another.
As we have seen through our readings, race can be viewed in this same context. Depending on who they are surrounded with, mixed race individuals in the stories we have read find themselves forced to identify with different parts of their ethnicity. As Malcolm Gladwell wrote in his essay "Lost In The Middle," "I never feel my whiteness more that when I'm around West Indians, and never feel my West Indianness more that when I'm with whites" (p. 123). Malcolm Gladwell was able to identify himself with the opposite race as those surrounding him because those traits were what made him relatively different in that particular situation.
In the same essay, Malcolm Gladwell then goes on to say, "And when I'm by myself, I can't answer the question [of my ethnicity] at all, so I just push it out of my mind" (p. 123). In this quote, Gladwell suggests that he needs people to compare himself to in order to identify as one ethnicity or another. This quote got me thinking about whether or not we all need people to compare ourselves to in order to categorize ourselves (in all areas, including ethnicity), or if we are able to categorize ourselves without comparison. I have realized that although we may ultimately define ourselves without directly comparing ourselves to others, our initial ideas for characteristics of different "categories" we may place ourselves in come from the people that surround us and our culture as a whole. This is why many of the characters in the books we read often experience an identity crisis when they move to a new area -- they categorized themselves based on their surrounding in their previous home, and then move somewhere new where they are categorized completely differently through relativity.
But, simply because their differences are highlighted by people who are different from them, does this mean that the characters in the books we read maintain these different characteristics of theirs? In most cases, the answer has been no. A prime example is Birdie in Caucasia. When she attended a black school, Birdie tried to act, dress, and talk like the girls at her school; but, while she lived in a white community, Birdie acted, dressed, and talked like her white peers. While Birdie was more conscious and afraid of revealing her "other" ethnicity in both of the situations, she always assimilated to those around her, thus decreasing the relative difference between herself and those around her. Almost everyone has had this same experience of changing their outer persona in different sutuations. I myself have had many experiences like this growing up. As a young girl attending a Jewish elementary school, my family was not religious at all compared to my classmates' families. As a result, I made an effort to attend synogogue more often so I could be more religious, like my classmates. Even things which we may not consciously realize, such as following clothing trends, are attempts to assimilate to our friends, culture, and surroundings. All this need to assimilate comes from our natural need as humans to feel as though we are part of a "group" of some sort. And the easiest ticket into a group is to have something in common with them.
The way through by which we identify ourselves in all aspects, including ethnicity, is very complicated. There are many levels to our self-identification process, and often the way we present ourselves in a certain environment is polar opposite of how we present ourselves somewhere else. In the end, we often may have trouble deciphering our true self out of all the "masks" we have put on and assimilations we have made throughout our lifetimes.
As we have seen through our readings, race can be viewed in this same context. Depending on who they are surrounded with, mixed race individuals in the stories we have read find themselves forced to identify with different parts of their ethnicity. As Malcolm Gladwell wrote in his essay "Lost In The Middle," "I never feel my whiteness more that when I'm around West Indians, and never feel my West Indianness more that when I'm with whites" (p. 123). Malcolm Gladwell was able to identify himself with the opposite race as those surrounding him because those traits were what made him relatively different in that particular situation.
In the same essay, Malcolm Gladwell then goes on to say, "And when I'm by myself, I can't answer the question [of my ethnicity] at all, so I just push it out of my mind" (p. 123). In this quote, Gladwell suggests that he needs people to compare himself to in order to identify as one ethnicity or another. This quote got me thinking about whether or not we all need people to compare ourselves to in order to categorize ourselves (in all areas, including ethnicity), or if we are able to categorize ourselves without comparison. I have realized that although we may ultimately define ourselves without directly comparing ourselves to others, our initial ideas for characteristics of different "categories" we may place ourselves in come from the people that surround us and our culture as a whole. This is why many of the characters in the books we read often experience an identity crisis when they move to a new area -- they categorized themselves based on their surrounding in their previous home, and then move somewhere new where they are categorized completely differently through relativity.
But, simply because their differences are highlighted by people who are different from them, does this mean that the characters in the books we read maintain these different characteristics of theirs? In most cases, the answer has been no. A prime example is Birdie in Caucasia. When she attended a black school, Birdie tried to act, dress, and talk like the girls at her school; but, while she lived in a white community, Birdie acted, dressed, and talked like her white peers. While Birdie was more conscious and afraid of revealing her "other" ethnicity in both of the situations, she always assimilated to those around her, thus decreasing the relative difference between herself and those around her. Almost everyone has had this same experience of changing their outer persona in different sutuations. I myself have had many experiences like this growing up. As a young girl attending a Jewish elementary school, my family was not religious at all compared to my classmates' families. As a result, I made an effort to attend synogogue more often so I could be more religious, like my classmates. Even things which we may not consciously realize, such as following clothing trends, are attempts to assimilate to our friends, culture, and surroundings. All this need to assimilate comes from our natural need as humans to feel as though we are part of a "group" of some sort. And the easiest ticket into a group is to have something in common with them.
The way through by which we identify ourselves in all aspects, including ethnicity, is very complicated. There are many levels to our self-identification process, and often the way we present ourselves in a certain environment is polar opposite of how we present ourselves somewhere else. In the end, we often may have trouble deciphering our true self out of all the "masks" we have put on and assimilations we have made throughout our lifetimes.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Salad Bowl or Melting Pot?
The Black Community. The Asian Community. The Hispanic Community. The White Community? Why is it often so separate like that? Why can’t it just be the American Community or even just simply a Community? I realize this is not the case for everyone but in many ways I’m beginning to see why people have begun to say that America is more of a “salad bowl” rather than a “melting pot.” I never really noticed this when I was younger because I’ve always lived in a small town and had a fair amount of friends of different ethnicities and if someone there did only make friends with people of the same ethnicity as them (and they weren’t Caucasian), they probably wouldn’t have had too many friends. Since I’ve come to college, though, there are now many more people around me, including more people who are a different ethnicity than me. What I often see, though, is that people of similar ethnicities seem to gravitate towards one another. This is understandable, considering people typically prefer to have friends with something in common with them, but if people become almost exclusive to whom they are friends with, it almost cancels out what diversity there was in the first place (and Miami didn’t have much diversity to begin with…). This is not just a problem of Miami, however. I have heard that there are similar situations at other schools, such as OSU, and probably in many cities, too. This is even seen in some instances in the books we have read where people such as Birdie or Rayona aren’t accepted into certain groups (Birdie at the Nkruma school and Rayona in the Reservation’s youth group) simply based on skin color (a reflection of their slightly differed ethnicity). Apparently, this phenomenon even occurs within “ethnic groups” as well. I recently clicked on a friend’s event on Facebook when I was bored one day and was lead to Kappa Phi Lambda’s 4th Annual Asian Awareness Week (Kappa Phi Lambda is an primarily Asian sorority on many college campuses). On the itinerary for this event is a discussion on “Asian Segregation on Campus – Why do we do it?” questioning why “the Chinese kick it with the Chinese. The Koreans only stick to themselves. The international students don’t like to mingle.” Though I believe it is in many cases a good thing to maintain one’s cultural identity, I feel that in many ways this “salad bowl” trend (which, as I stated before, is only a generalization and NOT the case for everyone) actually inhibits cross-cultural understanding.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Nooses
Because of the art projects displayed on Patterson Avenue last week, Miami University has taken one step backward in its mission towards diversifying the campus. All of the talk and gossip about it has led me to question why the idea of race takes such an important place in our lives. Why is it that so many people took offense to the nooses hanging from our trees? I think the reason that Miami University has had problems and, obviously, is still having problems with race is because of our country. Because the country has historically had difficulty accepting and always struggled with race, kids still focus on it today.
To begin, Miami is not the only campus that has problems like this. It has happened at the University of Maryland when a noose was hung outside of a black studies building. It happened at Columbia University when a student hung a noose outside a black professor’s home.
I didn’t really understand why the hanging of the nooses was even a controversy in the first place. I knew that blacks had been hung in the past, but to me the image of the noose represented suicide, not racism. Others see the noose as a symbol of justice. The CNN special on nooses brought to life the feelings that an African American goes through seeing a noose. The interviewees voiced the remembrance of the past and their ancestors who had been hung in the cruelest way possible—by hanging and then burning the corpse. It brings fear that something like that could happen to them in the future.
I also learned that each state has a list of hate crime laws. They dictate against burning crosses in public or putting swastikas on public property. More surprising is that they do not include nooses. People are fighting that concept to this day.
What I think has taken over the country recently is the result of the media. Had the media not repeatedly talked about Jena Six, the country would never had been exposed to the idea that race was the reason for this conflict. It has put the idea in the public’s mind that not only is the conflict divided into two sides- a black and a white, a right and a wrong, but also that they must choose which side to support. It brings us backward in our mission towards diversifying.
Another thing that can help is education on topics like this one. I am taking a class on Cultural Diversity in addition to Everyday Hybridites. These classes are are focused on race. I can honestly say that these classes have helped me to be more aware and to understand the feelings that others go through.
What we need to do as a country is to stop listening to the media, or if you are to listen to it, make sure you have all the facts. Do not listen to just one side, or one biased side. If we get the chance, we need to share our knowledge with others without pushing our opinion on them. And listen to other opinions without letting them push their opinions on you.
To begin, Miami is not the only campus that has problems like this. It has happened at the University of Maryland when a noose was hung outside of a black studies building. It happened at Columbia University when a student hung a noose outside a black professor’s home.
I didn’t really understand why the hanging of the nooses was even a controversy in the first place. I knew that blacks had been hung in the past, but to me the image of the noose represented suicide, not racism. Others see the noose as a symbol of justice. The CNN special on nooses brought to life the feelings that an African American goes through seeing a noose. The interviewees voiced the remembrance of the past and their ancestors who had been hung in the cruelest way possible—by hanging and then burning the corpse. It brings fear that something like that could happen to them in the future.
I also learned that each state has a list of hate crime laws. They dictate against burning crosses in public or putting swastikas on public property. More surprising is that they do not include nooses. People are fighting that concept to this day.
What I think has taken over the country recently is the result of the media. Had the media not repeatedly talked about Jena Six, the country would never had been exposed to the idea that race was the reason for this conflict. It has put the idea in the public’s mind that not only is the conflict divided into two sides- a black and a white, a right and a wrong, but also that they must choose which side to support. It brings us backward in our mission towards diversifying.
Another thing that can help is education on topics like this one. I am taking a class on Cultural Diversity in addition to Everyday Hybridites. These classes are are focused on race. I can honestly say that these classes have helped me to be more aware and to understand the feelings that others go through.
What we need to do as a country is to stop listening to the media, or if you are to listen to it, make sure you have all the facts. Do not listen to just one side, or one biased side. If we get the chance, we need to share our knowledge with others without pushing our opinion on them. And listen to other opinions without letting them push their opinions on you.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Mixed Race Families in America by Deepika Chona
Reading various books that deal with families of mixed race got me thinking about the increasing prevalence of mixed race families in our society today. Whereas many children in the past were born to parents of the same racial ethnicity, today it is becoming more common to see children of mixed race. What effects could this new trend have in the future?
I believe that the percentages of mixed race vs. single ethnicity are going to flip so that the majority of families will be mixed rather than identify with one shared ethnicity. Unlike in the past, where certain traditions and rituals could be identified with specific races, there will probably be a greater blending of cultures. I can already see this happening in my extended family. My cousin, who is half American, half Indian, is engaged to an African American. Regardless of what religion or racial ethnicity my cousin's children choose to identify with, they will probably celebrate most of the holidays of their different backgrounds.
To me, this increasing mesh of cultures can prove beneficial to our society, because in America specifically, it would portray the true "melting pot" vision that people like to refer to this country as. Today, this classification is sometimes rejected and the "salad bowl" is embraced in an attempt to more accurately describe the concept that people may be open to new ideas and people but ultimately identify with their own kind.
I believe that the percentages of mixed race vs. single ethnicity are going to flip so that the majority of families will be mixed rather than identify with one shared ethnicity. Unlike in the past, where certain traditions and rituals could be identified with specific races, there will probably be a greater blending of cultures. I can already see this happening in my extended family. My cousin, who is half American, half Indian, is engaged to an African American. Regardless of what religion or racial ethnicity my cousin's children choose to identify with, they will probably celebrate most of the holidays of their different backgrounds.
To me, this increasing mesh of cultures can prove beneficial to our society, because in America specifically, it would portray the true "melting pot" vision that people like to refer to this country as. Today, this classification is sometimes rejected and the "salad bowl" is embraced in an attempt to more accurately describe the concept that people may be open to new ideas and people but ultimately identify with their own kind.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Parents by Jill Cook
Hey guys!
I’m going to talk about the fact the in almost all the books we’ve read the parents are so screwed up! I read the first few pages of “A Yellow Raft in Blue Water” and of course the mom is an alcoholic who randomly goes to the hospital and leaves her fifteen-year-old daughter to take care of her. She then threatens suicide to get back at her husband. Meanwhile the father hasn’t called her daughter in five months. Then there’s birdie in “Caucasia” whose parents never look out for her best interests. She is separated from her one true friend, Cole, and her father. In “Face” Maibelle does not get along with her parents because her mother is very self-centered and her father is extremely closed off and not interested in sharing his experiences in order to help Maibelle.
In all three books the characters have major issues with their mixed race background, be it from not knowing who to identify with to blatant racism from their peers. I am extremely interested in finding a book that shows the life of a mixed race individual whose parents are supportive of their child and help that child deal with the obstacles presented to mixed race people. Unfortunately, there probably isn’t a book like that out there because all the drama of dealing with parents adds to the book and makes it more interesting.
Sorry for the late post!
Jill
I’m going to talk about the fact the in almost all the books we’ve read the parents are so screwed up! I read the first few pages of “A Yellow Raft in Blue Water” and of course the mom is an alcoholic who randomly goes to the hospital and leaves her fifteen-year-old daughter to take care of her. She then threatens suicide to get back at her husband. Meanwhile the father hasn’t called her daughter in five months. Then there’s birdie in “Caucasia” whose parents never look out for her best interests. She is separated from her one true friend, Cole, and her father. In “Face” Maibelle does not get along with her parents because her mother is very self-centered and her father is extremely closed off and not interested in sharing his experiences in order to help Maibelle.
In all three books the characters have major issues with their mixed race background, be it from not knowing who to identify with to blatant racism from their peers. I am extremely interested in finding a book that shows the life of a mixed race individual whose parents are supportive of their child and help that child deal with the obstacles presented to mixed race people. Unfortunately, there probably isn’t a book like that out there because all the drama of dealing with parents adds to the book and makes it more interesting.
Sorry for the late post!
Jill
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Fantasy Novels and Issues of Race: Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter - Michelle Filanovsky
Reading Adulthood Rites has got me thinking about other sci-fi and fantasy novels which deal with issues of race. I have realized that because fantasy novels almost always deal with aliens, strange creatures, or humans with "special powers," metaphors and messages about issues of race are almost inevitable in these types of novels. To illustrate this concept, I am going to discuss how messages about race can be obtained from two of my favorite fantasy novels/movies: Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.
In Lord of the Rings, the dark lord Sauron builds armies of Uruk-hai, Orcs, trolls, and various other creatures to fight against the different races of Middle Earth in pursuit of the One Ring -- which will give him ultimate power. As a response, the different races of Middle Earth -- who had, in previous years, fought wars against each other -- are forced to accept their differences and band together to fight Sauron's army. At the center of this alliance is the Fellowship of the Ring, a group of nine individuals which represent all of Middle Earth's races. These individuals, being of different races, have initial qualms with each other. For instance, the dwarf Gimli is initially hostile to the elf Legolas because mind-dwelling dwarves have always hated nature-loving elves in Middle Earth. However, in the end, these two characters become best friends. This idea of banning together against a dark force reminded me of the humans' response to the Oankali in Adulthood Rites: the presence of aliens on earth made humans' racial differences seem relatively insignificant, and caused them to be more accepting of each other. Similarily, the presence of Sauron's evil forces in Lord of the Rings made the differences between the races of Middle Earth seem insignificant and created a greater sense of acceptance between races which had previously hated each other.
Relationships between individuals of different races are also present in Lord of the Rings, the most prominent being the relationship between the human Aragorn and the elf Arwen. This relationship conveys the idea that there must be something "given up" in an interracial relationship: Arwen must give up her evlen immortality by marrying Aragorn (elves can die of only a couple of things, one being a broken heart, and Arwen knows that her heart will be broken once Aragorn, a mortal human, dies).
Lord of the Rings also presents characters who acheive feats which are thought to be impossible due to their race. For instance, Frodo, a short, peace-loving hobbit, is the one who must destroy the One Ring. Frodo receives much doubt throughout the story because others do not believe that a hobbit could acheive such a huge task. However, Frodo succeeds and destroys the Ring. By citing this example, it can be seen that Lord of the Rings conveys the idea that racial stereotypes are often false.
While it can be argued that Lord of the Rings advocates the acceptance of those who are different and the breaking-down of racial stereotypes, Lord of the Rings also contains aspects which can be considered racist. For instance, Sauron's evil forces are portrayed as black, while the "good" character in the novel are portrayed as being white. This idea is especially prominent in the Lord of the Rings movies. In the final battle of the Return of the King, many of the "evil" characters have darker skin, as well as clothing and tribal markings similar to those associated with those of Africans. Some even have head and face coverings extremely similar to those worn by many Muslims.
In the Harry Potter series, ideas of race are conveyed through the existance of magical people (wizards and witches) and muggles (non-magical people). Mixed race ideas are also prevalent throughout the novels thorugh half-blood characters, wizards who have at least one muggle grandparent -- a classification which is very similar to the "one-drop" rule. The existance of muggle-born wizards and witches adds to mixed race individuals of the Harry Potter world. Lastly, there are the pure-bloods, individuals who claim to have no muggles in their linneage. Pure-bloods look down upon half-bloods and especially muggle-borns, who they call "mudbloods." Some pure-bloods, however, such as the Weasley family, accept half-bloods and muggle-borns; these wizards and witches are called "blood-tratiors" by prejudiced pure-bloods. All these terms used in the Harry Potter series echo the belief held by some people in our world that miscegenation causes the depurification of linneages.
In the Harry Potter world, there are only a few pure-blood families left and many of those who claim to be pure-blood acutally aren't; some "pure-blood" families, such as the Black family, erase muggles from their family trees. Even Voldemort himself is actually half-blood. This idea of falsely claiming a "pure" linneage is similar to the situation in our world, where it has been proven that most, if not all, people who consider themselves to be white actually have some non-white ancestry.
In Harry Potter, Lord Voldemort's followers -- the evil "death eaters" -- are portrayed as being highly prejudiced against half-bloods and muggle-borns. In the Harry Potter movies, death eaters' outfits even consist of the cone-shaped hats which are eerily similar to the ones worn by the KKK. The height of the death eaters' prejudice occurs when all half-bloods, muggle-borns, and blood-traitors are literally being hunted down in the concluding book of the series; students of "non-pure" linneage are not allowed to attend Hogwarts. These events are very similar to events of racism against blacks in the history of our world and country. Conversely, the "good" characters, such as Harry, Ron, and Hermione, are accepting of half-bloods and muggle-borns; in fact, Hermione herself is actually a muggle-born.
I found an interesting article about Harry Potter in which the author claims that, beause of the way in which Rowling portrays the good characters as accepting of all those who are different and evil characters as prejudice, she teaches her young readers about tolerance and acceptance of others (the article can be found here: http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=1256). While I believe this to be true when pertaining to matters within the wizarding comunity (pure-bloods, muggle-borns, and half-bloods), I don't believe this is true when looking at all wizards' and witches' attitudes toward muggles. While many wizards and witches are not portrayed as being prejudice against muggles, they are portrayed as looking down upon them and viewing them as inferior due to their inability to do magic. Wizards and witches are portrayed as having ultimate power over muggles -- they can dumbfound them, make them forget things, cast spells on them. Muggles, as a result, are often portrayed as being stupid and incapable, and wizards and witches -- whether consciously or subconsciuosly -- look down upon in them in a condescending manner. Because of this, I believe Harry Potter sends two very contradictory messages.
By examining the ideas of race in Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, I have discovered that they both convey acceptance of those who are different, but also have elements in them which can be interpreted as prejudice; thus, the two books both convey conflicting messages about race. These are just two of the many fantasy books/movies which deal with the ideas of mixed race and interracial relations.
In Lord of the Rings, the dark lord Sauron builds armies of Uruk-hai, Orcs, trolls, and various other creatures to fight against the different races of Middle Earth in pursuit of the One Ring -- which will give him ultimate power. As a response, the different races of Middle Earth -- who had, in previous years, fought wars against each other -- are forced to accept their differences and band together to fight Sauron's army. At the center of this alliance is the Fellowship of the Ring, a group of nine individuals which represent all of Middle Earth's races. These individuals, being of different races, have initial qualms with each other. For instance, the dwarf Gimli is initially hostile to the elf Legolas because mind-dwelling dwarves have always hated nature-loving elves in Middle Earth. However, in the end, these two characters become best friends. This idea of banning together against a dark force reminded me of the humans' response to the Oankali in Adulthood Rites: the presence of aliens on earth made humans' racial differences seem relatively insignificant, and caused them to be more accepting of each other. Similarily, the presence of Sauron's evil forces in Lord of the Rings made the differences between the races of Middle Earth seem insignificant and created a greater sense of acceptance between races which had previously hated each other.
Relationships between individuals of different races are also present in Lord of the Rings, the most prominent being the relationship between the human Aragorn and the elf Arwen. This relationship conveys the idea that there must be something "given up" in an interracial relationship: Arwen must give up her evlen immortality by marrying Aragorn (elves can die of only a couple of things, one being a broken heart, and Arwen knows that her heart will be broken once Aragorn, a mortal human, dies).
Lord of the Rings also presents characters who acheive feats which are thought to be impossible due to their race. For instance, Frodo, a short, peace-loving hobbit, is the one who must destroy the One Ring. Frodo receives much doubt throughout the story because others do not believe that a hobbit could acheive such a huge task. However, Frodo succeeds and destroys the Ring. By citing this example, it can be seen that Lord of the Rings conveys the idea that racial stereotypes are often false.
While it can be argued that Lord of the Rings advocates the acceptance of those who are different and the breaking-down of racial stereotypes, Lord of the Rings also contains aspects which can be considered racist. For instance, Sauron's evil forces are portrayed as black, while the "good" character in the novel are portrayed as being white. This idea is especially prominent in the Lord of the Rings movies. In the final battle of the Return of the King, many of the "evil" characters have darker skin, as well as clothing and tribal markings similar to those associated with those of Africans. Some even have head and face coverings extremely similar to those worn by many Muslims.
In the Harry Potter series, ideas of race are conveyed through the existance of magical people (wizards and witches) and muggles (non-magical people). Mixed race ideas are also prevalent throughout the novels thorugh half-blood characters, wizards who have at least one muggle grandparent -- a classification which is very similar to the "one-drop" rule. The existance of muggle-born wizards and witches adds to mixed race individuals of the Harry Potter world. Lastly, there are the pure-bloods, individuals who claim to have no muggles in their linneage. Pure-bloods look down upon half-bloods and especially muggle-borns, who they call "mudbloods." Some pure-bloods, however, such as the Weasley family, accept half-bloods and muggle-borns; these wizards and witches are called "blood-tratiors" by prejudiced pure-bloods. All these terms used in the Harry Potter series echo the belief held by some people in our world that miscegenation causes the depurification of linneages.
In the Harry Potter world, there are only a few pure-blood families left and many of those who claim to be pure-blood acutally aren't; some "pure-blood" families, such as the Black family, erase muggles from their family trees. Even Voldemort himself is actually half-blood. This idea of falsely claiming a "pure" linneage is similar to the situation in our world, where it has been proven that most, if not all, people who consider themselves to be white actually have some non-white ancestry.
In Harry Potter, Lord Voldemort's followers -- the evil "death eaters" -- are portrayed as being highly prejudiced against half-bloods and muggle-borns. In the Harry Potter movies, death eaters' outfits even consist of the cone-shaped hats which are eerily similar to the ones worn by the KKK. The height of the death eaters' prejudice occurs when all half-bloods, muggle-borns, and blood-traitors are literally being hunted down in the concluding book of the series; students of "non-pure" linneage are not allowed to attend Hogwarts. These events are very similar to events of racism against blacks in the history of our world and country. Conversely, the "good" characters, such as Harry, Ron, and Hermione, are accepting of half-bloods and muggle-borns; in fact, Hermione herself is actually a muggle-born.
I found an interesting article about Harry Potter in which the author claims that, beause of the way in which Rowling portrays the good characters as accepting of all those who are different and evil characters as prejudice, she teaches her young readers about tolerance and acceptance of others (the article can be found here: http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=1256). While I believe this to be true when pertaining to matters within the wizarding comunity (pure-bloods, muggle-borns, and half-bloods), I don't believe this is true when looking at all wizards' and witches' attitudes toward muggles. While many wizards and witches are not portrayed as being prejudice against muggles, they are portrayed as looking down upon them and viewing them as inferior due to their inability to do magic. Wizards and witches are portrayed as having ultimate power over muggles -- they can dumbfound them, make them forget things, cast spells on them. Muggles, as a result, are often portrayed as being stupid and incapable, and wizards and witches -- whether consciously or subconsciuosly -- look down upon in them in a condescending manner. Because of this, I believe Harry Potter sends two very contradictory messages.
By examining the ideas of race in Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, I have discovered that they both convey acceptance of those who are different, but also have elements in them which can be interpreted as prejudice; thus, the two books both convey conflicting messages about race. These are just two of the many fantasy books/movies which deal with the ideas of mixed race and interracial relations.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
My Thoughts On Race by Emily Geib
The other day in class when Professor Dunning asked us the question "What does our race protect us from?" I really got to thinking. All this talk of race, racial identity, miscegenation, and mixed race are now constantly whirling throughout my head. I no longer see it as okay to classify people by their race or to stereotype someone because of the color of their skin. I can not allow myself to assume that all black people like rap, that all Asian kids are good at math, or that all people of Latin American descent must be immigrants. I no longer let myself see this world defined along racial lines because it is clearly no longer acceptable. The ideas of our generation are now leading with the fact that race is not biological. It is a social construction created by generations of prejudice and racism embedded deep into our social structure.
t
So back to the question, what does race protect us from?
Race seems to protect us from the need to confront our differences as a result of the barriers built up by race. If race is no longer an issue, then centuries of hatred, abuse, and war no longer have any basis or foundation. The arguments of superiority of any such race and the minority of any such race will no longer be valid. Any ideas of racial identity no longer need to be confronted or pursued because race will no longer define who we are. How we refer to one another will change from racial terms and phenotypic markings of race to those terms that actually define that of who we are as people.
But the truth of the matter is that race may always be. As much as we want it to change, we may never live to see that. For as many years as race defined all we did and who we were, it may take twice as long to change the minds of the people of the world. At present day, race is still very much a factor in a lot of what we do. It may have fade for discriminatory purposes as to avoid conflict, but it did not disappear to make the world better. People everywhere still base their lives on racial terms and barriers. For hundreds of years, race forced millions into slavery, others to persecution, and even millions more to their deaths. It took many wars, years of fighting, and movements of many to bring equality among races. Can we really change the thought process of the world with this concept of a "social" race.
Race divides, but race is also beautiful. Our skin creates a world of diversified colors and ethnicities that make our world exciting and imaginative. Our different cultures are divided by race, but not bound by it. We have traditions and beliefs, and they might tend to be racial, but the truth of the matter is, not every black person celebrates Kwanzaa and not every Hispanic speaks Spanish. Race is beautiful when racial prejudice does not exist. But is that even possible?
I know that all of this might seem scattered brained and you might not agree with it. But what I have learned is that race might just be a social construct, but it is what is holding us together. I do believe that we must confront the ideas of racism and prejudice with the idea that race is not biological. And with that we can start to break down those walls dividing us.
To really make this happen, we must constantly be fighting against and correcting racial stereotypes and embedding into future generations the concepts that we ourselves have retained each day in Professor Dunning's class. We will face deliberation and constant struggle, but for this to really happen, we have to know, believe, and live out a life that breaks down race and allows us to be uniquely our own, but also collectively humans.
t
So back to the question, what does race protect us from?
Race seems to protect us from the need to confront our differences as a result of the barriers built up by race. If race is no longer an issue, then centuries of hatred, abuse, and war no longer have any basis or foundation. The arguments of superiority of any such race and the minority of any such race will no longer be valid. Any ideas of racial identity no longer need to be confronted or pursued because race will no longer define who we are. How we refer to one another will change from racial terms and phenotypic markings of race to those terms that actually define that of who we are as people.
But the truth of the matter is that race may always be. As much as we want it to change, we may never live to see that. For as many years as race defined all we did and who we were, it may take twice as long to change the minds of the people of the world. At present day, race is still very much a factor in a lot of what we do. It may have fade for discriminatory purposes as to avoid conflict, but it did not disappear to make the world better. People everywhere still base their lives on racial terms and barriers. For hundreds of years, race forced millions into slavery, others to persecution, and even millions more to their deaths. It took many wars, years of fighting, and movements of many to bring equality among races. Can we really change the thought process of the world with this concept of a "social" race.
Race divides, but race is also beautiful. Our skin creates a world of diversified colors and ethnicities that make our world exciting and imaginative. Our different cultures are divided by race, but not bound by it. We have traditions and beliefs, and they might tend to be racial, but the truth of the matter is, not every black person celebrates Kwanzaa and not every Hispanic speaks Spanish. Race is beautiful when racial prejudice does not exist. But is that even possible?
I know that all of this might seem scattered brained and you might not agree with it. But what I have learned is that race might just be a social construct, but it is what is holding us together. I do believe that we must confront the ideas of racism and prejudice with the idea that race is not biological. And with that we can start to break down those walls dividing us.
To really make this happen, we must constantly be fighting against and correcting racial stereotypes and embedding into future generations the concepts that we ourselves have retained each day in Professor Dunning's class. We will face deliberation and constant struggle, but for this to really happen, we have to know, believe, and live out a life that breaks down race and allows us to be uniquely our own, but also collectively humans.
Monday, September 24, 2007
The Importance of Returning to One’s Roots: An Illusory Concept- Sankalp Malhotra
I was reading the Washington Post a few days ago and I came across an article entitled, “To Africa, for Culture and Credits.” The sub-heading read, “U.S. born students are going back to their family roots.” Essentially, first generation Nigerian immigrant parents are sending their American-born children to study in International schools in Nigeria in order to teach them about their origins, to build their connection to the African continent as a whole, and to give them “some perspective about life in America.” A central idea emphasized by the article is that many of the children complain of being teased in their American schools because of their differences in appearance, accent, and overall culture. The more I thought about this article, the more it began to agitate me. Not only was the concept of returning to one’s “roots” to find answers about the fundamental question “Who am I?” troublesome, but also that thinking about the article brought me back to Aimee Liu’s “masterpiece,” Face- a book that was so perplexing that I vowed I would never seriously dwell on it again.
Nevertheless, the novel seems to indicate, as the article does, that those brought up in multi-racial, multi-cultural houses can find the answers to their qualms regarding self-identity by returning to where they are from. The “where” is different for everyone, but the line of self-doubt and the journeys are portrayed as the same. For the Nigerian children, who have been largely motivated by their parents’ desires, the journey leads to Africa. For Maibelle, the protagonist of Liu’s novel, the journey pushes her to Chinatown in New York. Although the stories of Maibelle and the African children are different (Maibelle was a mixed race individual brought up in Chinatown, while the Nigerian kids growing up in a bicultural environment, have only been raised hearing about Nigeria from their parents), the societal narrative of the search for identity ties both of the set of circumstances together.
I firmly believe after reading Liu’s novel and the Washington Post article that the idea that it is necessary to “return to one’s roots to define one’s identity” and “find answers” has been overplayed by society; it is largely exaggerated and primarily an illusory construct, similar to race. Maibelle did not learn to deal with her many issues (including her identity crisis) by going to Chinatown. Many other integral events took place by which she was able to reconcile her internal and external “affairs” (no pun intended). She was pushed towards Chinatown to find answers by people around her, including Tommy “Tai” Wah, just as the Nigerian kids are being told by their parents to find answers in Nigeria. I do not believe that the Nigerian children will find answers regarding their identity, and more importantly the answers to the conundrum of how others view them, by flying all the way to Africa- my personal experiences substantiate this contention.
Yet, Liu’s novel, an archetypal representation of racially-motivated books that America enjoys reading, places Maibelle’s trip to Chinatown at the center of the plot development. It takes the Jade Maiden half of the book to decide whether or not she has the courage to return to the place of her origin- and this is precisely the journey that readers want her to take. There is a constant feeling for the reader that Maibelle may find the cure for her numerous problems (which initially seem like quirks) in Chinatown. The book’s preview on the cover alludes to this type of resolution as well: “Lured by inner needs…[Maibelle] returns to the community and family she left behind…to strip away layers of illusion to expose the bare bones of her life-stark, dangerous, and shimmering with painful truth.” The preview makes it seem as if the author desires for the reader to see the connection between Maibelle’s journey to Chinatown and her ability at the end of the novel to find peace with herself and the circumstances she continues to face.
The facts of the novel, however, paint a very different picture. Mai Mai is pushed into Chinatown by Tai who states in his first letter that Uncle Li, a man who could not be illustrated as any more susceptible to the notion of returning home, always thought she would have to return (page 1). The fact that her decision to go back to Chinatown is influenced by others shows how prevalent this idea of returning to one’s origins (to find answers) truly is. Nevertheless, Maibelle does not sort out her crises by visiting Chinatown, but rather through a very different series of events. For instance, her father’s confessions near the time of his death help her to understand not only why she was brought up in Chinatown, but also the many demons that have plagued her enigmatic, hermit-like dad.
The “climax” of the book which comes with the revelation of Maibelle’s rape that occurred in Chinatown also has very little to do with her trip back to her old home. She doesn’t remember this memory that she buried deep inside of her by re-visiting Chinatown, but she is pushed into re-living it by her sister. Neither she nor her sister even mentions her decision to return to Chinatown with Tai (p. 313-317). Though the inhibitions that she had with going to Chinatown again are explained by her trauma from the rape, she does not find her “answers” or “healing” by going back. It can be argued that her developed love for Tommy is the reason she is able to let go of her past suffering.
After all, her inability to let go of Johnny, an obstacle that she faced for her entire life, also had no connection with returning to Chinatown. Upon his death, her notion of an attractive man was shaped by her image of Johnny. She purposefully slept with men with blonde hair and blue eyes. She let go of men like Jed Miffet and other previous lovers who fit the profile of Johnny when she met Tai and realized that he is not a bad person. She also begins to see that Tai is nothing like the Chinese men who raped her, though she initially compares his looks with Winston Chang, a fellow-conspirator of the Dragonflies. Although Tai and Maibelle’s actual meeting is linked to Chinatown, their most intimate moments of connection occurred outside of the context of Chinatown (for instance, in Tai’s house making Chinese food).
In essence, Maibelle’s trip to Chinatown has nothing to do with her growth as a person in the novel. The sensationalist author has jumped onto the bandwagon of the societal narrative that says if a person returns to the place of her “origin,” she will find answers about her identity and her most serious crises. There is, however, a fundamental difference between causality and parallelism. Maibelle’s ability to finally deal with her crises was not caused by her trip to Chinatown; rather, her trip to Chinatown occurred in same time-frame as the point in the book where she began to sort out her internal conflicts.
Through my own “soul searching,” which has more effectively occurred within the confines of my dorm room rather than in India (the place of my origin), I have come to believe that one must live in the present, and define oneself in the context of the present; race, ethnic identity, origin are not important in the “big picture.” Society has made these ideas important and one manifestation of this idea (other than Aimee Liu’s book) is the Washington Post article about the Nigerian children. Their situation correlates directly to the situation I faced when I first came to the U.S. as a first generation immigrant. I was also teased by my American classmates and my parents also gave me mixed messages as to how to deal with the “culture shock.”
They said I should continue to take my Indian food to school (despite the fact that kids made fun of what I ate) and be proud of who I was. Simultaneously, they also asserted that I should learn to adapt to my new surroundings, so they bought me the latest brands of clothing that kids were wearing in school. It seemed to me (at that time) that they were asking me to become American by adapting and also remain Indian by resisting change. As a fourth grader, I was perplexed. Because I confessed my confusion to my parents, they decided to take me to India.
I was born in New Delhi, India but when I was just two years old, my father got a job in Papua New Guinea and we immediately moved abroad. My younger brother was born on that tropical island, and seven years later, we decided to move to the United States. Both sides of my extended family-grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins- still live in India. Just within a year of living in the U.S., my family decided to visit India for a month.
I suppose my parents thought I would come to certain life-changing, self-defining conclusions in India that would help answer my questions about my identity. Unfortunately, there is not much one can gain by going from house to house of relatives for one month; wrapped up in this constancy, I found myself not only seeing the absurdity of the “family traditions” but I also found that I felt no connection to my homeland by hearing my relatives talk about how unhealthy my brother and me were: “You don’t feed them enough,” they said to my parents. “How can you live in America and have kids that look as malnourished as Ethiopians?”
In the end, I returned to America with the simple conclusion: As Henry says in Face, “life is too short to have an identity crisis.” I began to believe that. I knew that I had to live in the present, not in the world of my origins. I identified my problem of not fitting into American society and began to fully adapt to my new surroundings. For instance, I began by eating food from the school cafeterias. I remedied my problems myself having seen the extent to which my parents’ attempted remedy had failed. Going to visit the land of my origin may have given me a concrete representation of my nationality, but it did not fix my problem of fitting in within American Society, just as Maibelle’s trip into Chinatown didn’t “fix” her major problems. This is also why I believe that the Nigerian children will never find the answers they seek in Africa. Their issues with adapting to American society can never be fixed by returning to the place of their origin, though their parents and the rest of society believe this to be true. As Carrie Latet said, “junk mail, junk food, our society is full of junk living, period.” It seems that society continues to perpetuate junk ideas as well.
The Washington Post Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092200582.html?hpid=topnews
Nevertheless, the novel seems to indicate, as the article does, that those brought up in multi-racial, multi-cultural houses can find the answers to their qualms regarding self-identity by returning to where they are from. The “where” is different for everyone, but the line of self-doubt and the journeys are portrayed as the same. For the Nigerian children, who have been largely motivated by their parents’ desires, the journey leads to Africa. For Maibelle, the protagonist of Liu’s novel, the journey pushes her to Chinatown in New York. Although the stories of Maibelle and the African children are different (Maibelle was a mixed race individual brought up in Chinatown, while the Nigerian kids growing up in a bicultural environment, have only been raised hearing about Nigeria from their parents), the societal narrative of the search for identity ties both of the set of circumstances together.
I firmly believe after reading Liu’s novel and the Washington Post article that the idea that it is necessary to “return to one’s roots to define one’s identity” and “find answers” has been overplayed by society; it is largely exaggerated and primarily an illusory construct, similar to race. Maibelle did not learn to deal with her many issues (including her identity crisis) by going to Chinatown. Many other integral events took place by which she was able to reconcile her internal and external “affairs” (no pun intended). She was pushed towards Chinatown to find answers by people around her, including Tommy “Tai” Wah, just as the Nigerian kids are being told by their parents to find answers in Nigeria. I do not believe that the Nigerian children will find answers regarding their identity, and more importantly the answers to the conundrum of how others view them, by flying all the way to Africa- my personal experiences substantiate this contention.
Yet, Liu’s novel, an archetypal representation of racially-motivated books that America enjoys reading, places Maibelle’s trip to Chinatown at the center of the plot development. It takes the Jade Maiden half of the book to decide whether or not she has the courage to return to the place of her origin- and this is precisely the journey that readers want her to take. There is a constant feeling for the reader that Maibelle may find the cure for her numerous problems (which initially seem like quirks) in Chinatown. The book’s preview on the cover alludes to this type of resolution as well: “Lured by inner needs…[Maibelle] returns to the community and family she left behind…to strip away layers of illusion to expose the bare bones of her life-stark, dangerous, and shimmering with painful truth.” The preview makes it seem as if the author desires for the reader to see the connection between Maibelle’s journey to Chinatown and her ability at the end of the novel to find peace with herself and the circumstances she continues to face.
The facts of the novel, however, paint a very different picture. Mai Mai is pushed into Chinatown by Tai who states in his first letter that Uncle Li, a man who could not be illustrated as any more susceptible to the notion of returning home, always thought she would have to return (page 1). The fact that her decision to go back to Chinatown is influenced by others shows how prevalent this idea of returning to one’s origins (to find answers) truly is. Nevertheless, Maibelle does not sort out her crises by visiting Chinatown, but rather through a very different series of events. For instance, her father’s confessions near the time of his death help her to understand not only why she was brought up in Chinatown, but also the many demons that have plagued her enigmatic, hermit-like dad.
The “climax” of the book which comes with the revelation of Maibelle’s rape that occurred in Chinatown also has very little to do with her trip back to her old home. She doesn’t remember this memory that she buried deep inside of her by re-visiting Chinatown, but she is pushed into re-living it by her sister. Neither she nor her sister even mentions her decision to return to Chinatown with Tai (p. 313-317). Though the inhibitions that she had with going to Chinatown again are explained by her trauma from the rape, she does not find her “answers” or “healing” by going back. It can be argued that her developed love for Tommy is the reason she is able to let go of her past suffering.
After all, her inability to let go of Johnny, an obstacle that she faced for her entire life, also had no connection with returning to Chinatown. Upon his death, her notion of an attractive man was shaped by her image of Johnny. She purposefully slept with men with blonde hair and blue eyes. She let go of men like Jed Miffet and other previous lovers who fit the profile of Johnny when she met Tai and realized that he is not a bad person. She also begins to see that Tai is nothing like the Chinese men who raped her, though she initially compares his looks with Winston Chang, a fellow-conspirator of the Dragonflies. Although Tai and Maibelle’s actual meeting is linked to Chinatown, their most intimate moments of connection occurred outside of the context of Chinatown (for instance, in Tai’s house making Chinese food).
In essence, Maibelle’s trip to Chinatown has nothing to do with her growth as a person in the novel. The sensationalist author has jumped onto the bandwagon of the societal narrative that says if a person returns to the place of her “origin,” she will find answers about her identity and her most serious crises. There is, however, a fundamental difference between causality and parallelism. Maibelle’s ability to finally deal with her crises was not caused by her trip to Chinatown; rather, her trip to Chinatown occurred in same time-frame as the point in the book where she began to sort out her internal conflicts.
Through my own “soul searching,” which has more effectively occurred within the confines of my dorm room rather than in India (the place of my origin), I have come to believe that one must live in the present, and define oneself in the context of the present; race, ethnic identity, origin are not important in the “big picture.” Society has made these ideas important and one manifestation of this idea (other than Aimee Liu’s book) is the Washington Post article about the Nigerian children. Their situation correlates directly to the situation I faced when I first came to the U.S. as a first generation immigrant. I was also teased by my American classmates and my parents also gave me mixed messages as to how to deal with the “culture shock.”
They said I should continue to take my Indian food to school (despite the fact that kids made fun of what I ate) and be proud of who I was. Simultaneously, they also asserted that I should learn to adapt to my new surroundings, so they bought me the latest brands of clothing that kids were wearing in school. It seemed to me (at that time) that they were asking me to become American by adapting and also remain Indian by resisting change. As a fourth grader, I was perplexed. Because I confessed my confusion to my parents, they decided to take me to India.
I was born in New Delhi, India but when I was just two years old, my father got a job in Papua New Guinea and we immediately moved abroad. My younger brother was born on that tropical island, and seven years later, we decided to move to the United States. Both sides of my extended family-grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins- still live in India. Just within a year of living in the U.S., my family decided to visit India for a month.
I suppose my parents thought I would come to certain life-changing, self-defining conclusions in India that would help answer my questions about my identity. Unfortunately, there is not much one can gain by going from house to house of relatives for one month; wrapped up in this constancy, I found myself not only seeing the absurdity of the “family traditions” but I also found that I felt no connection to my homeland by hearing my relatives talk about how unhealthy my brother and me were: “You don’t feed them enough,” they said to my parents. “How can you live in America and have kids that look as malnourished as Ethiopians?”
In the end, I returned to America with the simple conclusion: As Henry says in Face, “life is too short to have an identity crisis.” I began to believe that. I knew that I had to live in the present, not in the world of my origins. I identified my problem of not fitting into American society and began to fully adapt to my new surroundings. For instance, I began by eating food from the school cafeterias. I remedied my problems myself having seen the extent to which my parents’ attempted remedy had failed. Going to visit the land of my origin may have given me a concrete representation of my nationality, but it did not fix my problem of fitting in within American Society, just as Maibelle’s trip into Chinatown didn’t “fix” her major problems. This is also why I believe that the Nigerian children will never find the answers they seek in Africa. Their issues with adapting to American society can never be fixed by returning to the place of their origin, though their parents and the rest of society believe this to be true. As Carrie Latet said, “junk mail, junk food, our society is full of junk living, period.” It seems that society continues to perpetuate junk ideas as well.
The Washington Post Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092200582.html?hpid=topnews
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Mixed Race Students in College : Kaitlin McCune
Okay, so I didn't know exactly what I wanted to make my blog about so I decided to surf the web for anything that may relate to our class in general. I came across an article pertaining to a book called Mixed Race Students in College: The Ecology of Race, Identity, and Community on Campus by Kristen A. Renn. In the book she tries to display the different experiences and identities of mixed race students who try to break down racial categories and ethnic divides that still exist all around them. She also presents her findings from research she did on a variety of 56 mixed race students at many different colleges. In the book, the main focus and question that Renn is attempting to answer, as described in the article by Raechele Pope, Danielle Johnson, and Jason Jakubowski, is "Do mixed race students have different experiences, needs, and expectations than both monoracial white students and students of color?"
This question is a difficult one to answer I think since the college experience is different for everyone. Mixed race students' experiences, needs, and expectations depend heavily on the demographics of their school, its diversity, and how accepting peers are of varying cultural backgrounds. Although the novels we have taken a look at in class so far do not necessarily deal with mixed race individuals on college campuses, they do, however, involve different experiences of mixed race individuals in a school environment. Birdie, for example, had a much different experience at Nkruma than she did at her predominately white school in New Hampshire. Her needs to be accepted and her expectations of who she should be were very different from each other, and were influenced by the contexts of her situation and the racial background of her peers. Birdie's experiences, needs, and expectations were very distinctive from the white students' and students' of color. Unlike them, she did not already have an identity or race predetermined for her by her skin color, so it took her a long time to figure out where she would belong and how she would define herself.
Maibelle Chung, as a young girl, also wanted to have a certain identity at her school that was impossible because of her phenotypic characteristics. Even now in the novel she is struggling with who she is supposed to be. Maibelle, Birdie, and many others had to endure a lot because of their mixed race identities. It's hard to determine just how school, peers, or in connection to the article, college experiences differ among mixed race students and just how they might affect them. I think it's important for us to be aware of the various ethnicities and races, or mixed races present at Miami. After reading the article and researching the book a little I started asking myself the same question, which Renn strives to explain, except about Miami students: "Do mixed race students at Miami have different experiences, needs, and expectations than both monoracial white students and students of color?" What I'd like to believe is far from what actually occurs I'm sure.
If you'd like to take a closer look at the article about the book, which I mainly referenced, here is the direct link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3752/is_200507/ai_n14826892/pg_1
This question is a difficult one to answer I think since the college experience is different for everyone. Mixed race students' experiences, needs, and expectations depend heavily on the demographics of their school, its diversity, and how accepting peers are of varying cultural backgrounds. Although the novels we have taken a look at in class so far do not necessarily deal with mixed race individuals on college campuses, they do, however, involve different experiences of mixed race individuals in a school environment. Birdie, for example, had a much different experience at Nkruma than she did at her predominately white school in New Hampshire. Her needs to be accepted and her expectations of who she should be were very different from each other, and were influenced by the contexts of her situation and the racial background of her peers. Birdie's experiences, needs, and expectations were very distinctive from the white students' and students' of color. Unlike them, she did not already have an identity or race predetermined for her by her skin color, so it took her a long time to figure out where she would belong and how she would define herself.
Maibelle Chung, as a young girl, also wanted to have a certain identity at her school that was impossible because of her phenotypic characteristics. Even now in the novel she is struggling with who she is supposed to be. Maibelle, Birdie, and many others had to endure a lot because of their mixed race identities. It's hard to determine just how school, peers, or in connection to the article, college experiences differ among mixed race students and just how they might affect them. I think it's important for us to be aware of the various ethnicities and races, or mixed races present at Miami. After reading the article and researching the book a little I started asking myself the same question, which Renn strives to explain, except about Miami students: "Do mixed race students at Miami have different experiences, needs, and expectations than both monoracial white students and students of color?" What I'd like to believe is far from what actually occurs I'm sure.
If you'd like to take a closer look at the article about the book, which I mainly referenced, here is the direct link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3752/is_200507/ai_n14826892/pg_1
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Interracial Relationships in Movies and Television-Gretchen Wesche
Hello everyone! As you can see by my title, I'm going to be discussing interracial relationships in movies and television. As we have seen in class, interracial relationships are being seen more and more in America, especially since 1967, and this trend has been reflected in the media. For my blog entry, I've made a list of a few contemporary movies (set in the present) to discuss (focusing mainly on those in which the interracial relationships are not emphasized and are simply another part of the movie or television show, something that may not have occured in older movies), and I will begin with my personal favorite:
The movie "Love Actually" is set in modern day London during the holiday season and features several interracial (or "inter-ethnicity") relationships:
*Keira Knightly's character and her husband, a black man played by Chiwetel Ejiofor.
*Thomas Sangster, who plays Liam Neeson's (white) son and his classmate, an African American girl visiting London for school played by Olivia Olson.
*Laura Linney and Rodrigo Santoro's characters (Santoro is Portuguese and also played Xerxes in "300").
*Colin Firth and Lúcia Moniz's characters: Jamie, an Englishman, and Aurelia, a Portuguese girl he meets in Marseilles.
All of these relationships are treated the same as any other relationships between people of the same race in the movie, with the possible exception of Jamie and Aurelia's story simply because it involves the two being from different countries and having to learn each other's languages. I believe that by including these relationships, the main theme that "love actually is all around" is further enhanced; that love does not see race or ethnicity and can even cross language barriers.
A Disney TV musical version of the traditionally European play "Cinderella" also features interracial relationships not only on the romantic level but also on the family level. The movie features the singer Brandy as the title character, Bernadette Peters as her step mother with one white and one black daughter, Whoopi Goldberg as the Queen, Victor Garber as the King, and Paolo Montalban, who is Filipino, as the Prince. As you can see, this movie not only includes the interracial relationship between Cinderella and the Prince, but it also includes very multiracial families as well! This is an interesting casting choice which I see as ultimately portraying the Cinderella story as a universal fairy tale for everyone which is found in many cultures including those outside of Europe.
"The Family Stone" also includes an interracial couple, though with a "twist" in that the relationship is between two men. Though their relationship is just a minor part of the film, it is intersting to note that the fact that their relationship is between someone who is black and someone who is white is never really mentioned. Rather, the focus is on the fact that it is a homosexual relationship, which can be compared to the movement to legalize interracial relationships and marriages in the late 1960s in that there is currently a movement to legalize homosexual marriages.
Finally, in the television show "Smallville," a young Clark Kent (Tom Wellling) is perpetually infatuated with Lana Lang, played by Kristen Kreuk, who is part Chinese and part Dutch. There really is not too much to say about this relationship though in that Lana's biracial background is rarely if ever mentioned, which if anything suggests America's movement towards acceptance of interracial relationships.
The third season of "Desperate Housewives" may also be included in this category-but only partially. In the television show, Gabrielle, who is Latina, dates a white man who is running for mayor. At first, the simple fact that she is Latina and he is white seems to mean nothing. However, the audience and Gabrielle later find out that this is not the case and her new husband sees her instead as a way to hopefully win more of the Latino vote, now involving the relationship with racial politics.
Of course, there are still many movies and television shows that include interracial relationships, emphasizing them, often as the main conflict. These include (but are of course not limited to) "Save the Last Dance," "Guess Who" (the "reversed" remake of the older "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"), a future Disney animated movie featuring their first black princess (voiced by Anika Noni Rose) and a prince from a fictional kingdom who is presumably not black (though apparently, earlier in production, the prince was to be European and named Harry. Now he is listed as being named "Naveen" and having "an invented accent that has the romantic suavity of Italian with a sprinkling of mid-east exoticism," though this is all of course subject to change), and even the short comedy "Yellow Fever" by Wong Fu Productions in which Philip Wang ponders the notion that most Asian-Caucasian couples are between Asian girls and white guys but not the other way around (if you're interested, you can find it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOyRWuklsiQ).
The movie "Love Actually" is set in modern day London during the holiday season and features several interracial (or "inter-ethnicity") relationships:
*Keira Knightly's character and her husband, a black man played by Chiwetel Ejiofor.
*Thomas Sangster, who plays Liam Neeson's (white) son and his classmate, an African American girl visiting London for school played by Olivia Olson.
*Laura Linney and Rodrigo Santoro's characters (Santoro is Portuguese and also played Xerxes in "300").
*Colin Firth and Lúcia Moniz's characters: Jamie, an Englishman, and Aurelia, a Portuguese girl he meets in Marseilles.
All of these relationships are treated the same as any other relationships between people of the same race in the movie, with the possible exception of Jamie and Aurelia's story simply because it involves the two being from different countries and having to learn each other's languages. I believe that by including these relationships, the main theme that "love actually is all around" is further enhanced; that love does not see race or ethnicity and can even cross language barriers.
A Disney TV musical version of the traditionally European play "Cinderella" also features interracial relationships not only on the romantic level but also on the family level. The movie features the singer Brandy as the title character, Bernadette Peters as her step mother with one white and one black daughter, Whoopi Goldberg as the Queen, Victor Garber as the King, and Paolo Montalban, who is Filipino, as the Prince. As you can see, this movie not only includes the interracial relationship between Cinderella and the Prince, but it also includes very multiracial families as well! This is an interesting casting choice which I see as ultimately portraying the Cinderella story as a universal fairy tale for everyone which is found in many cultures including those outside of Europe.
"The Family Stone" also includes an interracial couple, though with a "twist" in that the relationship is between two men. Though their relationship is just a minor part of the film, it is intersting to note that the fact that their relationship is between someone who is black and someone who is white is never really mentioned. Rather, the focus is on the fact that it is a homosexual relationship, which can be compared to the movement to legalize interracial relationships and marriages in the late 1960s in that there is currently a movement to legalize homosexual marriages.
Finally, in the television show "Smallville," a young Clark Kent (Tom Wellling) is perpetually infatuated with Lana Lang, played by Kristen Kreuk, who is part Chinese and part Dutch. There really is not too much to say about this relationship though in that Lana's biracial background is rarely if ever mentioned, which if anything suggests America's movement towards acceptance of interracial relationships.
The third season of "Desperate Housewives" may also be included in this category-but only partially. In the television show, Gabrielle, who is Latina, dates a white man who is running for mayor. At first, the simple fact that she is Latina and he is white seems to mean nothing. However, the audience and Gabrielle later find out that this is not the case and her new husband sees her instead as a way to hopefully win more of the Latino vote, now involving the relationship with racial politics.
Of course, there are still many movies and television shows that include interracial relationships, emphasizing them, often as the main conflict. These include (but are of course not limited to) "Save the Last Dance," "Guess Who" (the "reversed" remake of the older "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"), a future Disney animated movie featuring their first black princess (voiced by Anika Noni Rose) and a prince from a fictional kingdom who is presumably not black (though apparently, earlier in production, the prince was to be European and named Harry. Now he is listed as being named "Naveen" and having "an invented accent that has the romantic suavity of Italian with a sprinkling of mid-east exoticism," though this is all of course subject to change), and even the short comedy "Yellow Fever" by Wong Fu Productions in which Philip Wang ponders the notion that most Asian-Caucasian couples are between Asian girls and white guys but not the other way around (if you're interested, you can find it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOyRWuklsiQ).
Monday, September 3, 2007
Canaries in a Coal Mine: Marilyn Wickenheiser
On the first day of Everyday Hybridities, we were all presented with the idea that race is a social construct—that it doesn’t really exist. Birdie’s entire journey ends in
If you look back to their experiences, society has made it less than easy for someone of color to be invisible—to simply blend in. It all began at the Nkrumah school. In a society of black majority, Birdie was originally an outcast. When Birdie stands to say Black is Beautiful, someone shouts out “Guess you must be ugly” (45). The kids don’t hesitate to point out that she is lighter skinned. Birdie goes on to have her experiences in
Birdie’s family also poisons her with the idea that color is of importance. Her father never treated her and Cole the same. Deck always tried to explain his work and ideas to Cole, but never to Birdie. Even Carmen and Cole had a different relationship. Deck and Carmen didn’t know how to raise someone who could pass for white. Their grandmother also treats the girls differently. She always gave Birdie normal presents, but gave Cole a Golliwog doll. She would talk to Birdie a lot, but Cole was always in a different room watching TV whenever they went to visit. By making up an entire new life, as Jesse and Sheila, while they are on the run,
In both
Friday, August 10, 2007
Welcome to Honors 101G!
Hello class!
I hope you're all as excited about this class as I am. I hope that we can use this blog for more informal discussion of the topic--as well as more personal exchange.If you're signed in as a "user" to this site, then you'll see that I'm also teaching a capstone that deals with similar issues--though it focuses on the post-civil war era through the contemporary period.
As you all now know from my lecture in class, interracial relationships didn't become legal in the United States until 1967 (of course there were some states that allowed interracial unions). I was born in 1973, just six short years after the Loving V. Virginia court case. My parents were married in 1971--barely enough time for the ink to dry on the Supreme Court Decision! Consider that in 1958, 96% of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. That would have included my white grandparents! My father was a white man born in Georgia in 1949; my mother was an African American woman born in the same state in 1950. So I am one of those first generation mixed race people born into a legal union between a black and white person. So as you can see, my interest in this subject is not merely academic.
Hopefully we'll have some fun in this class and I hope you learn a lot. I am sure I'll learn from you all as well. My work in this class also works in conjunction with my second book project, tentatively titled "Everyday Hybridities."I look forward to reading your posts!
I hope you're all as excited about this class as I am. I hope that we can use this blog for more informal discussion of the topic--as well as more personal exchange.If you're signed in as a "user" to this site, then you'll see that I'm also teaching a capstone that deals with similar issues--though it focuses on the post-civil war era through the contemporary period.
As you all now know from my lecture in class, interracial relationships didn't become legal in the United States until 1967 (of course there were some states that allowed interracial unions). I was born in 1973, just six short years after the Loving V. Virginia court case. My parents were married in 1971--barely enough time for the ink to dry on the Supreme Court Decision! Consider that in 1958, 96% of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. That would have included my white grandparents! My father was a white man born in Georgia in 1949; my mother was an African American woman born in the same state in 1950. So I am one of those first generation mixed race people born into a legal union between a black and white person. So as you can see, my interest in this subject is not merely academic.
Hopefully we'll have some fun in this class and I hope you learn a lot. I am sure I'll learn from you all as well. My work in this class also works in conjunction with my second book project, tentatively titled "Everyday Hybridities."I look forward to reading your posts!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)