It is, though, isn't it? I mean, why keep trying to be someone I'm not? You know, people told me that there was a difference, but it really doesn't hit you until you see it, until you feel it, for yourself.
You could call me an African American.
You could call me Black.
You could call me mixed, multiracial, biracial, mulatto, mongrel or a motherfucking nigger but you wouldn't be right. You wouldn't.
I wouldn't.
The funny part is, I've been trying to. I read books, I took classes, I talked to people, I thought about it, but it still didn't hit me. I thought, mixed, yeah, mixed would work. Ooo, multiracial, that's cool. Biracial, yeah that works. African American? Well, technically. I guess. Black? Sure, why not.
But it doesn't fit.
I am trying, I am learning, I am pretending, but every time I make a misstep I invalidate myself, my very identity. And every time, I remember:
It doesn't fit.
"Of African descent?" What does that even mean? Who in the hell came up with that? What were they thinking? .... And yet.
Sure, it could be applied to anyone with skin darker than whoever, with hair that did whatever. This is literally the vaguest term any PC freak could ever think of, but the thing is. It's the only one that's true.
But what really gets my goat here is that that's all I have, and I don't even have that. I'm not African American, I'm not a part of their culture, and I won't ever be. All I have is my African heritage. But I don't know a single fucking thing about Africa. I've never been there, I don't know about half of my family, I don't speak the language, and I'm already an adult.
So where do I fit? Hell if I know.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Sunday, July 1, 2012
I am Working on Something!
So, as I've been falling down on updating this blog at all ever, I decided to try vlogging! As of now, I have exactly 3 VIDEOS!!!!!! with a pretty sad production quality, but whatever. If any of you are interested, here is the link.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Saturday, March 24, 2012
The Reason Rally
I just got back to my college from the Reason Rally in DC. It... was... amazing!! As you should all already know by now, I am an atheist. The Reason Rally was billed as the largest gathering of nonbelievers ever. So, you know, that's a pretty good reason to be happy I went. But what I want to talk about is another reason I felt extremely elated to be at the Reason Rally. In this event, the skeptic community and all of its speakers went out of their way to emphasize one thing: diversity. Many of the speakers made sure that we all knew that for the skeptic community, diversity was a priority. The speaker's panel was diverse (three examples of diverse speakers that come to mind are rationalwarrior, Hermant Mehta, and Greta Christina. Now, I've seen some pretty questionable and offensive shit from skeptics (Rebecca Watson's detractors, for example) and I've felt pretty disillusioned with the mainstream movement and minority issues. But today's rally was just so... welcoming. Despite the relative majority of white people, I didn't feel out of place there. I felt like America's skeptic community wanted me to be there. So in case anyone was wondering...secularists do it right.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
On Moderation: Some Observations from a Disgruntled Radical
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice."
-Thomas Paine
I'm writing today to describe a pattern I've been seeing in a lot of peoples' thinking lately. I also want to talk about why it's harmful to our society. I am talking, of course, about moderation. I often find myself in conversations with other people about a number of issues that I have strong opinions on. I have put in a lot of effort into developing these opinions, and I've learned a massive amount in the past year that has fundamentally altered the way I view the world. I think it's safe to say that my experiences at my undergraduate institution have undoubtedly made me into someone that most Americans would consider a radical. To put it bluntly, I have a lot of ideas that a lot of people think are horseshit. I'm coming to terms with that, and I accept that it comes with the territory. However, there is one idea I have that I don't feel is actually that radical: disagreements are both useful and necessary.
To situate this within some context, the social climate of my college is currently undergoing what I consider to be growing pains. There is a lot of tension between different groups of people on campus, specifically the mainstream culture and a relatively small [but vocal!] number of dissidents. I think the particular way that we engage with this issue is largely determined by the minuscule size of our student body (between 2500 and 3000 students). Whenever something goes down, everybody knows about it and everybody has a different opinion on the matter. So when there's division among the student body, you can be sure it will be on the tip of everyone's tongue. Due to a number of highly visible events on our campus within the past year, we have finally begun to have a dialogue to address our differences. So my question is: why are people so unhappy about that?
When I talk to some people, I get the feeling that they avoid certain topics around me because they are simply terrified that I might disagree with what they think. I understand that not everyone feels as strongly as I do about certain topics, but this is something I frankly have no patience for. It is absolutely unavoidable that when we have people with completely unique life experiences that cause them to interpret and perceive things differently, they will sometimes disagree. What's wrong with challenging one another? If I hear someone say something that I find to be completely ignorant, why shouldn't I tell them so? How are we as a people going to progress if we spend all of our time agreeing on everything? We need division and argument if we are to hash out what ideas are useful to us and what ideas are not.
Regardless of how I feel about it, it seems that most people don't think that way. Most people seem to want to go through their intellectual development with kiddie-gloves on, coddling each other and hugging and babbling about how much they agree with each other. Our society's fetish for compromise has become a widespread and effective roadblock to progress. On my college campus specifically, it seems like anyone who challenges the ideas of someone else is labeled a "radical". At first, I was really confused as to why any would think that this is a practical way to proceed, but then I thought about what moderation accomplishes.
I think it's important to always consider what effect certain ideas and practices have on other people before espousing and enacting them. For example: racist prejudices and the discrimination that comes with them have a negative effect upon people of color while advantaging whites. For me, that puts them off of the table. So I return to this question of what moderation accomplishes. If space is not given for [strikingly] different opinions to be expressed in an open or direct way, we as a people will never change the way we think about anything. If we do not allow for people to argue the various benefits of, say, a radically different sexual misconduct college policy versus the old way of doing things, we will never make any change. Thus, moderation of this variety will inevitably perpetuate the status quo.
So now I have my answer for why people insist on moderation and compromise in every disagreement: they are resistant to change. People on my campus aren't used to being challenged, and try to force us onto the middle road that will leave them comfortably safe from dissent. If that sounds implausible to you, remember this: that is what these people accomplish when they claim that agreeing is always the better way. Whether you buy that this is their intention or not, that is the effect that their actions have.
So I hope that anyone reading this thinks twice the next time they dismiss someone else because they are "too opinionated" or "like arguing too much". I would ask that we stop and take a moment to reconsider when we pass judgment on someone because they have strong views. Such thinking can never do anything but lock us into mediocrity.
P.S. Someone has stolen all of my gruntles. I think it was the moderates, but I'm not sure.
-Thomas Paine
I'm writing today to describe a pattern I've been seeing in a lot of peoples' thinking lately. I also want to talk about why it's harmful to our society. I am talking, of course, about moderation. I often find myself in conversations with other people about a number of issues that I have strong opinions on. I have put in a lot of effort into developing these opinions, and I've learned a massive amount in the past year that has fundamentally altered the way I view the world. I think it's safe to say that my experiences at my undergraduate institution have undoubtedly made me into someone that most Americans would consider a radical. To put it bluntly, I have a lot of ideas that a lot of people think are horseshit. I'm coming to terms with that, and I accept that it comes with the territory. However, there is one idea I have that I don't feel is actually that radical: disagreements are both useful and necessary.
To situate this within some context, the social climate of my college is currently undergoing what I consider to be growing pains. There is a lot of tension between different groups of people on campus, specifically the mainstream culture and a relatively small [but vocal!] number of dissidents. I think the particular way that we engage with this issue is largely determined by the minuscule size of our student body (between 2500 and 3000 students). Whenever something goes down, everybody knows about it and everybody has a different opinion on the matter. So when there's division among the student body, you can be sure it will be on the tip of everyone's tongue. Due to a number of highly visible events on our campus within the past year, we have finally begun to have a dialogue to address our differences. So my question is: why are people so unhappy about that?
When I talk to some people, I get the feeling that they avoid certain topics around me because they are simply terrified that I might disagree with what they think. I understand that not everyone feels as strongly as I do about certain topics, but this is something I frankly have no patience for. It is absolutely unavoidable that when we have people with completely unique life experiences that cause them to interpret and perceive things differently, they will sometimes disagree. What's wrong with challenging one another? If I hear someone say something that I find to be completely ignorant, why shouldn't I tell them so? How are we as a people going to progress if we spend all of our time agreeing on everything? We need division and argument if we are to hash out what ideas are useful to us and what ideas are not.
Regardless of how I feel about it, it seems that most people don't think that way. Most people seem to want to go through their intellectual development with kiddie-gloves on, coddling each other and hugging and babbling about how much they agree with each other. Our society's fetish for compromise has become a widespread and effective roadblock to progress. On my college campus specifically, it seems like anyone who challenges the ideas of someone else is labeled a "radical". At first, I was really confused as to why any would think that this is a practical way to proceed, but then I thought about what moderation accomplishes.
I think it's important to always consider what effect certain ideas and practices have on other people before espousing and enacting them. For example: racist prejudices and the discrimination that comes with them have a negative effect upon people of color while advantaging whites. For me, that puts them off of the table. So I return to this question of what moderation accomplishes. If space is not given for [strikingly] different opinions to be expressed in an open or direct way, we as a people will never change the way we think about anything. If we do not allow for people to argue the various benefits of, say, a radically different sexual misconduct college policy versus the old way of doing things, we will never make any change. Thus, moderation of this variety will inevitably perpetuate the status quo.
So now I have my answer for why people insist on moderation and compromise in every disagreement: they are resistant to change. People on my campus aren't used to being challenged, and try to force us onto the middle road that will leave them comfortably safe from dissent. If that sounds implausible to you, remember this: that is what these people accomplish when they claim that agreeing is always the better way. Whether you buy that this is their intention or not, that is the effect that their actions have.
So I hope that anyone reading this thinks twice the next time they dismiss someone else because they are "too opinionated" or "like arguing too much". I would ask that we stop and take a moment to reconsider when we pass judgment on someone because they have strong views. Such thinking can never do anything but lock us into mediocrity.
P.S. Someone has stolen all of my gruntles. I think it was the moderates, but I'm not sure.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Silent and Invisible
Recently, I have happened upon some passing mentions of the role that silence plays in marginalization and how oppressed people can be made to feel invisible. I don't know a lot about the formal concepts as explored by academics, but I think I get the basic idea. And I'll be honest, I feel pretty crappy right now. So I'm going to write about a few times when I've been silenced. When I've felt invisible. When I've felt oppressed.
I have had a somewhat troubled relationship with the n-word. I'm not feeling particularly well-disposed towards it at the moment, so I have decided not to type it. I don't really know how exactly I feel about it in general, as I have in the past had no problem writing, typing, or saying it. However, I can state categorically that there is at least one instance that I will never, ever find acceptable: white people casually tossing it around and laughing. I want to be clear that I have never, ever had this word directed at me directly in person. I hope that particular state of affairs continues. But I've heard it tossed out so carelessly and so callously, as if tossing food scraps to a dog. You'd think that this sort of act is one that I'd have no trouble calling someone out for. This is one of the most obvious and blatant forms of racism we encounter today and I stand in complete opposition to it. Yet, for some reason, in this particular situation, I remained silent. As if I wasn't even there. The n-word aficionado apologized to another person of color, claiming that such a label didn't apply to them. But I got no apology. I stood by uncomfortably, saying nothing.
I have had a somewhat troubled relationship with the n-word. I'm not feeling particularly well-disposed towards it at the moment, so I have decided not to type it. I don't really know how exactly I feel about it in general, as I have in the past had no problem writing, typing, or saying it. However, I can state categorically that there is at least one instance that I will never, ever find acceptable: white people casually tossing it around and laughing. I want to be clear that I have never, ever had this word directed at me directly in person. I hope that particular state of affairs continues. But I've heard it tossed out so carelessly and so callously, as if tossing food scraps to a dog. You'd think that this sort of act is one that I'd have no trouble calling someone out for. This is one of the most obvious and blatant forms of racism we encounter today and I stand in complete opposition to it. Yet, for some reason, in this particular situation, I remained silent. As if I wasn't even there. The n-word aficionado apologized to another person of color, claiming that such a label didn't apply to them. But I got no apology. I stood by uncomfortably, saying nothing.
I've written before about how I feel about masculinity. I've also written about how, unfortunately, my own self-liberation (or so I like to call it) from gender roles makes precious little difference when others haven't gotten the memo. So you can understand that when people throw around insults such as "pussy" and "faggot" and "bitch"*, I start to wonder what they think of me. Because usually, these people don't know me too well. I wonder what they would do if they did know. I spend so much time wasting effort to maintain a mask I don't even want. A label I've renounced. I have to pretend like the real me isn't here. The real me cannot speak. The real me is hidden. I cannot exist in their world... so I don't.
*I am a heterosexual man and as such cannot claim that how I feel when confronted with such slurs is in any way comparable to people who are actually marginalized by them. Straight men are not an oppressed group, and I do not mean to imply that they are.
*I am a heterosexual man and as such cannot claim that how I feel when confronted with such slurs is in any way comparable to people who are actually marginalized by them. Straight men are not an oppressed group, and I do not mean to imply that they are.
As I sit here writing this, I am in the hospital room with my sleeping grandmother and aunt. My grandmother is going to die in a few days, so the whole family is gathering to visit and it's my turn to be with her. This is a hospice as well as a hospital, where death is a frequent visitor. There is a pamphlet in the room entitled Gone From My Sight: The Dying Experience. I read it to see if it had any wisdom to share with me. Now, if you have read this blog, you know that I am an atheist/humanist/anti-theist. I don't like religion, and I don't think it has a place in modern society. One area where I dislike the influence of religion is in thoughts about the afterlife. I find such lies to be a false and hollow comfort. At this point, I'd like to ask you how you think I felt when I read references in this pamphlet to "spiritual energy" and "passing on to the next world". I want to let you know: I didn't feel angry. I felt invisible. Apparently the people who ordered this pamphlet and placed them throughout the hospice don't think that people who don't believe in the afterlife need comforting words. Apparently we don't really count, so we don't get a pamphlet. People like me, once again... not important. Not present.
To some readers (I sincerely hope not too many), some of these things may seem petty or unimportant. And sure, there are worse things. But I want to make it clear that all of the specific instances that have driven me to write this piece are droplets in the fucking bucket. I have experiences related and/or similar to these every day of my life, and that affects me. I have been sent a clear message that what I think is unimportant. That who I am doesn't matter. That really, I should just shut up. How does it make me feel, you ask? Upset? Sometimes. Angry? Quite often, not that it matters. But more accurately, I feel powerless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)