So you say you're pro-family... but your definition of family is narrow and you might even support ripping families apart in certain situations (e.g., deporting "illegal" parents of citizen children, sending mothers and fathers to prison for nonviolent crimes). You most likely define family as the traditional, nuclear family that represents only 48.4% of families with children under the age of 18 from 2001-2007 in the United States according to the CDC, which defines nuclear family as "both parents must be biological or adoptive to all children in the family" (2010, p. 4). Now granted this definition may include both heterosexual and homosexual couples in states where it is legal for them to be married and have or adopt children, there are still states (my own included) which have constitutional bans on marriage equality, and others which have state laws, no recognition, or stayed pending appeals. When people say they are pro-family, what they generally mean is that they are pro-family's that have two heterosexual parents. The bone I have to pick with this idea is two-fold:
1) Two parents are better than one? As someone who was raised by a single mother (quite successfully, I might add), I take personal offense to this. My childhood and my upbringing were the epitome of love and support. Between my mother and my amazing grandmother, I was cared for quite arguably more than some individuals who are raised in a home with both of their biological parents. To insist that my life is less than because my family did not match the "pro-family" ideal, is insulting to me, my mother, and my grandmother. To add insult to injury, I am also a single woman who wishes to have children someday, regardless of whether or not I find my "one true love." I hope to adopt, but other people's politics may prevent this from happening if I remain unwed. As someone who is trained in education, truly wishes to raise children, and will be gainfully employed and able to provide stability, shelter, safety, love, and other needs beyond just those basic to human life, I find it ludicrous that I may be unable to fulfill the role of adoptive mother because I don't have a ring on my finger and a piece of paper. Being married does not necessarily mean someone will be a good mother or father. So for those of you who say you're "pro-family," yet oppose single individuals being able to adopt, please start describing yourself as pro-marriage (I won't get any further into the absurdity of our society's narrow definition of marriage than I already have).
2) Homosexuality is bad for kids? This is similar to my single woman wanting to adopt rant. Being gay or lesbian does not mean someone will be a bad father or mother. There are kids who will be forced to grow up in the foster care system (which has been said to be a determinant of future criminal behavior) because our society does not want them to have a gay parent. So for those of you who say you're "pro-family," yet oppose gay parents being able to adopt, please start describing yourself as homophobic.
So you say you're pro-life... but this only applies to unborn babies. Many individuals who say they are pro-life support the death penalty and defend cops who demonstrate police brutality that ends in death. To vehemently oppose abortion and turn around and say that young, black boys and men like Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner "had it coming" because they were breaking the law is extremely hypocritical. What this hypocrisy sets up is a hierarchy of life worth... only some lives are worth fighting for. So for those of you who say you're "pro-life," yet support the death penalty and/or fatal police brutality, please start describing yourself as pro-fetus.
The point of this rant is simple, people who say they are pro-family and/or pro-life are playing to the public's emotions. After all, who can argue against family and life? The stances "pro-family" and "pro-life" individuals take are often contradictory. They say they value family, but look away as fathers are sent thousands of miles away from their children in the name of immigration policy. They laud the married mother and father whose fighting behind closed doors is impacting their child's mental health and well-being, and in the next breath criticize the single mother for having a child out of wedlock. They post Facebook statuses denouncing rape victims who get abortions, then share an article in support of Darren Wilson. Through it all, they contribute to systems of racism, sexism, and heterosexism. The effects of their confounding opinions oppress people of color, women, and the LGBT community.
Reference:
CDC. (2010). Family structure and children's health in the United States: Findings from the national health interview survey, 2001-2007. Vital and Health Statistics 10(246).
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Seat at the table or scapegoat?
So, it's been a while since I've been on here. This is mostly due to the fact that I've been reading and writing a lot for my comprehensive exams, as well as preparing to begin data collection for my dissertation. As such, I've been immersed in the literature about whiteness, a central topic in my work as a teacher educator and educational researcher. So when I saw an article run by the self-appointed "best conservative news source," the Dc Gazette, about the Huffington Post claiming that Mia Love was "enjoying" white privilege, I was compelled to look into what the Huffington Post actually claimed (see http://dcgazette.com/huffington-post-claims-mia-love-enjoys-white-privilege-wait-what/ and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darron-t-smith-phd/mia-love_b_6116466.html).
Leonardo (2005) defines white privilege as “the notion that white subjects accrue advantages by virtue of being constructed as whites” (p. 37). The Dc Gazette article claims, "Just when you thought liberals couldn't be any more nonsensical, they come out and attack Mia Love for benefiting from a form of 'White Privilege'." However, reading the Huffington Post article, there is one mention of white privilege, "This is one way white privilege is reproduced at the legislative level of government." This mention of white privilege in no way is attributed to Mia Love herself, but rather to the system within which she was elected. The Dc Gazette writer accuses Darron T. Smith, the author of the Huffington Post article, of being "upset that Mia Love isn't playing the left's identity politics game." However, Smith himself acknowledges that Black voters are not monolithic. To be Black does not necessarily entail being liberal. What Smith carefully points out is that the Republican party to which Mia Love belongs, does not serve Black interests (e.g., with regards to education, economics, and health outcomes). What the Dc Gazette article does is promulgate the myth that white privilege and its counterpart white racism is an individual act. Mia Love, an individual, is said to be enjoying white privilege... a misappropriation of the term. The Huffington Post, on the other hand, acknowledges the systemic nature of white privilege by attributing it to the legislative level of government acting in its own self-interest, which is largely white, wealthy, and male.
Another phenomenon at play in this debate is white exceptionalism. White exceptionalism is a type of "blame game" in which white individuals who see themselves as anti-racist set themselves apart from other white individuals and groups which they deem to be racist, essentially seeing themselves as exceptional whites. This describes what the Republican party is doing here. They are setting themselves up as exceptional whites by essentially using Mia Love as their scapegoat. The GOP cannot possibly be a racist entity if they are willing to let a Black, Mormon, woman sit at their table. With Mia Love on their side, they can continue to promote legislation that is in the interest of the white majority with little regard to the implications it has for the rest of the population and point to Utah's Haitian-American representative as "proof" that they are doing no wrong.
In sum, is Mia Love "enjoying" white privilege? No. She is being used by those who do possess white privilege. Sure, she now has a seat at the table, and I hope she decides to use it for the good of those who are oppressed due to their race, religion, and/or gender, but make no mistake in thinking that her own race, religion, and/or gender have been forgotten. Electing a poster child for the GOP's skin-deep re-branding effort does not make Utah progressive, nor does it mean that the U.S. is "post-racial."
Leonardo (2005) defines white privilege as “the notion that white subjects accrue advantages by virtue of being constructed as whites” (p. 37). The Dc Gazette article claims, "Just when you thought liberals couldn't be any more nonsensical, they come out and attack Mia Love for benefiting from a form of 'White Privilege'." However, reading the Huffington Post article, there is one mention of white privilege, "This is one way white privilege is reproduced at the legislative level of government." This mention of white privilege in no way is attributed to Mia Love herself, but rather to the system within which she was elected. The Dc Gazette writer accuses Darron T. Smith, the author of the Huffington Post article, of being "upset that Mia Love isn't playing the left's identity politics game." However, Smith himself acknowledges that Black voters are not monolithic. To be Black does not necessarily entail being liberal. What Smith carefully points out is that the Republican party to which Mia Love belongs, does not serve Black interests (e.g., with regards to education, economics, and health outcomes). What the Dc Gazette article does is promulgate the myth that white privilege and its counterpart white racism is an individual act. Mia Love, an individual, is said to be enjoying white privilege... a misappropriation of the term. The Huffington Post, on the other hand, acknowledges the systemic nature of white privilege by attributing it to the legislative level of government acting in its own self-interest, which is largely white, wealthy, and male.
Another phenomenon at play in this debate is white exceptionalism. White exceptionalism is a type of "blame game" in which white individuals who see themselves as anti-racist set themselves apart from other white individuals and groups which they deem to be racist, essentially seeing themselves as exceptional whites. This describes what the Republican party is doing here. They are setting themselves up as exceptional whites by essentially using Mia Love as their scapegoat. The GOP cannot possibly be a racist entity if they are willing to let a Black, Mormon, woman sit at their table. With Mia Love on their side, they can continue to promote legislation that is in the interest of the white majority with little regard to the implications it has for the rest of the population and point to Utah's Haitian-American representative as "proof" that they are doing no wrong.
In sum, is Mia Love "enjoying" white privilege? No. She is being used by those who do possess white privilege. Sure, she now has a seat at the table, and I hope she decides to use it for the good of those who are oppressed due to their race, religion, and/or gender, but make no mistake in thinking that her own race, religion, and/or gender have been forgotten. Electing a poster child for the GOP's skin-deep re-branding effort does not make Utah progressive, nor does it mean that the U.S. is "post-racial."
Leonardo, Z. (2005).
The color of supremacy: Beyond the discourse of ‘white privilege.’ In Z.
Leonardo (Ed.), Critical Pedagogy and
Race (pp. 37-52). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Hey, baby... nice ______ (fill in body part here)!
I'm breaking my silence. I've felt violated and scared one too many times to keep quiet. Last night while walking the one block from the bar to my car after a friend's going away party, I was catcalled. "Hey, girl! Everything about you is looking right in that dress... ooo that ass!" Something to that effect. While the correct response may be for me to feel flattered (I did spend over 5 hours at the gym this week... glad to know it paid off for this "gentleman"), I felt violated. I was scared, counting the steps I had left before I reached my car. I got my cell phone out and made a call... maybe if I'm on the phone with someone they'll leave me alone. Not quite an eye witness, but at least someone would hear me scream if the guy decides to get out of his car and follow me, or worse. Thoughts rushed through my head. "I should have gotten a ride to my car... why am I walking alone at night?... is this dress too revealing?... I should be wearing more sensible shoes." This guy may think he's boosting my ego. He may think he's paying me a compliment, but what he's really doing is making me remember that 1 out of 6 women have been raped in her lifetime (https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims). So far, I've been one of the five, but every time something like this happens I wonder if my luck is running out.
Now I'm not saying I don't appreciate attention, but these guys on the street... they don't know me. When a friend or even an acquaintance tells me, "You look pretty tonight," or "I like your new haircut. Looks good on you," I appreciate the sentiment as what it is... a genuine compliment.
Catcalling, within the broader category of street harassment, is a problem... one that warrants our attention. According to a national survey done by Stop the Street Harassment, 65% of women have experienced some form of street harassment in their lifetimes, 86% of those experiencing it multiple times, if not daily (http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2014-National-SSH-Street-Harassment-Report.pdf). This isn't to say that men are not also harassed on the street. Women are guilty of objectifying men too. I've done it... I mean Mark Wahlberg's Calvin Klein ad, anybody? However, what stands out to me here is that 9 out of 10 rape victims in 2003 were female (https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims). Maybe this data is outdated, maybe I watch too much Law & Order: SVU, but I'm tired of being scared.
Catcalling may be a manifestation of insecurity; however, I'm more inclined to believe that it is, in some instances at least, a manifestation of power. I'm a pretty brazen individual. I usually say how I feel, making my opinions (right or wrong, for better or worse) known, for example, this blog. However, in instances where a guy is yelling obscenities and evaluations of my body at me through his car window, I'm silenced by fear. I feel powerless to defend myself. If I yell back, "leave me alone," or "get a life," will that anger him in some way, encouraging him to retaliate? So I keep my head down and my mouth shut and quicken my pace. How will this ever end if we keep our mouths shut though? Luckily, there are people who are leading the way to get the word out, like http://www.ihollaback.org/. So, the next time you're catcalled or made to feel powerless while walking down the street, tell the world. Raise awareness.
Now I'm not saying I don't appreciate attention, but these guys on the street... they don't know me. When a friend or even an acquaintance tells me, "You look pretty tonight," or "I like your new haircut. Looks good on you," I appreciate the sentiment as what it is... a genuine compliment.
Catcalling, within the broader category of street harassment, is a problem... one that warrants our attention. According to a national survey done by Stop the Street Harassment, 65% of women have experienced some form of street harassment in their lifetimes, 86% of those experiencing it multiple times, if not daily (http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2014-National-SSH-Street-Harassment-Report.pdf). This isn't to say that men are not also harassed on the street. Women are guilty of objectifying men too. I've done it... I mean Mark Wahlberg's Calvin Klein ad, anybody? However, what stands out to me here is that 9 out of 10 rape victims in 2003 were female (https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims). Maybe this data is outdated, maybe I watch too much Law & Order: SVU, but I'm tired of being scared.
Catcalling may be a manifestation of insecurity; however, I'm more inclined to believe that it is, in some instances at least, a manifestation of power. I'm a pretty brazen individual. I usually say how I feel, making my opinions (right or wrong, for better or worse) known, for example, this blog. However, in instances where a guy is yelling obscenities and evaluations of my body at me through his car window, I'm silenced by fear. I feel powerless to defend myself. If I yell back, "leave me alone," or "get a life," will that anger him in some way, encouraging him to retaliate? So I keep my head down and my mouth shut and quicken my pace. How will this ever end if we keep our mouths shut though? Luckily, there are people who are leading the way to get the word out, like http://www.ihollaback.org/. So, the next time you're catcalled or made to feel powerless while walking down the street, tell the world. Raise awareness.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Hot or not?
Came across this list of 7 "hot" actresses who got "ugly" for the big screen today on Facebook (http://celebs.answers.com/beauty/7-hot-actresses-who-got-ugly-for-the-big-screen). The pop culture addict in me was intrigued; however, once I started reading and looking at the hot vs. ugly pictures of these women, the feminist in me was outraged.
First up, Taryn Manning from OITNB, one of my newly favorite shows. The list criticizes her stringy hair and her bad teeth, and while I'm not about to condone using meth (the supposed reason for her OITNB character's bad teeth), what message does this send to people who have dental issues for other, non-drug related reasons? Not only is beauty only skin deep, it's also apparently only enamel deep.
Next, Anne Hathaway with her frizzy hair and untamed eyebrows from The Princess Diaries. So much discussion in magazines and other media goes back and forth on the meaningless issue of what women's eyebrows should look like. One year, the fuller, less tamed look is in... the next, you better be keeping up with your waxing appointments. Couldn't our energy and intelligence as women be put to better use? The list also highlights Hathaway's new(ish) pixie cut, stating that even with her recent lack of hair, she is still attractive. As a woman with short hair, am I supposed to equate beauty with my hair style in inches?
Then there's Charlize Theron in Monster. The website's list makes sure to mention that she had to gain around 30 pounds for the role. What about those of us who have gained similar weight, but not for a role on the silver screen? If we were hot before the weight gain, are we now ugly by Hollywood's standards?
Then, probably the most frustrating to me and the straw that broke the camel's back and made me reach for my neglected blogger account, is Elizabeth Moss and her roles on both Mad Men and Girl, Interrupted. The list indicates that even in her role in Mad Men, the only real reason she gets hit on is basically because she has a vagina that the men might be interested in for their extramarital affairs (I happen to be a big fan of Mad Men, don't get me wrong). However, they highlight that she "got ugly" for the big screen for her role in Girl-Interrupted in which her character has quite a bit of scarring from burns. What does this say about women in "real life" who have burn scars?
Next, the list goes to Rooney Mara from Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Again, the message is that short hair on young women makes them unattractive. This, paired with her character's piercings, is the evidence for her "getting ugly" for the big screen. So ladies, if you'd like to be considered beautiful, please stay away from the needles.
Then there's Emma Thompson from her role in Nanny McPhee, whose "snaggletooth, huge nose, and unibrow" are highlighted as "ugly" features. Again with the teeth and eyebrows... and go ahead and add noses to the list of things women should pay attention to in order to meet the criteria the media has established for beauty. That's what plastic surgeons are for, right?
Last, we have Cameron Diaz from Being John Malkovitch who is chastised for not wearing makeup. I'll remember this next time I begin to leave my apartment without mascara and red lipstick.
All in all, lists like this (as enjoyable as they might be as we're perusing the internet looking for something to distract us from the real work that needs done) are demeaning towards women. Impossible standards have been set for beauty and we spend entirely too much time striving to meet them. Women, we are our own worst enemy in this; after all, this list was authored by none other than a woman. I've said this before and I'll likely say it again... let's stop cutting each other down and start building up ourselves and our fellow females! You are more than your eyebrows, your hair style, your scars, your teeth, your nose, and your body shape. Let your inner beauty, your generosity, your kind heart, your honesty, your integrity shine through... go ahead, girl... let your light shine bright! And hey (this one's for everyone), don't forget to tell the women you love... your mother, your sister, your girlfriend/partner/wife, your friend... or anyone you pass on the street that they are lovely!
First up, Taryn Manning from OITNB, one of my newly favorite shows. The list criticizes her stringy hair and her bad teeth, and while I'm not about to condone using meth (the supposed reason for her OITNB character's bad teeth), what message does this send to people who have dental issues for other, non-drug related reasons? Not only is beauty only skin deep, it's also apparently only enamel deep.
Next, Anne Hathaway with her frizzy hair and untamed eyebrows from The Princess Diaries. So much discussion in magazines and other media goes back and forth on the meaningless issue of what women's eyebrows should look like. One year, the fuller, less tamed look is in... the next, you better be keeping up with your waxing appointments. Couldn't our energy and intelligence as women be put to better use? The list also highlights Hathaway's new(ish) pixie cut, stating that even with her recent lack of hair, she is still attractive. As a woman with short hair, am I supposed to equate beauty with my hair style in inches?
Then there's Charlize Theron in Monster. The website's list makes sure to mention that she had to gain around 30 pounds for the role. What about those of us who have gained similar weight, but not for a role on the silver screen? If we were hot before the weight gain, are we now ugly by Hollywood's standards?
Then, probably the most frustrating to me and the straw that broke the camel's back and made me reach for my neglected blogger account, is Elizabeth Moss and her roles on both Mad Men and Girl, Interrupted. The list indicates that even in her role in Mad Men, the only real reason she gets hit on is basically because she has a vagina that the men might be interested in for their extramarital affairs (I happen to be a big fan of Mad Men, don't get me wrong). However, they highlight that she "got ugly" for the big screen for her role in Girl-Interrupted in which her character has quite a bit of scarring from burns. What does this say about women in "real life" who have burn scars?
Next, the list goes to Rooney Mara from Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Again, the message is that short hair on young women makes them unattractive. This, paired with her character's piercings, is the evidence for her "getting ugly" for the big screen. So ladies, if you'd like to be considered beautiful, please stay away from the needles.
Then there's Emma Thompson from her role in Nanny McPhee, whose "snaggletooth, huge nose, and unibrow" are highlighted as "ugly" features. Again with the teeth and eyebrows... and go ahead and add noses to the list of things women should pay attention to in order to meet the criteria the media has established for beauty. That's what plastic surgeons are for, right?
Last, we have Cameron Diaz from Being John Malkovitch who is chastised for not wearing makeup. I'll remember this next time I begin to leave my apartment without mascara and red lipstick.
All in all, lists like this (as enjoyable as they might be as we're perusing the internet looking for something to distract us from the real work that needs done) are demeaning towards women. Impossible standards have been set for beauty and we spend entirely too much time striving to meet them. Women, we are our own worst enemy in this; after all, this list was authored by none other than a woman. I've said this before and I'll likely say it again... let's stop cutting each other down and start building up ourselves and our fellow females! You are more than your eyebrows, your hair style, your scars, your teeth, your nose, and your body shape. Let your inner beauty, your generosity, your kind heart, your honesty, your integrity shine through... go ahead, girl... let your light shine bright! And hey (this one's for everyone), don't forget to tell the women you love... your mother, your sister, your girlfriend/partner/wife, your friend... or anyone you pass on the street that they are lovely!
Thursday, May 15, 2014
She's got legs...
I took ballet, tap, and jazz lessons
throughout middle and high school, and even continued dancing in college
through my university's fine arts college, taking ballet and modern classes for
three years. I am by no means a trained dancer, but I truly appreciate the
beauty of the art form and love to bust a move whenever I can (although this doesn't usually include pirouettes and my moves are far from
choreographed).
There is
recent hubbub contrasting Free People's dancer ads and those of Under Armour
(see http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/trained-dancers-are-completely-appalled-ballet-ad-free-people-clothing-157682 and http://jezebel.com/leg-envy-alert-ballerina-misty-copelands-fierce-new-u-1512457209),
and while I can see both sides' perspectives, I wonder what these conversations
say about feminism and women's body images.
The Free
People ad shows a woman who says she has been dancing since she was three. She
explains that she loves moving and dance has helped her be aware of her body. I
would argue that these are both positive messages for girls and women to hear.
Implicit in her message is encouragement for females to live active lives and
reassurance that you should be attuned to your body. However, there has been
backlash arguing that the company should have hired a professional dancer for
the spot. I, personally, love that they hired an "every woman." Not
every little girl will be a professional ballerina, but I hope that little
girls (although not the ad's target audience) might see this ad and be inspired
to express themselves through dance.
The Under
Armour ad, on the other hand, depicts a muscular Misty Copeland. I think these
images could be construed as both positive and negative for women's body
images. On the positive side, I think it's empowering to see a strong female
body in the media. Females are far from weak, and this ad shows that we, as
females, do not need someone to rescue us. On the flip side, the author of the
Jezebel article posted above bemoans her own leg muscle mass stating, "I really need to do more of squats and calf exercises,
guys, I'm slipping." While inspiring, these images do not make clear that
Misty's career as a ballerina requires quite a bit of work on her body... not
many of us can say that as we sit at our computers at work day in and day out.
I would need to do leg exercises all day every day for quite a few months to
get legs like Misty's. Misty Copeland, therefore, may not be the best target
for me to aim for in the way of desired physique. How about some realistic
bodies, Under Armour? Why should we sit here and wish we had Misty's legs? Why
can we not be told that we should appreciate our bodies for all they allow us
to do, instead of wishing they looked differently or were better in some
unattainable way?
What I'm saying is that there has to be a happy medium and we need to
watch how we talk about other women. Ladies, we are in this fight together.
Instead of cutting the woman in the Free People ad down for having weak ankles
and a sickled foot, let's commend her for trying and encourage her to continue
on her journey to becoming better. Let's inspire future generations of young
women by celebrating ALL female bodies, from the every woman to the
professional ballerina.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Let them eat tacos!
I consider myself an advocate of social justice for all and wish to fight against inequality and injustice wherever I see it in the world. However, this can be a tricky situation, especially on social media. Classmates, friends, family members, acquaintances, friends of friends all post things that are on their minds. When is it appropriate to confront someone about something they posted? How is it best to do this? I would argue that our goal should always be to educate, never to condemn. I'm passionate about issues related to race, sexual orientation, language, religion, ability, age, and gender. Given that my career aspirations revolve around doing the work of promoting social justice, I may be more sensitive to/conscious of issues involving these subjects. Sometimes it can be hard for me to contain my enthusiasm, therefore I am creating this blog as an outlet. I'm not saying I will be 100% right, 100% of the time. I'm bound to have typos, so don't bother copy-editing my posts, I know I'm not perfect. Also, I'm not saying that my way is the only correct way to think about these issues, and my reasoning may have flaws in it at times, but this is my attempt to promote social justice, one post at a time.
This article from the Western Journalism Center recently came up on my Facebook timeline (http://www.westernjournalism.com/serio)sly-eating-food-now-considered-racist/#6hkJoAza8Cxl2wZU.01). The Western Journalism Center is self-described as "a blogging platform for conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters" (http://www.westernjournalism.com/about/). In the article, one account of what happened surrounding the event Pi Phiesta is given. What appears to be an irrelevant stock image of aisles of food at some kind of convenience store is featured at the top of the article. Throughout the article, the word "some" is used several times. For instance, "some radical leftists," "some thought the trend could not get more bizarre," and "what some considered an offensive gesture." I'm sure we all use the word some in daily conversation. However, do we ever stop to think about what this word does in instances such as the ones highlighted above? Who are these elusive "some?" Are they credible? What stake do they have in this discussion? Exactly how many "some" are there?
The "outrage" mentioned in the article is described as "manufactured," suggesting that it has been invented or fabricated and that it is not real. The philanthropic event's charitable roots are highlighted, promoting the idea of the event as good and the backlash as bad. It is said that the event raises a "significant amount of money for charity," however the amount and the charity are not mentioned. The fundraiser is said to be "under fire," creating a metaphorical image of a war zone, effectively dramatizing the current situation. We hear from one individual, a writer from The College Fix; however, the voices of those opposed to the event and members of the involved sorority are silenced or at least disregarded.
The Stanford Daily, the campus newspaper at Stanford University, one of the main sites of this confrontation, posted two articles about the Pi Phiesta debate (http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/05/06/cincOo-de-mayo-observances-cause-student-protests/ and http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/05/07/pi-phi-fundraiser-opens-up-culture-minded-dialogue/). These articles featured the voices of those involved in the protest, as well as witnesses of the confrontations that occurred related to the protest, and the Pi Beta Phi president. These articles focused more directly on what occurred on Stanford's campus related to this event and the hopeful resolution that was reached as a result of conversation between the sorority and those concerned about the event's cultural sensitivity. One of these articles (Cinco de Mayo Observances Cause Student Protests) even featured a picture of one of the student protesters with her sign which read, "Our culture is not a costume."
Now I love tacos, margaritas, tamales, enchiladas, tequila, and salsa as much as the next person, and the good news is that you get to keep loving these amazing foods and drinks! I'm going on the record here saying that it is not racist to love Mexican-inspired food. Phew! Thank goodness for that! One of the Stanford Daily articles (Cinco de Mayo Observances Cause Student Protests) offered a definition of cultural appropriation. "Cultural appropriation refers to actions that trivialize aspects of a culture by not respecting a custom's symbolic significance or the history of a style of dress or other artifact." The issue is not with non-Mexican people eating Mexican-inspired food... in fact, most of my friends from other countries LOVE to share their food and customs with others. The problem lies with how we treat others and their beliefs. We wear sombreros, ponchos, and fake mustaches pretending to be a caricature of another person. I know quite a few people from Mexico, and I can honestly say I have never seen them dress this way. We get drunk and act stupid and say we're celebrating Mexico, yet we have very little concern with what actually occurs in our neighboring country and are currently involved in a fight to keep Mexico's people out of our nation. We speak Spanglish, but when our nation's epidemic monolingualism is challenged we maintain that English is the only language that matters and even argue that our patriotic songs should never be sung in any other language. The problem is not tacos. The problem is disrespect and ignorance. So next year on May 5th (or better yet, this year on September 16th, Mexico's actual independence day), have a taco, but please do so with only your real facial hair and your regular clothing... and while you're at it, make a friend from Mexico and learn what it really means to be Mexican.
This article from the Western Journalism Center recently came up on my Facebook timeline (http://www.westernjournalism.com/serio)sly-eating-food-now-considered-racist/#6hkJoAza8Cxl2wZU.01). The Western Journalism Center is self-described as "a blogging platform for conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters" (http://www.westernjournalism.com/about/). In the article, one account of what happened surrounding the event Pi Phiesta is given. What appears to be an irrelevant stock image of aisles of food at some kind of convenience store is featured at the top of the article. Throughout the article, the word "some" is used several times. For instance, "some radical leftists," "some thought the trend could not get more bizarre," and "what some considered an offensive gesture." I'm sure we all use the word some in daily conversation. However, do we ever stop to think about what this word does in instances such as the ones highlighted above? Who are these elusive "some?" Are they credible? What stake do they have in this discussion? Exactly how many "some" are there?
The "outrage" mentioned in the article is described as "manufactured," suggesting that it has been invented or fabricated and that it is not real. The philanthropic event's charitable roots are highlighted, promoting the idea of the event as good and the backlash as bad. It is said that the event raises a "significant amount of money for charity," however the amount and the charity are not mentioned. The fundraiser is said to be "under fire," creating a metaphorical image of a war zone, effectively dramatizing the current situation. We hear from one individual, a writer from The College Fix; however, the voices of those opposed to the event and members of the involved sorority are silenced or at least disregarded.
The Stanford Daily, the campus newspaper at Stanford University, one of the main sites of this confrontation, posted two articles about the Pi Phiesta debate (http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/05/06/cincOo-de-mayo-observances-cause-student-protests/ and http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/05/07/pi-phi-fundraiser-opens-up-culture-minded-dialogue/). These articles featured the voices of those involved in the protest, as well as witnesses of the confrontations that occurred related to the protest, and the Pi Beta Phi president. These articles focused more directly on what occurred on Stanford's campus related to this event and the hopeful resolution that was reached as a result of conversation between the sorority and those concerned about the event's cultural sensitivity. One of these articles (Cinco de Mayo Observances Cause Student Protests) even featured a picture of one of the student protesters with her sign which read, "Our culture is not a costume."
Now I love tacos, margaritas, tamales, enchiladas, tequila, and salsa as much as the next person, and the good news is that you get to keep loving these amazing foods and drinks! I'm going on the record here saying that it is not racist to love Mexican-inspired food. Phew! Thank goodness for that! One of the Stanford Daily articles (Cinco de Mayo Observances Cause Student Protests) offered a definition of cultural appropriation. "Cultural appropriation refers to actions that trivialize aspects of a culture by not respecting a custom's symbolic significance or the history of a style of dress or other artifact." The issue is not with non-Mexican people eating Mexican-inspired food... in fact, most of my friends from other countries LOVE to share their food and customs with others. The problem lies with how we treat others and their beliefs. We wear sombreros, ponchos, and fake mustaches pretending to be a caricature of another person. I know quite a few people from Mexico, and I can honestly say I have never seen them dress this way. We get drunk and act stupid and say we're celebrating Mexico, yet we have very little concern with what actually occurs in our neighboring country and are currently involved in a fight to keep Mexico's people out of our nation. We speak Spanglish, but when our nation's epidemic monolingualism is challenged we maintain that English is the only language that matters and even argue that our patriotic songs should never be sung in any other language. The problem is not tacos. The problem is disrespect and ignorance. So next year on May 5th (or better yet, this year on September 16th, Mexico's actual independence day), have a taco, but please do so with only your real facial hair and your regular clothing... and while you're at it, make a friend from Mexico and learn what it really means to be Mexican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)