White Protestors are the Real Illegal Immigrants

This video and the comments that follow address a. Umber of issues from ascribed vs. avowed identity (Martin and Nakayama) and issues of historical context.  First, this gentleman started shouting at a group of people protesting illegal immigration by asserting that they are in fact the illegal immigrants who pushed native Americans off their land.  So, while the protestors have an avowed identity as legal Americans who possess certain entitlements over "illegal immigrants" the Native American man ascribes to them the illegal identity.  One woman among the protestors can be heard shouting that there are (I think I heard correctly) Cherokee, or part Cherokee among them as though that excuses the protestors or as tough that one person can represent all Native Americans.  The man also points out that the U.S. flag stands for death and the bloodshed of Native Americans.  He aptly points out that the Native Americans should have held up similar signs that read "Illegals go home" when the white men arrived.  T me this is such a clear example of identity conflict where identity management is perhaps irrelevant.  There are times when managing identity for "peace and harmony" is clearly inappropriate.  Or perhaps I've  been taking identity management to mean that one is managing identity to avoid conflict as Urban and Orbe assert (2008).  Maybe be identity management means making waves and allowing conflict under certain circumstances.

The second point(s) of interest are the comments that were on the original LiveLeak.com post...wowza!  People have some distorted sense of history, entitlement and privilege.  One commenter actually suggested that Native Americans and all other "conquered people" in Africa, Asia, etc, should have fought harder.  Comments like this make me realize the importance of this class and of creating awareness across our nation about cultural injustice and plain old history.  Basically, those comments pulled me out of the bubble of grad school and reminded me that lots of people are okay with sugar coating genocide and embracing white privilege or any other privileges they may have.  People of other nationalities weighed in a and compared the self-victimization of Native Americans to the victim mentality of Arabs, Palestinians, Pakistanis and Iranians..and I think he identified as Pakistani.  Interestingly,a number of non-Americans were critical of Americans' tendency to deny the genocide we conducted and the way we downplay slavery.

What I gained from this is that what we expect is to what we always get or see; identity conflicts of avowed vs. ascribed identity can happen in person or through comment threads and they, too, are informed by stereotypes or at least expectations that every individual possesses when approaching a subject and trying to create meaning and gain understanding.  Finally, it seems that while historical context is imperative (at least for me) for understanding any interaction or event, the mind and, in particular, denial are so powerful as to allow abound create radically different interpretations of the same content, such as American History.

Liveleak.com post: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aaf_1360011654

The White Privilege Comedy Hour

http://www.upworthy.com/the-most-offensive-non-offensive-joke-in-the-world?c=upw1

http://www.upworthy.com/sometimes-it-takes-a-white-dude-to-get-real-about-racism?g=2&c=upw1

We've discussed White Privilege a lot in this class and discussed the pros and cons of humor in addressing or perpetuating racism.  Rather than leaning on minority stereotypes, Louis C. K. pulls humor from his honest perspective of being white.  So this is the dominant culture using comedy to address the real benefits of being within that culture.  In both of these clips Louis C.K. invokes Peggy McIntosh's Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack as well as the the issues of historical context as presented by Martin and Nakayama. You might even say that his acts are examples of the critical perspective employed through a popular medium.  Considering the long standing criticisms of the Ivory tower, I wonder if Stand-up comedy has real educational potential given it's accessibility and perceived levity.  I consider myself quite comfortable with the concepts of white privilege so I'm curious how an audience who was initially introduced to the concept with a clip like this would respond. Would they be at ease discussing it?  Would white students feel okay admitting it because they've got someone laughing about it?  Are minority students offended by this and do some consider it irreverent?  It seems many are critical of minorities using minority humor to garner laughs which may also make the, appealing to dominant culture.  So, is diploma ant culture able to use humor with less criticism?  An African-American friend of mine working on her PhD in Communication posted this Jay Leno Video to Facebook.  That led me to Upworthy, a site that then emailed me the second stand-up clip.  So, a minority grad student in our field and a mainstream progressive website are sharing these.  If these are indicators of acceptability it could be argued that the ability to use humor to critique culture is also a privilege enjoyed by the dominant cultural group. What do you think?.  

Bob Beckel: Rape On College Campuses Doesn't Really Happen

Link to Article

I came across this article on Huffington Post’s Twitter feed and was reminded of our discussion in class a few weeks ago about rape culture. Fox News roundtable was having a debate about Colorado legislation that would possibly allow women to carry a concealed weapon to help prevent sexual assaults on college campuses. Bob Beckel asked, “When’s the last time you heard about rape on a college campus?” which surprised his co hosts (and me). They proceeded to inform him that it is “rampant” and then mentioned date rape to which he replied, “Yea, date rape, that’s one problem, but you gonna take a gun out and shoot your date?”

I think Beckel’s statements represent many people’s lack of knowledge about rape on college campuses and throughout other places all over the world. He seems to be implying that when a woman is slipped a date rape drug, she’s always literally with her “date”. He doesn’t consider that it could be a complete stranger and that she may have no idea anything is happening. Throughout my undergrad at Kansas, we would get text message alerts about sexual assaults happening on campus fairly often. We’ve received email alerts from DU since I’ve been here as well. The article also states that 20 to 25 percent of women have reported experiencing either an attempted or completed rape during their time in college. To be quite blunt, lately we’ve seen a bunch of old, white conservative men discussing rape, birth control, etc. and basically have no idea what they’re talking about. In my opinion, it seems pretty ridiculous that Beckel actually asked that question and then followed it up with his statement about date rape.

In the article, Five Ways Rape Culture Exists Unnoticed and Goes Unchecked in Our Everyday Life, rape culture was defined as “a culture where sexual violence is largely expected and made insignificant by cultural norms” (Ogden). It touched on the normalization of sexual violence and that many times there is a tendency to blame the victim - maybe her dress was too revealing, maybe she had a few too many drinks, etc. I think the misperceptions of people like Beckel as well as cultural tendencies to blame the victim are all problems facing our society when it comes to the issue of rape. Maybe I’m just coming from a defensive position because I’m a woman. What do you all think about Beckel’s comments and this idea of rape culture?

A Prejudiced Papal Election

After reading the Gawker article Cardinal Favored to Become First Black Pope Blames Gay Priests for the Churches Sexual Abuse Scandals, a number of questions came to mind: Have all Popes been white? How much power does the church have? Does Cardinal Peter Turkson really think there are no homosexuals in Africa?

1.  Have all Popes been white?

According to Wikipedia’s List of Popes, 99.9% of Popes have been white and the majority of them coming from European countries. One previous Pope, St Miltiades was believed to be from Northern Africa (Algeria or Morocco). However, you can see in this graph from The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life that over the last 100 years, the concentration of Catholics has shifted from Europe to Latin America/Caribbean with substantial gains in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. So when will the church catch up with the times and elect a minority for the Papal office? Or a woman, for that matter? Oh wait, women can’t be priests because Jesus was a man, and a woman couldn’t possibly be Christ-like (but I won’t get into that here).

2. How much power does the church have?

According to The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Catholics make up 16% of the world’s population (roughly 1.1 billion people). Historically, the Church retained its power through language. Conquergood’s point that “subordinate people experience texts and the bureaucracy of literacy as instruments of control and displacement” (p. 147) applies to the Catholic Church too. The scriptures used to be written and spoken in Latin which most commoners did not speak, nor could they even read or write. And, ever hear of the Inquisition? Mess with the Church and you’re dead, ‘nuff said. Today, the Church still wields its power to cover up sex abuse scandals. Thankfully, it’s finally come under fire. Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation will initiate a change in the way the Church is run. However, as an institution that dates back to the First Century, is that even possible?

3. Does Cardinal Peter Turkson really think there are no homosexuals in Africa?

In the Gawker article, Turkson is quoted saying, "African traditional systems kind of protect or have protected its population against this tendency," he said. "Because in several communities, in several cultures in Africa homosexuality or for that matter any affair between two sexes of the same kind are not countenanced in our society." According to this NPR interview with AllAfrica.com reporter Saratu Abiola, “homosexuality is already illegal in more than 30 African nations.” In fact, Abiola says that sexuality whether hetero or homo just isn’t talked about. It makes it more distant and “its easy to otherize”. Stories in class from our own Tanzanian liaison, Maureen, have also confirmed this idea behind homosexuality not being legal, talked about or “in existence” in Africa, when we all know that to be untrue.  Why does Turkson believe that his people are “protected” from homosexuality? Why does he believe that they need to be “protected”?

Do any other questions come to mind when reading this article from an intercultural or international perspective?

Note: I am looking at this from a non-Catholic, white, female perspective. I apologize if my reactions to these questions are offensive in anyway.

Advancing Police Awareness of Mentally Ill, Disabled

Frederick News Post Article - Advancing Police Awareness of Mentally Ill, Disabled

I came across the same story Katie discussed regarding the 26-year-old man named Robert Saylor with Down syndrome who passed away from asphyxiation while lying face down in police custody after being escorted out of a movie theater. This sad story brings up some important points about law enforcement and their (often times) lack of training when it comes to those who may have mental or physical disabilities.

Three days ago, an editorial from the Frederick News Post in Frederick, Maryland (where the Saylor incident occurred) discussed steps Maryland is taking to make sure these kinds of tragic events don’t happen again. The State Senator in Maryland has introduced a bill that would increase access to training and information resources for police agencies regarding persons with mental health issues. There are some resources already available but the article states that the “effort statewide is uneven at best” and this bill would provide training and grant opportunities at a central location for all to access. The Frederick County Sheriff mentioned that his office currently requires all employees to attend a four-hour training session on mental health issues (only four hours) but many others throughout the state don’t even require this short training.

The editorial supports the bill, but also made note of the importance of distinguishing between and including both mental illness and mental disabilities in the training. They hope that this bill will take into account those who have genetic, developmental or behavioral problems as well and specifically discuss the case of Saylor. The article ends with this quote: “Police officers need to be well-trained in dealing not only with people who suffer from schizophrenia and other mental illnesses, but also with those who have disabilities that may put their appearance and behavior outside the norm. If such conditions are not already to be addressed by this new center, we urge that they be included.”

In Steven Brown’s article, What is Disability Culture, he includes a quote that starts out by stating, “Disability can be represented as a culture, though the range of differences among the disabled is enormous” (2). He also quotes another source that notes the importance of, “encouraging and educating the public so society is informed and understands disability culture” (2). I’m not sure what type of training law enforcement officials receive or could potentially receive, but disabilities cannot be lumped into one group. It is important for these police officers, etc. to receive information and training on different types of disabilities and how to respond in an appropriate way for the safety of everyone involved.

I don't know what other states’ policies are on this type of training, but I definitely think this bill in Maryland is a step in the right direction. Hopefully it will pass (the editorial states it has a lot of support and will face little opposition) and other states will follow suit. If the officers would have had more training about how to respond to someone with Down syndrome like Robert, it’s quite possible that an innocent life may have been saved.

Space and Place in Space—Looking Back at Ourselves

Throughout their careers, astronauts could potentially spend anywhere between six months and two years in space. Leaving the Earth’s atmosphere and venturing into the vast space beyond can have a profound effect on a person. Frank White, author of The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution, explores the affects of space exploration and the experiences of astronauts—in space and upon their return.

The Overview Effect
A short documentary based on Frank White's book.

The Overview Effect compiles interviews with astronauts and experts in philosophy and space exploration. It attempts to convey the overwhelming, outstanding and “awe-some” experience of traveling into space. Astronauts explain how “looking back at [yourself]” makes you realize how minor your role is in the greater universe. Astronauts discover that we as a human species are traveling on this “Earth spaceship” through space and time together, yet on the ground we cannot seem to see past our differences. On the ground, we cannot see past the great blue sky above. On the ground, we cannot see that we need to work together to survive.

So it seems that even in space, Hall’s theory that “space is understood as a structuring context for identity negotiation with consequential implications for how culture comes to be constituted and re-constituted” (p. 11) still applies. Astronauts bring to space a socially constructed identity and culture from their country on Earth. And, when they return to Earth, they return with a renegotiation of self and a renegotiation of the human race.

In addition to renegotiating space, astronauts renegotiate place. As scholar Ashcroft explains, “place is never simply a location, nor is it a static cultural memory . . .  like culture itself, place is in a continual and dynamic state of formation, a process intimately bound up with the culture and identity of its inhabitants” (Hall, p. 11). In The Overview Effect, Apollo Astronaut Edgar Mitchell explains his opportunity to reflect on his experience while in flight. Edgar says as he peered out of the shuttle window, he had “a 360 degree panorama of the heavens.” He had a moment to reflect on his studies of astronomy and cosmology. He likened the molecules of his body and that of the space shuttle to stardust. He was trying to make sense of his place in space.

Taking these celestial experiences into consideration, wouldn’t we all benefit from spaceflight? Wouldn’t international relations be substantially altered if we all experienced Earth in this “universal” way?


--- Other Sources ---

http://www.overviewinstitute.org/featured-articles/54-the-overview-effect-astronauts-unique-view-of-the-earth-and-what-we-all-can-learn-from-it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records

Race, Religion & Politics

I recently went to a luncheon where DU professor Nancy Wadsworth discussed the role of race and religion in American politics.  The overlap with themes in our class was unbelievable, but one of the things that stuck with me the most was Wadsworth’s comments about intersectionality and the importance of religion.

When politicians only fall into one subordinate group (i.e. Mitt Romney’s affiliation with Mormonism, but still in the dominant for gender, race, class, and ability), it seems as if he/she has an easier time integrating into mainstream acceptance.  On the other side are candidates who are marginalized on several levels, even if not necessarily warranted.  For example, Barack Obama was constantly framed as ‘the other’, criticized for being too black OR not black enough; too Christian OR not Christian enough; targeted as a Muslim; too foreign, etc.  These attacks on different aspects of Obama’s identity began to symbolize who Americans thought should or should not be president.

Relating back to an earlier reading, “Critical Junctures in Intercultural Communication Studies: A Review” by Halualani , Mendoza & Drzewiecka, this most recent election demonstrated the importance of cultural intersection by ‘examining culture through the concepts of historical context and power relations.’  If one doesn’t perfectly fit into the dominant cultural identity of the U.S., s/he faces more obstacles in reaching positions of power.  Prior to the luncheon I had not really thought about religion as being such an important factor in elections, but looking back at history, religion is oftentimes viewed as a race and marginalized as such (i.e. Irish Catholics).  Even with supposedly universal access to First Amendment rights, freedom of religion as been racialized.  Whereas Catholics, Jews and Protestants were once marginalized in politics, but have since moved inside the circle of acceptance, atheists, indigenous religions, Buddhist Chinese and Muslims (religious groups associated with people of color) still remain on the outskirts of that same circle.

Do you think that religion still plays as important of a role in politics as it did in our parents’ and grandparents’ generations?  Could the U.S. ever elect a Buddhist or Muslim president?