1. Robert is an eighth grade student who often dresses and acts in a traditionally “feminine” manner. One day, Robert wears a skirt and blouse to school. His teacher sends him to the principal’s office with a request that Robert be sent home to change his clothes.
Did the teacher take the right action? Why or why not?
The teacher did not take the right action. It is up to the teacher to set an example towards dealing with students who are still figuring out their gender identity. By sending Robert to the principal's office, the teacher is showing that what he did was wrong, essentially telling the other students that there is something wrong with Robert.
What kinds of questions, if any, should the Principal ask Robert?
I believe the Principal should ask questions in a non-accusing tone, such as why he felt better in feminine clothing, if only to determine how Robert feels about his gender identity. If Robert feels uncomfortable talking about it, I think it would be better not to push it. Also, I think it should be determined if Robert's parents know about his trangenderness, and whether they are comfortable with it, or if they would punish him, adding to the discrimination he already encounters.
Should Robert’s parent(s) or guardian(s) be called? If so, when?
I think that if Robert's parents know and are supportive of Robert's questions, they should be called to discuss how to better accommodate Robert at school. If all a phone call would do would be to make things worse, I would say that a phone call would not be advisable.
What kind(s) of referrals to resources could the Principal or another school employee give to Robert?
The school should put Robert into contact with a GSA, or a group that would allow him to feel less alone in his quest for gender identity. Also, it would be helpful for someone to come into the school to talk to the staff about how to successfully deal with students with Gender Identity questions.
What, if anything, should Robert’s classmates be told?
As I said above, I think it would be good to have someone come in and talk to the students about what it is like to be Queer Gendered. It might make things less confusing for the students, and be a place for them to ask questions.
2.Cameron identifies as transgender and would like to use the boy’s restroom at his school. He presents as male and uses male pronouns. When he tries to use the boy’s restroom, he is often harassed and taunted in the facility and school staff and students always tell him to use the girl’s restroom. Fed-up with the harassment, he asks the principal for a gender-neutral bathroom.
How should the principal address Cameron’s situation in a way that is confidential and respectful of Cameron?
I think that a gender-neutral bathroom would be a good idea. The Principal could propose a gender neutral bathroom for the school, not stating specifically that it is for transgender students.
What can teachers and administrators do to ensure his safety, while respecting him as a transgender student?
Teachers and administrators should emphasize that Cameron is to be referred to as a boy, and that harassment will not be tolerated. Gender neutral bathrooms would also help the situation immensely, as Cameron would not be harassed for going in the wrong bathroom.
How can Cameron be supported mentally and emotionally in a way that affirms his gender identity?
If it is made clear that Cameron is to be referred to in masculine pronouns, as well as requiring that staff and students to learn about what it is to be transgender, Cameron's life would probably become a little easier.
What should the principal do to train staff about their obligations to protect transgender students from harassment and discrimination?
Someone who is well versed in Transgender and Queergender identities should come to the school to teach the staff how to be supportive and protective of transgendered students.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
GWN- The Whiteness of Educational Policy Making
How should whiteness be broached within an institutional context by those who may not be in a position of power?
I believe that discourse is the best way to broach the topic of whiteness in an institutional context. Those without power are not able to make changes in government/ institutional policy, so the only thing to do is bring the concept of whiteness and its privileges to the front of people's minds. In no way to I mean to protest or demonstrate, to decry the lack of foresight on the part of our institutions, but merely to help white friends and colleagues question the seemingly obvious status quo of white supremacy.
How should Whites be made aware of, and become engaged in, the conceptualization and application of race and anti-racism?
Whites need to understand the inherent privilege and dominance that comes from being White in our white dominant society. This is a hard topic to bridge with most white people, as no one wants to be seen as a racist, and most white people are not individually racist. It's difficult then, for white people to understand that all of their experiences embody an inherent racism. How can this be done? I think a good way would be Carr's example, in which he tells people to imagine a room full of black people. "How would you like it if you were the only White with 11 Black people around the boardroom-table, and every time you spoke the others would smile and whisper to each other that this is the White perspective?" (Carr 229) Imagining this scenario made it easier for me to understand where non-whites are coming from. Also, to become engaged with the conceptualization and application of race and anti-racism, whites have to come to the understanding that there is racism, albeit institutional, and the fact that we are racist doesn't make us evil. Racism will never disappear as long as it is ignored, which is the knee-jerk response of so many institutions in Canada.
I believe that discourse is the best way to broach the topic of whiteness in an institutional context. Those without power are not able to make changes in government/ institutional policy, so the only thing to do is bring the concept of whiteness and its privileges to the front of people's minds. In no way to I mean to protest or demonstrate, to decry the lack of foresight on the part of our institutions, but merely to help white friends and colleagues question the seemingly obvious status quo of white supremacy.
How should Whites be made aware of, and become engaged in, the conceptualization and application of race and anti-racism?
Whites need to understand the inherent privilege and dominance that comes from being White in our white dominant society. This is a hard topic to bridge with most white people, as no one wants to be seen as a racist, and most white people are not individually racist. It's difficult then, for white people to understand that all of their experiences embody an inherent racism. How can this be done? I think a good way would be Carr's example, in which he tells people to imagine a room full of black people. "How would you like it if you were the only White with 11 Black people around the boardroom-table, and every time you spoke the others would smile and whisper to each other that this is the White perspective?" (Carr 229) Imagining this scenario made it easier for me to understand where non-whites are coming from. Also, to become engaged with the conceptualization and application of race and anti-racism, whites have to come to the understanding that there is racism, albeit institutional, and the fact that we are racist doesn't make us evil. Racism will never disappear as long as it is ignored, which is the knee-jerk response of so many institutions in Canada.
GWN- A group that plays together stays together?
1.How does the framework of interlocking oppressions reframe issues of girl violence? How does this theoretical lens also challenge the saliency of class to explain the scenario between the groups of young women?
People are subjected to many forms of oppression. Whether it be race, gender, class or even age, these oppressions are not cut and dry, and people experience oppression in different amounts. The "framework of interlocking oppressions" factors strongly in determining who is the oppressor, and who is the oppressed. In the case of girl violence, all women, white and coloured, can be said to be oppressed by our patriarchal society. It is then difficult for white girls to also see themselves as oppressors in other situations. These frames of oppression also make it hard for society to see these girls as oppressors, as they're generally viewed as victims. We then come to the conclusions that there is no oppression, or that it is not the white girls' fault, as they are victims, and how can a victim victimize someone else?
Also, the different frameworks of oppression that come in to play when dealing with girl violence make it difficult to point out one area of oppression as the cause of problems. As Charania writes, "...systems of oppression come into existence in and through one another so that class exploitation could not be accomplished without gender and racial hierarchies." (213) That schools can ignore racial oppression and focus solely on the class divisions is irresponsible, and continues to lend to the idea of White society's disownership of racism.
2.What kind of anti-racist pedagogical interventions might emerge from a more critical reading of the incidents between these groups of young women?
If these instances of violence were seen as societally influenced, and less as individual misunderstandings, different approaches to intervention would emerge. The group of white students need to understand their role, unwittingly or not, as oppressors, and their power and privilege they hold. Only once their whiteness is shown to them would they be able to begin to understand the differences in their experiences compared to their black, working-class peers. Schools seem to be aimed at instilling society's ideas of White privilege in young students, which makes the acknowledgment of whiteness in educational settings that much more important.
People are subjected to many forms of oppression. Whether it be race, gender, class or even age, these oppressions are not cut and dry, and people experience oppression in different amounts. The "framework of interlocking oppressions" factors strongly in determining who is the oppressor, and who is the oppressed. In the case of girl violence, all women, white and coloured, can be said to be oppressed by our patriarchal society. It is then difficult for white girls to also see themselves as oppressors in other situations. These frames of oppression also make it hard for society to see these girls as oppressors, as they're generally viewed as victims. We then come to the conclusions that there is no oppression, or that it is not the white girls' fault, as they are victims, and how can a victim victimize someone else?
Also, the different frameworks of oppression that come in to play when dealing with girl violence make it difficult to point out one area of oppression as the cause of problems. As Charania writes, "...systems of oppression come into existence in and through one another so that class exploitation could not be accomplished without gender and racial hierarchies." (213) That schools can ignore racial oppression and focus solely on the class divisions is irresponsible, and continues to lend to the idea of White society's disownership of racism.
2.What kind of anti-racist pedagogical interventions might emerge from a more critical reading of the incidents between these groups of young women?
If these instances of violence were seen as societally influenced, and less as individual misunderstandings, different approaches to intervention would emerge. The group of white students need to understand their role, unwittingly or not, as oppressors, and their power and privilege they hold. Only once their whiteness is shown to them would they be able to begin to understand the differences in their experiences compared to their black, working-class peers. Schools seem to be aimed at instilling society's ideas of White privilege in young students, which makes the acknowledgment of whiteness in educational settings that much more important.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Chapter 10- Great White North?
How is the Holocaust taken up in the curriculum? How does teaching about the Holocaust compare to teaching about Israel? About Palestinians and the Middle East? About other Genocides?
My only experience "learning" about the Holocaust in school was in my grade 10 Canadian History course. We spent three periods watching "Schindler's List". It had to be explained to my teacher that the "snow" falling in Auschwitz was not actual snow, but ashes from the cremated bodies. Obviously, she was not very knowledgeable on the subject. Other than that, the topic of the Holocaust, or Genocide, was never bridged. Instead, I have had to do my own reading and research on the topic. My general feeling is that the Holocaust is thought of as an independent, historical event. Few books that I have read on the subject relate it to anything but the Second World War, even though the correlation between the Holocaust and other Genocides such as Rwanda are very clear. Also, much more attention is given to the Holocaust than to teachings about Israel, Palestine or the Middle East.
Why is this?
Although Judaism is prominent in the Middle East, and is an important factor in Israel/Palestinian conflicts, most Jewish people living in Canada, unlike the Middle East, are White. Jewish communities in Canada relate more, and have a closer personal history to the Holocaust, than in the conflicts affecting non-white Jews in other parts of the world. White society in general is more concerned with itself than any other ethnic group, but it's interesting to see, when it comes to important watersheds in Jewish history, that most Canadian Jews put more importance in their ethnicity (White) than in their religion. This aspect of Whiteness also lends to the comparatively small amount of attention paid to the Rwandan Genocide. As White people are concerned with themselves, it makes sense that our society would find the Holocaust more pertinent and worthy of attention than a Genocide that does not affect White Canada personally. More attention to these conflicts should be payed, but it is not until our society realizes that we have to make a conscious effort that anything will be done.
My only experience "learning" about the Holocaust in school was in my grade 10 Canadian History course. We spent three periods watching "Schindler's List". It had to be explained to my teacher that the "snow" falling in Auschwitz was not actual snow, but ashes from the cremated bodies. Obviously, she was not very knowledgeable on the subject. Other than that, the topic of the Holocaust, or Genocide, was never bridged. Instead, I have had to do my own reading and research on the topic. My general feeling is that the Holocaust is thought of as an independent, historical event. Few books that I have read on the subject relate it to anything but the Second World War, even though the correlation between the Holocaust and other Genocides such as Rwanda are very clear. Also, much more attention is given to the Holocaust than to teachings about Israel, Palestine or the Middle East.
Why is this?
Although Judaism is prominent in the Middle East, and is an important factor in Israel/Palestinian conflicts, most Jewish people living in Canada, unlike the Middle East, are White. Jewish communities in Canada relate more, and have a closer personal history to the Holocaust, than in the conflicts affecting non-white Jews in other parts of the world. White society in general is more concerned with itself than any other ethnic group, but it's interesting to see, when it comes to important watersheds in Jewish history, that most Canadian Jews put more importance in their ethnicity (White) than in their religion. This aspect of Whiteness also lends to the comparatively small amount of attention paid to the Rwandan Genocide. As White people are concerned with themselves, it makes sense that our society would find the Holocaust more pertinent and worthy of attention than a Genocide that does not affect White Canada personally. More attention to these conflicts should be payed, but it is not until our society realizes that we have to make a conscious effort that anything will be done.
Monday, October 29, 2007
GWN? Chap 5.
1. Are institutions White?
Most institutions, both academic and economic are White, in a few ways. Academia and the business world are very powerful and privileged institutions, lending themselves well to the White identity of power and privelege. The fact that most institutions are based on White values and are run by White people also would help classify these instutions as White. The culture that dominates these institutions is also White. In Tracey Lindberg's article, she talks about how in the academic institution, there are professors (mostly white) and there are "indian professors". You cannot be a minority and still be just a professor. Your identity is forever tied into your cultural background. If these institutions were not inherently White, the cultural and ethnic background of its employees would not be an issue. Either that, or professors would always be referred to by their ethnic background. (ie. white professor)
2.Does surviving institutional whiteness require individual or institutional responses? What examples do you have?
You cannot expect the institution of Whiteness to make allowances for those who struggle to survive it. If surviving institutional whiteness required institutional responses, there would not be such a problem with forced assimilation etc. Granted, in a perfect world it would be up to the institution to make sure that everyone's opinion, identity and place in the institution were seen as equal and important. Obviously it is not a perfect world, and therefore it is up to the individual to fight against institutional whiteness. In Lindberg's article, she says "Participating in non-Indigenous, Western educational institutions requires anti-colonial approaches" (Lindberg, p. 67) Basically, a person must answer for, defend and advocate one's cultural and ethnic background in a institutionally white setting, in order to fight against the assimilation and colonialism that is inherent in the White society that everyone lives in. Lindberg gives advice on how to do this, by emphasizing that indigeous people should remember that they are not part of the White culture, are visitors and trail blazers for their respective communities. The sojourn into White institutions are mandatory but will eventually lead to a "coming home" where indigeous peoples will create a strong and seperate culture. To me, this advice seems hostile, and though I do not understand where she is coming from as a woman of aboriginal heritage, it doesn't seem proactive to me to constantly fight against the system. To beat any system, I feel it is smarter to use it to your advantage, rather than rebel against it.
Most institutions, both academic and economic are White, in a few ways. Academia and the business world are very powerful and privileged institutions, lending themselves well to the White identity of power and privelege. The fact that most institutions are based on White values and are run by White people also would help classify these instutions as White. The culture that dominates these institutions is also White. In Tracey Lindberg's article, she talks about how in the academic institution, there are professors (mostly white) and there are "indian professors". You cannot be a minority and still be just a professor. Your identity is forever tied into your cultural background. If these institutions were not inherently White, the cultural and ethnic background of its employees would not be an issue. Either that, or professors would always be referred to by their ethnic background. (ie. white professor)
2.Does surviving institutional whiteness require individual or institutional responses? What examples do you have?
You cannot expect the institution of Whiteness to make allowances for those who struggle to survive it. If surviving institutional whiteness required institutional responses, there would not be such a problem with forced assimilation etc. Granted, in a perfect world it would be up to the institution to make sure that everyone's opinion, identity and place in the institution were seen as equal and important. Obviously it is not a perfect world, and therefore it is up to the individual to fight against institutional whiteness. In Lindberg's article, she says "Participating in non-Indigenous, Western educational institutions requires anti-colonial approaches" (Lindberg, p. 67) Basically, a person must answer for, defend and advocate one's cultural and ethnic background in a institutionally white setting, in order to fight against the assimilation and colonialism that is inherent in the White society that everyone lives in. Lindberg gives advice on how to do this, by emphasizing that indigeous people should remember that they are not part of the White culture, are visitors and trail blazers for their respective communities. The sojourn into White institutions are mandatory but will eventually lead to a "coming home" where indigeous peoples will create a strong and seperate culture. To me, this advice seems hostile, and though I do not understand where she is coming from as a woman of aboriginal heritage, it doesn't seem proactive to me to constantly fight against the system. To beat any system, I feel it is smarter to use it to your advantage, rather than rebel against it.
Great White North- Chap.4
1. How is being White problematic for an instructor who is teaching aboriginal students?
Being White does not allow a teacher to relate to her aboriginal students. Students don't feel like you understand where their coming from, and rightly so. The typical White Euro-Canadian's historical experience has little in common with the historical experiences of aboriginal people's. In the chapter, the author expressed a desire to help the underprivileged people on a reserve, but the response he received was "White boy, we don't need your help. We'll take care of our own problems." (Northcott, p.57) There is such an atmosphere of "mind your own business" that it is difficult for a White teacher to really connect with her aboriginal students, and therefore it is difficult to really teach.
2.Can a White instructor become "culturally sensitive" and, if so, how can cultural sensitivity be practiced in the classroom?
It's important to remember the difference between being sensitive to the distances between two cultures, and to actually understanding them. I believe that a White instructor can become culturally sensitive up to a point, but without living and experiencing not just the culture, but also the historical implications and prejudices, a teacher can not completely understand what it is to be a part of that culture. Some things a White teacher could do to become culturally sensitive are to learn the ways of aboriginal culture, such as ways of communicating and pedagogy. These can be applied to the classroom to lessen the requirement that aboriginal students assimilate to White pedagogy, and hopefully create a more pleasant and safe environment to learn in. In "Going Native", Northcott removed himself as facilitator of class discussion to create a learning environment that fit more with the experiences of his Cree students. This also did away with the ultimate White dominance in his classroom, by letting the students take control and discuss things that were important to them.
Being White does not allow a teacher to relate to her aboriginal students. Students don't feel like you understand where their coming from, and rightly so. The typical White Euro-Canadian's historical experience has little in common with the historical experiences of aboriginal people's. In the chapter, the author expressed a desire to help the underprivileged people on a reserve, but the response he received was "White boy, we don't need your help. We'll take care of our own problems." (Northcott, p.57) There is such an atmosphere of "mind your own business" that it is difficult for a White teacher to really connect with her aboriginal students, and therefore it is difficult to really teach.
2.Can a White instructor become "culturally sensitive" and, if so, how can cultural sensitivity be practiced in the classroom?
It's important to remember the difference between being sensitive to the distances between two cultures, and to actually understanding them. I believe that a White instructor can become culturally sensitive up to a point, but without living and experiencing not just the culture, but also the historical implications and prejudices, a teacher can not completely understand what it is to be a part of that culture. Some things a White teacher could do to become culturally sensitive are to learn the ways of aboriginal culture, such as ways of communicating and pedagogy. These can be applied to the classroom to lessen the requirement that aboriginal students assimilate to White pedagogy, and hopefully create a more pleasant and safe environment to learn in. In "Going Native", Northcott removed himself as facilitator of class discussion to create a learning environment that fit more with the experiences of his Cree students. This also did away with the ultimate White dominance in his classroom, by letting the students take control and discuss things that were important to them.
Monday, October 22, 2007
The Great White North-- p. 51
Question 1: How can I, as a white teacher, approach the concept of systematic white privilege in my classroom, when I don't understand it fully myself?
Answer 1: As a teacher, I need to step outside myself, and look at systematic white privilege as if I'm not white. I can look at textbooks and other elements in my classroom and create discussion with my students.
Question 2: How can we change our education system so that it doesn't perpetuate the idea of white privilege?
Answer 2: All teachers, especially those who are white, should be required to take a class that emphasizes how the idea of white privilege is apparent everywhere, and what we as educators can do to help eliminate the hypocrisy in the classroom. I'm sure that many teachers don't even know it exists.
Answer 1: As a teacher, I need to step outside myself, and look at systematic white privilege as if I'm not white. I can look at textbooks and other elements in my classroom and create discussion with my students.
Question 2: How can we change our education system so that it doesn't perpetuate the idea of white privilege?
Answer 2: All teachers, especially those who are white, should be required to take a class that emphasizes how the idea of white privilege is apparent everywhere, and what we as educators can do to help eliminate the hypocrisy in the classroom. I'm sure that many teachers don't even know it exists.
p. 43-45 The Great White North
"Whites do not recognize or acknowledge their unearned racial privileges because whiteness operates by being invisible, so ubiquitous and entrenched as to appear natural and normative." p. 45
1. White people do not understand the privileges they receive from society, because whiteness as a concept operates by pretending not to exist. 2. This makes the concept of whiteness controversial, as the very people who experience the privileges do not even see themselves as "white", but as people in general, not classified. This is dangerous, as this thought brings forward the thought that this is the way normal people should be treated. Like Frideres, I believe that ignoring whiteness as a concept sidelines other ethnic groups, and alienates those without the privilege of whiteness as not normative, almost classifying them as not people, but as whatever their ethnic group is.
1. White people do not understand the privileges they receive from society, because whiteness as a concept operates by pretending not to exist. 2. This makes the concept of whiteness controversial, as the very people who experience the privileges do not even see themselves as "white", but as people in general, not classified. This is dangerous, as this thought brings forward the thought that this is the way normal people should be treated. Like Frideres, I believe that ignoring whiteness as a concept sidelines other ethnic groups, and alienates those without the privilege of whiteness as not normative, almost classifying them as not people, but as whatever their ethnic group is.
Monday, October 15, 2007
2 Questions- The Authority of Whiteness
1. In what way has Whiteness entered you life in Canada as either privilege and/or oppression?
Being from a very homogeneous white protestant town, my whiteness was there, although not glaring, from day one. There was never a conscious sense of privilege related to my whiteness, but unconsciously my whiteness afforded me a very easy life. My history corresponded well with the subjects I learned in school. Everything I learned seemed to fit well into my real-life experiences. My friends were all white, the tv shows and books we read echoed our identity. Although I didn't realize it at the time, I was very lucky to be white in a society that privileges whiteness. It made everything so easy and non-controversial.
Living in Montreal has allowed me to recognize the privileges given to me as a white woman in Canada. The first step has been taken, and now I need to work on recognizing inherent racism in print, media and my relationships.
2. What are the limits of the privileges of Whiteness in your daily life?
In my everyday interactions with peers, sometimes my whiteness is seen less as a privilege and more as a joke. When talking with friends from different ethinc backgrounds, sometimes my whiteness is categorized as geeky, awkward and not as cool as my black friends. When trying to dance to hip-hop music, or sing along to a rap song, my friends will comment, "Ali, you're so white." as if my whiteness does not allow my to appreciate popular culture as well as my black friends. My whiteness is still a privilege, but mostly on a larger social scale. In individual interactions, my whiteness is not seen as better, but sometimes as sad and not cool.
Being from a very homogeneous white protestant town, my whiteness was there, although not glaring, from day one. There was never a conscious sense of privilege related to my whiteness, but unconsciously my whiteness afforded me a very easy life. My history corresponded well with the subjects I learned in school. Everything I learned seemed to fit well into my real-life experiences. My friends were all white, the tv shows and books we read echoed our identity. Although I didn't realize it at the time, I was very lucky to be white in a society that privileges whiteness. It made everything so easy and non-controversial.
Living in Montreal has allowed me to recognize the privileges given to me as a white woman in Canada. The first step has been taken, and now I need to work on recognizing inherent racism in print, media and my relationships.
2. What are the limits of the privileges of Whiteness in your daily life?
In my everyday interactions with peers, sometimes my whiteness is seen less as a privilege and more as a joke. When talking with friends from different ethinc backgrounds, sometimes my whiteness is categorized as geeky, awkward and not as cool as my black friends. When trying to dance to hip-hop music, or sing along to a rap song, my friends will comment, "Ali, you're so white." as if my whiteness does not allow my to appreciate popular culture as well as my black friends. My whiteness is still a privilege, but mostly on a larger social scale. In individual interactions, my whiteness is not seen as better, but sometimes as sad and not cool.
When Race Breaks Out- Advice
In Chapter 8 of "When Race Breaks Out", Fox gives advice to avoid a student having to speak for their entire ethnic group. She says teachers should clarify that individual experiences vary, no matter what ethnic group students are from. She then says that teachers should validate everyone's experiences, and imply the importance of all these points of view.
I like this exercise, as it allows students to remember that even though we can be classified into ethnic groups, we are all still individuals with different viewpoints and experiences. Discussion about issues can be so much more profound if we don't assume a certain group to be homogeneous and experience the same things. With discussion, people's individual identities would become even more apparent, leading to a more open and multi-cultural classroom.
I like this exercise, as it allows students to remember that even though we can be classified into ethnic groups, we are all still individuals with different viewpoints and experiences. Discussion about issues can be so much more profound if we don't assume a certain group to be homogeneous and experience the same things. With discussion, people's individual identities would become even more apparent, leading to a more open and multi-cultural classroom.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Why have we as a society become so politically correct, that we cannot identify people by race?
In Beverly Daniel Tatum's "Why are all the black kids sitting together in the Cafeteria" And Other Conversations About Race, she tells a story about a father who, in picking up his young daughter from school, asked her to point out a new friend that she had been talking about. She described her, but did not mention that she was the only black child in her group of friends. The father was pleased, as he saw this as a sign of his daughter's colour blindness. Tatum saw it differently, and thought that is wasn't that the daughter didn't notice the colour of her skin, but merely that she was taught that it's not appropriate to identify people by skin colour.
I believe that our society tries much to hard to make "race" a bad word. True, our identities should not revolve around our race or place of origin, as that does not make a person, but when trying to describe a person to someone who doesn't know them, why is it "racist" to describe them as "the one who's Asian", when they are in fact the only Asian person in the room?
In areas where traditionally the dominant group has somehow treated the subdominant group badly, today we in society feel bad about using the classifiers of those areas as categorization. It's as if, in using the words "fat", "gay", or "black", you're somehow demeaning the person. These words are now like swear words in some contexts, not appropriate for public consumption.
What is wrong with using those words in a purely recognizable context? If I am with a group of friends in which I am the only Caucasian, I don't mind being called the "white girl", because I am. We need to move away from the idea that being black, or gay are somehow bad, and if we stop shying away from using the words, we will come that much closer to an equal society.
I believe that our society tries much to hard to make "race" a bad word. True, our identities should not revolve around our race or place of origin, as that does not make a person, but when trying to describe a person to someone who doesn't know them, why is it "racist" to describe them as "the one who's Asian", when they are in fact the only Asian person in the room?
In areas where traditionally the dominant group has somehow treated the subdominant group badly, today we in society feel bad about using the classifiers of those areas as categorization. It's as if, in using the words "fat", "gay", or "black", you're somehow demeaning the person. These words are now like swear words in some contexts, not appropriate for public consumption.
What is wrong with using those words in a purely recognizable context? If I am with a group of friends in which I am the only Caucasian, I don't mind being called the "white girl", because I am. We need to move away from the idea that being black, or gay are somehow bad, and if we stop shying away from using the words, we will come that much closer to an equal society.
If your identity is based on what others see, how can you really have your own identity?
Erikson has said that the formation of identity is a process of reflection and observation, and is related to how people see you; in short they are the mirror in which your identity comes to life.
I see a fundamental issue in this view. If you form your identity based on the views of other people, how is it YOUR identity? I believe that identities should be formed on careful inner reflection, about what you want and what you believe in, not on how other people see you. If we did not rely on how the world sees us to form our identities, they would be more personal, and less about physical outward appearances. Your identity could be, "I'm the person who loves piano and monster movies." Not, "I'm the Italian girl who loves playing piano, Bellini was Italian too."
There is no need to categorize ourselves in such simple terms, and when we stop making things we have no control over (such as skin colour, race etc.) part of our integral identity, we as a society will be that much closer to being equal.
I see a fundamental issue in this view. If you form your identity based on the views of other people, how is it YOUR identity? I believe that identities should be formed on careful inner reflection, about what you want and what you believe in, not on how other people see you. If we did not rely on how the world sees us to form our identities, they would be more personal, and less about physical outward appearances. Your identity could be, "I'm the person who loves piano and monster movies." Not, "I'm the Italian girl who loves playing piano, Bellini was Italian too."
There is no need to categorize ourselves in such simple terms, and when we stop making things we have no control over (such as skin colour, race etc.) part of our integral identity, we as a society will be that much closer to being equal.
Monday, September 10, 2007
What does it mean to have a cultural identity?
Cultural identity is a means of differentiating between people, and also a way to feel special and unique. "Identity" is an important aspect of being human, and one's cultural identity is a specific way to feel connected to (or in other cases segregated from) a group of people, geographical place, belief system, or an ideal. Humans use "cultural identity" to find a sense of belonging to something bigger than the individual, and if you want to look at it in a darker way, belonging to something that others are not a part of.
The clip I chose deals with Filipinos debating what it is to be Filipino. This clip illustrates my point, as people talk about how wonderful it is to be part of this cultural group, while others debate who is actually "allowed" to be Filipino. Some using language as a requirement to be label Filipino, where others use place of birth, amount of "Americanization" or knowledge of cultural heritage to determine who is in this cultural group.
I also found this article on cbc.ca that you might find interesting. It deals with the changing and ambiguous cultural identities of Canadians with mixed heritages.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/mixedblessings/
The clip I chose deals with Filipinos debating what it is to be Filipino. This clip illustrates my point, as people talk about how wonderful it is to be part of this cultural group, while others debate who is actually "allowed" to be Filipino. Some using language as a requirement to be label Filipino, where others use place of birth, amount of "Americanization" or knowledge of cultural heritage to determine who is in this cultural group.
I also found this article on cbc.ca that you might find interesting. It deals with the changing and ambiguous cultural identities of Canadians with mixed heritages.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/mixedblessings/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)