Frideres maintains on pg. 44 of The Great White North?:
"Whiteness is defined as part of the human condition and it defines normality"(44).
1. How do you interpret the meaning of the quote? How does its meaning expose a certain truth about the concept of whiteness? Does your definition of the concept prove or disprove (agree or disagree with) the perception of the chapter’s author, James Frideres?
There could be many ways of reading this line, but I would like to focus on the difference between and the difference implied by "is defined" and "defines." Whiteness "is defined" as part of the human condition yet it "defines" normality. That is, while whiteness is only one part or aspect, variation, piece, etc. of the greater "human condition," whiteness involves the position privileged enough to "define" what is considered the norm. I interpret Frideres to mean that while whiteness is on an equal footing with every other race when it comes to race being a factor in the human condition, for some reason whiteness has enjoyed the particular privilege of defining what is considered to be the normal standard.
I think that this is an interesting idea, but I would really like Frideres to ground his claims in real situations. It is one thing to assert that Whiteness has determined normality, but this leads to bigger questions such as if there is indeed one standard of "normality," what is it? I would like Frideres to tell us what "normality" is and then show explicitly how whiteness determines it. Instead he sticks to the region of the theory of Whiteness, where claims about race and the privileges a particular race confers on its members might tend towards proving a point but to me they fall short. Frideres' notion that Whiteness is determined as part of the human condition is interesting within the context of a racialized understanding of humanity--I wonder though if race has such an essentialized relation to who we are as people. I suppose it all comes down to how we define ourselves, whether by racial identities or by the "human condition."
2. Two open-ended questions for Frideres (I am still thinking about the answers):
1. As a teacher, am I occupying a particular place within the structure of systematized white privilege?
2. If so, can I transcend this particular position? Can I do so without identifying myself racially?
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Saturday, October 13, 2007
2 Part Blog Assignment
Fox, Chapter 8
Fox writes in "Exercises, Assignments and Advice" that as a teacher, when we are leading a discussion about racism or addressing racism in class and the discussion is Silent or Superficial, it is a good idea to ask the class:
"What makes it difficult to have meaningful relationships across the racial divide?" (124).
This is an interesting exercise, because it is a loaded question that I think would and should generate discussion. Sometimes it is easier to formulate ideas in reaction to a given stance.
A lot of ideas are implied in this question, namely "is there one, "the," racial divide?" Is it in fact difficult to have meaningful relationships with others due to people being of different races? Is it easy to have meaningful relationships within each side of a racial divide?
I don't like the question at all, and I don't think it is something that I could ever ask a group of students. But perhaps that is because I rebel against what it implies. So, as an exercise in class, maybe the question is being raised so that people can speak up against it. If it generates discussion, maybe it has worked effectively as an exercise.
Questions for Reflection
1. In what ways does White Privilege enter the classroom?
I would say that we could divide the classrooom into three general contexts: one, the living, material, current classroom environment, constituted by the students, teachers, school organization, and system. The second would be school as an institution of socialization. The third would be what is taught, or the "ideological" classroom, or the curriculum, and learning materials.
White privilege, I would hope, does not enter into the material, current classroom, because as a teacher leading the class it would reflect my own disregard or insensitivity about it. When you wonder a little more about school as an institution, however, it's hard to peel off layers of how historically the system has been predominantly run by white people to find a place completely free from a context of white privilege. I quote rapper T.I.: "School's just a white man's game, and it's ran good" ("Still Ain't Forgave Myself," I'm Serious, 2001). I'm not sure I agree completely with this statement, but perhaps I am overlooking white privilege.
The third place that white privilege would enter the classroom is through the books, media, and other learning materials used to teach. I know that a lot of English literature high school programs in Canada are starting to move in a more multicultural or "global" direction. This was probably a result of the question of whether or not everyone should have to learn a form of white, European-dominated culture and history, and why other cultural histories were not represented in schools. If school is supposed to give students an education in which they can find themselves, the curriculum in many History and English departments has not provided that opportunity.
2. In what ways can you and your students work to articulate and transform the authority of Whiteness?
One way is to encourage a way of learning, instead of encouraging students to learn certain facts. This way, students can develop a critical approach to any material, not to digest and internalize hidden biases, not to accept historical truths as universally valid, and to recognize their place in the world while still understanding that learning is where both the present and past come together. Another way would be to directly talk about Whiteness, or maybe more generally racism, to address the issues in class. A third way would be to make sure that what I as a teacher am teaching is sensitive to a standard of a universal history and open to future possibility.
Fox writes in "Exercises, Assignments and Advice" that as a teacher, when we are leading a discussion about racism or addressing racism in class and the discussion is Silent or Superficial, it is a good idea to ask the class:
"What makes it difficult to have meaningful relationships across the racial divide?" (124).
This is an interesting exercise, because it is a loaded question that I think would and should generate discussion. Sometimes it is easier to formulate ideas in reaction to a given stance.
A lot of ideas are implied in this question, namely "is there one, "the," racial divide?" Is it in fact difficult to have meaningful relationships with others due to people being of different races? Is it easy to have meaningful relationships within each side of a racial divide?
I don't like the question at all, and I don't think it is something that I could ever ask a group of students. But perhaps that is because I rebel against what it implies. So, as an exercise in class, maybe the question is being raised so that people can speak up against it. If it generates discussion, maybe it has worked effectively as an exercise.
Questions for Reflection
1. In what ways does White Privilege enter the classroom?
I would say that we could divide the classrooom into three general contexts: one, the living, material, current classroom environment, constituted by the students, teachers, school organization, and system. The second would be school as an institution of socialization. The third would be what is taught, or the "ideological" classroom, or the curriculum, and learning materials.
White privilege, I would hope, does not enter into the material, current classroom, because as a teacher leading the class it would reflect my own disregard or insensitivity about it. When you wonder a little more about school as an institution, however, it's hard to peel off layers of how historically the system has been predominantly run by white people to find a place completely free from a context of white privilege. I quote rapper T.I.: "School's just a white man's game, and it's ran good" ("Still Ain't Forgave Myself," I'm Serious, 2001). I'm not sure I agree completely with this statement, but perhaps I am overlooking white privilege.
The third place that white privilege would enter the classroom is through the books, media, and other learning materials used to teach. I know that a lot of English literature high school programs in Canada are starting to move in a more multicultural or "global" direction. This was probably a result of the question of whether or not everyone should have to learn a form of white, European-dominated culture and history, and why other cultural histories were not represented in schools. If school is supposed to give students an education in which they can find themselves, the curriculum in many History and English departments has not provided that opportunity.
2. In what ways can you and your students work to articulate and transform the authority of Whiteness?
One way is to encourage a way of learning, instead of encouraging students to learn certain facts. This way, students can develop a critical approach to any material, not to digest and internalize hidden biases, not to accept historical truths as universally valid, and to recognize their place in the world while still understanding that learning is where both the present and past come together. Another way would be to directly talk about Whiteness, or maybe more generally racism, to address the issues in class. A third way would be to make sure that what I as a teacher am teaching is sensitive to a standard of a universal history and open to future possibility.
Tatum Chapter 2: The Complexity of Identity -- "Who am I?"
Tatum writes in Chapter 2:
"The truth is that dominants do not really know what the experience of the subordinates is. In contrast, the subordinates are very well informed about the dominants. Even when firsthand experience is limited by social segregation, the number and variety of images of the dominant group available through television, magazines, books, and newspapers provide subordinates with plenty of information about the dominants" (24).
The question that might be asked is:
Why do white people dominate representations of culture in the media?
But for discussion I would like to ask: Is it understood that television, magazines, books, and newspapers give a fair representation of anyone with whom you would happen to have a "firsthand experience"? Is popular culture actually representative of what is lived on a personal level?
Tatum later writes in Chapter 3 about how her son, watching a Black man running down the street, asked if he was running away from a crime scene. Tatum asserts that his cultural biases were taken from common misrepresentations of Black men in the media. This was something she felt had to be corrected right away. So, using Tatum's terms, if the media does not portray "the subordinates" properly, is it fair to say that they portray "the dominants" in an accurate and fair represenation? Or is media always somewhat of a misrepresentation, and we should be investigating not "the truth" of how one group in society knows about another WITHOUT ANY "FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE," but instead where we really learn about others. When we talk about knowing the experience of others, we cannot overlook the fact that this knowledge should remain at a personal level--for it is there, face to face, that we really get to know people as people, not as a "dominant" or a "subordinate." On a personal level, we look each other in the eye and share our lives, and that is the only acceptable and "true" form of knowledge we can have of anyone else, regardless of whether they are a "dominant" or "subordinate."
Maybe we could address the problem here raised by Tatum by focusing on how and why we are not informed by "first-hand experience." Instead we rely on representations of reality for our knowledge of the world and of others before we even meet them.
"The truth is that dominants do not really know what the experience of the subordinates is. In contrast, the subordinates are very well informed about the dominants. Even when firsthand experience is limited by social segregation, the number and variety of images of the dominant group available through television, magazines, books, and newspapers provide subordinates with plenty of information about the dominants" (24).
The question that might be asked is:
Why do white people dominate representations of culture in the media?
But for discussion I would like to ask: Is it understood that television, magazines, books, and newspapers give a fair representation of anyone with whom you would happen to have a "firsthand experience"? Is popular culture actually representative of what is lived on a personal level?
Tatum later writes in Chapter 3 about how her son, watching a Black man running down the street, asked if he was running away from a crime scene. Tatum asserts that his cultural biases were taken from common misrepresentations of Black men in the media. This was something she felt had to be corrected right away. So, using Tatum's terms, if the media does not portray "the subordinates" properly, is it fair to say that they portray "the dominants" in an accurate and fair represenation? Or is media always somewhat of a misrepresentation, and we should be investigating not "the truth" of how one group in society knows about another WITHOUT ANY "FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE," but instead where we really learn about others. When we talk about knowing the experience of others, we cannot overlook the fact that this knowledge should remain at a personal level--for it is there, face to face, that we really get to know people as people, not as a "dominant" or a "subordinate." On a personal level, we look each other in the eye and share our lives, and that is the only acceptable and "true" form of knowledge we can have of anyone else, regardless of whether they are a "dominant" or "subordinate."
Maybe we could address the problem here raised by Tatum by focusing on how and why we are not informed by "first-hand experience." Instead we rely on representations of reality for our knowledge of the world and of others before we even meet them.
Tatum Chapter 3: "Is my skin brown because I drink chocolate milk?"
Tatum writes in Chapter 3:
"In her book Sisters of the Yam, bell hooks relates a conversation she had with a Black woman frustrated by her daughter's desire for long blond hair, despite their family's effort to affirm their Blackness. Observing the woman's dark skin and straightened hair, she encouraged the mother to examine her own attitudes about skin colour and hair texture to see what messages she might be communicating to her child by the way she constructed her own body image"(46).
A question that arises out of this text is: Why do we all feel pressured to transform our natural bodies into artifices of "beauty"? And, more revealingly, what ideal form are we inclined to strive for, if there is a single particular one, and why have we adopted it?
This is one of the most fundamental and pressing questions that we can ask ourselves at any time, in any place. I can't answer it for everyone, but I think that if we all really gave it some thought, we might peel off layers that we put on, or we might feel more conviction for those that we do. But it is one thing to internalize self-destructive ideals without thinking about it, another to be conscious of the way we "carry" and care for ourselves.
And secondly, how much of this hurt (I don't know how else to describe it) can be traced to the way young minds integrate examples that older generations provide into their personal understanding of the "way things are"?
This is again a large question but one that may elicit a greater understanding of our place in between the world we inherit and the way we leave it to future generations. When confronting this issue, my thoughts often turn to lines from Kanye West's "Bring Me Down" (Late Registration, 2005). West maintains:
"You see, if you ever wanted to be anything
It always be somebody that would shoot down any dream
There always be haters, that's the way it is
Hater niggas marry hater bitches and have hater kids."
Unfortunately, we are all fallible human beings, we internalize pain, insecurity, and anger and also are the ones given the responsibility of preserving and propagating human life. The mother described in bell hook's Sisters of the Yam has for whatever reason chosen to straighten her hair, and I think it is very important not to judge her choice as a type of weakness, in the context of what Tatum describes as an "affirmation of their Blackness." Her daughter has chosen to dye her hair blonde. This choice may have nothing to do with negating her Blackness but with affirming some other ideal. Unfortunately, for both women, the ideal form they embody is one that is not natural. But everyone does this, supercede the natural to become an ideal. Hopefully the ideal will be a healthy one.
As discouraging as the predicament may seem, there is hope. This hope resides in the power that we hold as inhabitants of this earth, the power to transform the world we have been given into something better for our children.
West continues in a positive affirmation of this very power conferred by our own responsibility:
"But they gon have to take my life fore they take my drive
Cause when I was barely livin that's what kept me alive
Just the thought that maybe it could be better than where we at this time
Make ya out of this grind before I'm out of my mind."
--http://www.kanyeuniversecity.com/
"In her book Sisters of the Yam, bell hooks relates a conversation she had with a Black woman frustrated by her daughter's desire for long blond hair, despite their family's effort to affirm their Blackness. Observing the woman's dark skin and straightened hair, she encouraged the mother to examine her own attitudes about skin colour and hair texture to see what messages she might be communicating to her child by the way she constructed her own body image"(46).
A question that arises out of this text is: Why do we all feel pressured to transform our natural bodies into artifices of "beauty"? And, more revealingly, what ideal form are we inclined to strive for, if there is a single particular one, and why have we adopted it?
This is one of the most fundamental and pressing questions that we can ask ourselves at any time, in any place. I can't answer it for everyone, but I think that if we all really gave it some thought, we might peel off layers that we put on, or we might feel more conviction for those that we do. But it is one thing to internalize self-destructive ideals without thinking about it, another to be conscious of the way we "carry" and care for ourselves.
And secondly, how much of this hurt (I don't know how else to describe it) can be traced to the way young minds integrate examples that older generations provide into their personal understanding of the "way things are"?
This is again a large question but one that may elicit a greater understanding of our place in between the world we inherit and the way we leave it to future generations. When confronting this issue, my thoughts often turn to lines from Kanye West's "Bring Me Down" (Late Registration, 2005). West maintains:
"You see, if you ever wanted to be anything
It always be somebody that would shoot down any dream
There always be haters, that's the way it is
Hater niggas marry hater bitches and have hater kids."
Unfortunately, we are all fallible human beings, we internalize pain, insecurity, and anger and also are the ones given the responsibility of preserving and propagating human life. The mother described in bell hook's Sisters of the Yam has for whatever reason chosen to straighten her hair, and I think it is very important not to judge her choice as a type of weakness, in the context of what Tatum describes as an "affirmation of their Blackness." Her daughter has chosen to dye her hair blonde. This choice may have nothing to do with negating her Blackness but with affirming some other ideal. Unfortunately, for both women, the ideal form they embody is one that is not natural. But everyone does this, supercede the natural to become an ideal. Hopefully the ideal will be a healthy one.
As discouraging as the predicament may seem, there is hope. This hope resides in the power that we hold as inhabitants of this earth, the power to transform the world we have been given into something better for our children.
West continues in a positive affirmation of this very power conferred by our own responsibility:
"But they gon have to take my life fore they take my drive
Cause when I was barely livin that's what kept me alive
Just the thought that maybe it could be better than where we at this time
Make ya out of this grind before I'm out of my mind."
--http://www.kanyeuniversecity.com/
Monday, October 1, 2007
Reading my last post, I can understand how it might seem that I was making light of a serious subject. In no way was I trying to be facetious. I was frustrated at the dialogue, and wanted to simplify my point and make it as clear as possible. I was having trouble getting my head around the way "culture" and "race" are brought together. It seemed that the more you thought about race and culture, the less sense it made to try to define them.
Yet I do understand how, in a multicultural society, cultural items and representations should reflect the true nature of that society. This is not always the case, and this point was made particularly clear in the reading. We look at prime time television, advertisements, the image of "Jesus Christ," fashion houses, "old boys" clubs--all different reflections and determinating forces of values, and notice how dominant the image of "white" as power or beauty is in many spheres.
I would like to think that this trend is changing. If I understand Berry's point correctly, however, I am led to think about how while it may not be strictly white people in charge in today's culturally dominant or "mainstream" North American society, it has been white people that set the terms of power and how power is to be gained. That is, the major players are not necessarily white, but the game that they must play to be powerful is one whose rules were determined for the most part by white people years ago.
I am thinking now of the documentary in theatres now, In the Shadow of the Moon, about the American astronauts who traveled to the moon in the past century. It strikes me today that all of the 24 astronauts were white men. It was not explicit that this was a cause for concern back when the spacecrafts were actually being built. While this fact glares at you throughout the film, we cannot discount the cultural achievement of actually building the Apollo spacecrafts and going up out into space. That they were all white speaks to something very ugly about the American culture of the time. But the dominant social, economic, and political culture of America sent human beings into outer space. The science behind and experience of space travel was interesting to me, and seemed of primary interest to the astronauts themselves.
Unfortunately the facts speak for themselves but I would like to hope for the future. Whatever culture may come to be, substantially or meaningfully, hopefully we will be open-minded enough not to uphold any one culture over another, or any one race over another. Hopefully we will be open-minded enough not to engage in any form of prejudice, traditional or otherwise.
Yet I do understand how, in a multicultural society, cultural items and representations should reflect the true nature of that society. This is not always the case, and this point was made particularly clear in the reading. We look at prime time television, advertisements, the image of "Jesus Christ," fashion houses, "old boys" clubs--all different reflections and determinating forces of values, and notice how dominant the image of "white" as power or beauty is in many spheres.
I would like to think that this trend is changing. If I understand Berry's point correctly, however, I am led to think about how while it may not be strictly white people in charge in today's culturally dominant or "mainstream" North American society, it has been white people that set the terms of power and how power is to be gained. That is, the major players are not necessarily white, but the game that they must play to be powerful is one whose rules were determined for the most part by white people years ago.
I am thinking now of the documentary in theatres now, In the Shadow of the Moon, about the American astronauts who traveled to the moon in the past century. It strikes me today that all of the 24 astronauts were white men. It was not explicit that this was a cause for concern back when the spacecrafts were actually being built. While this fact glares at you throughout the film, we cannot discount the cultural achievement of actually building the Apollo spacecrafts and going up out into space. That they were all white speaks to something very ugly about the American culture of the time. But the dominant social, economic, and political culture of America sent human beings into outer space. The science behind and experience of space travel was interesting to me, and seemed of primary interest to the astronauts themselves.
Unfortunately the facts speak for themselves but I would like to hope for the future. Whatever culture may come to be, substantially or meaningfully, hopefully we will be open-minded enough not to uphold any one culture over another, or any one race over another. Hopefully we will be open-minded enough not to engage in any form of prejudice, traditional or otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)