Have a Gut Feeling of She.

I get lost in a sauce of a white brother telling me no

Why it’s so natural to contort your face as if you are something factual

And what I say sounds like coming from a foe

 

While hesitant to call you a brother, I come to not look at you as another

While in trying to recognize there is a similarity in the honorarity of a being of commonarity,

 

I made it. I just want you to

jump in the deep end of humanity where God seeks those who held on to their sanity

In it’s purest form, not the distorted lies and stories we tell ourselves to keep our minds, souls, and bodies warm

It is a depth of search of a soul that pierces the wings

of those who try to fly to being on levels with certain voices who are the only ones permitted to sing

 

Those who own and dominate the skies above with the clouds of opportunity and a false sense of community

That lands itself in a project of people wanting to look down on those who are feeble

Not to ignore their struggle, but even worse to put on a muzzle …

 

… of birds falling from the skies as their wings, damaged fall to those defeating, waiting birds resisting on the ground in defeat with muzzle keeping their souls at a low pounding, escaping heart beat.

 

And while the space between the beauty in love on the ground and the community in the sky whispering loudly to a chaotic, quiet sound

The one above the clouds will say proudly

 

That She is has been mourning sadly

to find that those who locked and threw away the key of the muzzles weighing heavy

in a form of low, deep berevity

of nothing.

 

It is a tough fall once the wings have been damaged. A physical, ethical, and non detestable life …

awaits with those who have been unallowed live with

She.

 

A blur… because writing this seems like one.

Creative Maladjustment: King’s idea that the solution to America’s problems is to find ways to respond to our moral compass when the pressure of societal norms weighs us down, even when our responses strike the majority as reprehensible. This idea stemmed from his concept that too many of us in the United States have been somewhat insidiously accustomed to conditions that should have never been in the first place such as racism, income inequality, poverty, misogyny, annddddd the list could go on.

 

Albeit all countries have their downfalls, but with the “promise” of freedom, equality, education, and all the other good things this country pledges, we are too comfortable with this promise being broken.

 

It’s Martin Luther King’s birthday today. In honoring his legacy, my idea for this blog stemmed from a lecture by Tavis Smiley where he stressed MLK’s advocacy for honest education. Stay with me. It’s not news anymore that the narrative of black history is flawed and teaching the truth is just now becoming “a thing”. But this “thing” is a form of creative maladjustment in a sense that teachers still get in trouble when they don’t “follow the book” that is acceptably Eurocentric and essentially miseducates all students. As someone who has been misinformed and wants to break the cycle, I’m going to throw out a concept that I just learned about only a few days ago reading Stevenson’s “Just Mercy”.

 

I never heard of “convict leasing” and learning about it horrified me. Apparently, someone thought at the end of the 19^th century it would be a good idea to criminalize black people for just about anything to get them to work for free in slave live conditions. Stevenson says, “Private industries throughout the country made millions of dollars with free convict labor, while thousands of African Americans died in horrific work conditions” (299). Black people were leased to businesses!! I get we were considered property at one point, but my heart still breaks reading about this system, imagining the constant fear black people felt and worry that even offending someone (which is I’m sure was much easier to do back then) could end their life and cost them their freedom. When I think about how easy it is for a black man to be justifiably killed for no reason present day, my heart beats faster, I begin to sweat, and whatever biological response this is takes over and anger manifests into my mind while sadness freezes my heart and a mix of something overwhelming and ineffable sticks to my skin. This feeling was constant for my predecessors, but magnified to a degree I cannot fathom.

 

This brings me back to a thought I often have about how the tie between “race” and humanity can never really be undone as long as there is a hierarchy of power dependent on ethnic background. A question I’ve always grappled with, like many, is how are people able to treat someone so badly. Historically, it’s always those at the top of the hierarchy who treat others so badly. The common thread hasn’t always been race, but money. When the meaning of life is to acquire as much wealth as possible, then humans begin to matter less. Consequently, being in touch with humanity as a whole transforms into something foreign until beyond recognition. Things that should matter such as OTHER PEOPLE become worthless, and inferior since the pleasure doesn’t derive from their feelings. The pleasure derives from the monetary things so how they’re treated doesn’t really have an affect on much that matters.

 

My hope for this blog is for you to become interested in learning about the history of convict leasing just because it’s an important part of black history that need not be forgotten. The psychological effects that linger in the lives of black folk are not much different today than back then. So let’s understand our history better so that we can conceptualize the idea of humanity and primarily understand ourselves more; and to really have a basis for creatively maladjusting to the norms that our moral compass is silently pushing us away from.

In his essay, “The Social Organization of Non-Violence”, Dr. Martin Luther King does say, “All history teaches us that like a turbulent ocean beating great cliffs into fragments of rock, the determined movement of people incessantly demanding their rights always disintegrates the old order”.

Thoughts?!

 

 

 

 

Go Ahead and Talk to Yourself on Social Media!!

I was hanging out with a friend a couple days ago. It was a relatively relaxing evening as he was scrolling through Facebook, and I doing something similar. He broke the silence by expressing his annoyance with Facebook. “I don’t get why people feel the need to make long, political status. Who are you talking to?! Like, you know nobody is going to reply, you only have friends with similar beliefs on your page, what’s the point?”

Well, there are many reasons to do this. But my focus is on something much larger: change. The birth of a new generation brings with it inevitable change. Through our habitual nature, we find subtle yet stark ways to be different until whatever different is becomes normal. However, the change we see with technology is finding its way into the political realm without a single care of its perceived presence. So has this subtle change technology helped construct adapted to us or are we still in the process of adapting to it?

The new way to participate in politics is through social media. One of the burdens millennials bear is the belief that we’re not voting anymore. That our civic duties are at risk. However what is interesting is that despite not voting, millennials are one of the most politically conscious generations this country has seen. Given the inevitable memes that summarize topical political events, the one-minute informative video clips, or the plethora of articles we come across where just the titles convey a message, mellenials are well equipped with an overload in information to have a decent idea of our political climate. More youth dressed up as politicians this past Halloween than any other Halloween!

I say this to say, social media is the new wave. An increase in political and civic engagement is correlated with higher levels of engagement. So while people post status on social media, even when nobody will read it or have anything interesting/ opposing to discuss, this person is using the most convenient outlet to express their voice in the public sphere of social media, which in my opinion, is pretty valuable.

Community Literacy: Race

Disclaimer: PC is disregarded

 

Would you want your neighbor to be illiterate in an environment where education is so important? If you answered no, you are unscrupulous. If you answered yes, then you already understand why literacy is a civic issue.

But lets break this down to something a little more nuanced. Last week, in a literature class of mine, we read the book Ghost by Jason Reynolds. (This is a children’s literature class that prepares us for facilitating philosophical discussion with children). The main character is a black boy who is struggling with family issues and finding solace in his new track team. After my peer criticized the main characters lack of emotion not showing any verisimilitude, I spoke up about the historical coping mechanisms black children were forced to adapt to in order to survive in this country. Nonetheless, it was revealed that not just this peer, but majority of the class did not know the main character is black because they overlooked the tiny illustration in the bottom corner on the books cover. After realizing this, they admitted that his actions make a lot more sense.

But why is our default to assume the characters are white unless told otherwise? Historically, white people have had a head start in this country. Century’s worth of a head start. But while we are in 2017, and have made a significant amount of progress (this is up for debate), why is it the norm for black people to be excluded from literature unless told otherwise?

This instance has found a permanent place in the back of my mind for the past week. Do white people really want their black neighbor to be literate? Or to have as strong of a presence in literature as white people? Obviously this overgeneralization is exaggerated, but my goal is to not paint as many pictures as “kinds” of people. I’m disregarding that because present day white supremacy is rooted in the fear that minorities will catch up and surpass them in almost every aspect of life. I mean, the fact that minorities will outnumber the white population and white people will hold less power as a byproduct. Whether consciously or subconsciously, white people want to hold on to their power. But it might be time to give it up, and uplift people in this country who are different by caring about community literacy. Caring about education equality and quality. Caring about not just personal success, but the success of those blocked by socioeconomic barriers.

Obviously, I would be foolish to say that the white population secretly doesn’t want their black brethren to be literate, educated, and powerful. But I strongly believe this uncomfortable conversation is necessary to have while white supremacy is becoming more blatantly politically accepted and is gaining momentum. The burden is on affluent areas to realize that their quality of education is deserved of everybody. Areas where schools are segregated, poor, and not properly tended to would benefit immensely if rich areas acted on the belief that community literacy is a civic iss

Shades of Impurity

This blog is a response to an essay written by Harvard Professor in the Department of African and American Studies and Department of Philosophy, Tommie Shelby. His essay, “Impure Dissent: Hip Hop and the Political Ethics of Black Urban Youth” explores hip-hop voices, how they are perceived, and why.

My purpose is to expose the double standard that seems to be overlooked in political voices by different groups. In this essay, Shelby uses the terms, “political purity” and “political impurity” to describe different groups of minorities who desire to make a change.

Shelby states, “The Montgomery boycott had a kind of moral and political purity that most political hip hop does not…(60) Much of this [hip-hop] dissent can be described as “impure”. While it contains valid political content, it also includes other elements that diverge sharply from conventional or widely held normative standards, and these deviant elements may seem to undermine its political aims. Impure dissent is meaningful political dissent that is mixed with, for example, messages urging the oppressed to embrace hedonistic consumption and vulgar materialism; relentless use of profanity, epithets, and other offensive language; enactment of negative groups stereotypes; violent and pornographic images; romantic narratives about outlaw figures and street crime; approval of alcohol abuse and illicit drug use, xenophobia, homophobia, and misogyny; and celebration of base ambitions like power and celebrity. Some might therefore view impure hip hop dissent as an example of ‘dark speech’” (64).

Based on these observations, labeling hip-hop as impure is dangerous and extremely problematic. While hip-hop is rife with impure elements, it is wrong to label a coping mechanism, a talent, and an art impure as a whole. It is almost effortless to categorize hip-hop as impure based on overt, vulgar expressions and their unwanted desire sugarcoat their truths. However, juxtaposed to conspicuous immoral elements are those tactful and prudent American leaders (the government, politicians, and corporate America) who are just as “impure”. In fact, I argue that they are actually more impure than hip-hop artists for unlike hip-hop artists, they have and use their power to affect policies with a foundation overflowing in impure intentions.

Based on Shelby’s argument, all of America’s leaders are immoral. But for some reason, they don’t have the burden of carrying this classification… The government and politics is not impure because that would render the system morally wrong and their power would be threatened. So instead, there are other ways of describing the unjust decisions these systems make. For example, some excuses could rely on the immense size of the country and the impossibility to make everybody happy, or the fact that Corporate America is just “giving consumers what they want” but their core intentions are more impure than any elements in hip-hop.

 

Here’s the double standard:

Hip-hop does not include “elements that diverge sharply from conventional normative standards” because these divergent elements are subtly subdued in the agendas of politicians and government officials. Its “relentless use of profanity” assumes that their vocabulary is exclusive to them, as American leaders don’t use profanity.

It’s assumed that hip-hop artists are the only ones who use epithets when government officials changed the word “nigger” to “criminal” – proudly written in the Constitution. The unlawful actions the 13^th amendment allows is as venomous as any epithet still or previously used.

We can condemn hip-hop for enacting “negative group stereotypes” but extol Bret Ratner’s ability to make viewers laugh (and make millions) by perpetuating and exploiting Black and Asian stereotypes in the several of Rush Hour films.

And Violent and pornographic images on covert art and in music videos is chastised when America just celebrated the influential and valuable life of Hugh Heffner last month upon his death.

Outlaw figures are street crimes are romanticized in hip-hop like literature hasn’t exposed the romanticism of World War I and World War II. And let’s take a moment to reminisce about the show “Cops”, and its inevitable romanticisms of the “hero cop” saving the community from the “criminals” roaming the streets.

If alcohol abuse was contributing to this impurity, lets discuss the impurity of the abundance of coroner stores and drug stores embedded in minority neighborhoods that corporate America sees no problem with while their bank accounts soar.

American leaders proclaim xenophobia on a much higher level, that our current president perpetuates the idea that all Muslims are terrorists. His Muslim ban aka Travel ban suspends refugee admission – in a time where refugees are fighting for their lives.

Considering homophobic laws in this country fail to allow certain groups the right to marry, using Christianity to support their callous decisions, sounds more toxic than just stating ones sexual preference through rap.

On the topic of misogyny, white men deciding that women are paid less than men for the same job is impure and toxic, and more powerful that a few lines of a man exalting his masculinity in a song. And if that remarkable oversight doesn’t strike you, the excusable, accepted locker-room talk of the current president who believes he can just “…start kissing them [women]”, who doesn’t “even wait” because “when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab’em by the pussy. You can do anything”. Power and celebrity play major roles in these unseemly actions.

If all these things make impure hip-hop dissent ‘dark speech’, I can’t help but wonder what impure politician and governmental actions are called. And I cant help but wonder why it is not as reprimanded as hip-hop.

So while Shelby doesn’t necessarily denounce hip-hop, his argument renders ineffective as he fails to contextualize impurity all around. And although I don’t think Shelby believes these systems are free from impurities, failing to mention them is problematic for those unaware readers who are not directly affected by the impurity of our countries leaders. And if the leaders of this country would not label themselves as impure, then logic would suggest they wouldn’t label hip hop as impure either.

If we ignore this element, hip-hop will continue to be seen as impure, when to me, it seems like hip-hop possesses the most pure form of expression through its limitless rage, its clear form of enlightening listeners, and its genuine call for action for those listeners who are destined to be leaders.

 

Let’s Not Agree to Disagree

The political climate surfacing on social media heavily influences this blog. To be specific, kneeling at the national anthem. There are only two sides to be on. Supporting the purpose or against it. Indifferent counts as support.

Donald Trump called those who are peacefully fighting injustice by not participating in pledging to the national anthem “Son of a b****” and that they should be fired from their athletic career. Those who use the logic that kneeling is disrespecting our veterans, the flag, and our country as a basis of their argument have not taken the time to understand those who believe this peaceful protest brings awareness to the injustice happening in our country. The sitting president should not be used as an example in this blog – but he is. He expresses his views and covers his ears to opposing arguments and lives his life in a vacuum of sycophants.

Social media is a space where the fundamentals of a democracy are represented: the ability to respectfully voice our opinion, the opportunity to respond to others thoughts, and to ultimately share ideas. However as a result of convenience and human nature, there seems to be a shift in this ideal scenario. Instead of respectfully voicing our opinions, we can yell out our opinions in a status and quickly cover our ears to opposing thoughts. We can simply ignore or delete conflicting comments or the most lethal, block the person with divergent views.

Regardless if our participation in social media is politically-driven or friendship-driven, as suggested in Online Participatory Cultures,the two inevitably fuse to a point where all we see is a vacuum of ideas from friends who share the same beliefs. Because we can. But how did we get here?

There are as many ways of dealing with opposing thoughts, as there are social media users and too often, we choose the easy way out. We see something we don’t agree with, and if we choose to respond, get carried away behind the keyboard with the intent to simply respond and not so much listen. Often times, we are carried away vehemently expressing our opinion that we forget to listen, comprehend, and ultimately understand the beliefs of the other person. (I noticed I used other to describe the person with opposing views. Is this a form of othering?) It takes a lot of practice, patience, and either critical thinking or common sensical thoughts to be able to avoid “agreeing to disagreeing”. We should avoid agreeing to disagree in order to have our social media reflect our reality. The reality that there are people with divergent beliefs in our lives – and we can’t ignore it, but learn how to objectively deal with it.

Once the goal is changed from simply expressing our thoughts on the web to understanding ideas as a whole, then the vacuum of similar thoughts will be diffused. What I mean by this is being open to understanding and question why you believe what you believe by understanding the thoughts and reasons for the differing side. Here are a few suggestions, and things that I actively do while online. (If you have any to add, or even alter on my list, drop them in the comment section!)

1. Recognize the filtering out of opposing ideas as an issue.
2. Think critically about your participation online. For example, why are you sharing particular information, what is your intent for expressing your views, how might it be received?
3. How are you responding to opposing views – defensively or with an open mind?
4. What sources are you getting your information from and how are they shaping your views?

For social media to reflect the fundamentals of a democracy, where voices are respected and disparate thoughts are passed around to discuss, this change must happen on both sides of the belief spectrum. An online dialog that represents the real life of eclectic thoughts and beliefs is better than one that only supports your own philosophies.

 

The Paradox of Engaging Abroad

This text, To Hell With Good Intentions written by scholar Ivan Illlich, discusses the unattractive ingredients of American culture and its place in the world – with regards to youth and civic engagement. His uncensored perspectives will likely anger Americans who have a habit of eschewing the reality of their ignorance. His bleak conclusion seems to render the argument impulsive and remiss of the positivity that can stem from international public engagement and civil service. However in all respects, he is rightfully frustrated with the existing paradox that while Americans are helping those who are deemed as unfortunate, they remain sanctimonious and ignorant to the same issues happening domestically.

To uncover what this really means, lets identify three important elements that make American international public engagement ineffective and ironically – ironic.

1. Are Americans hypocrites?

In short, yes. “In Chicago, poverty funds, the police force, and preachers seem to be no more successful in their efforts to check the unwillingness of the black community to wait for graceful integration into the system” (Illich).

It’s obviously not a bad thing to have interests in helping others in different countries instead of our own communities. However with all the zeal that middle class American youth express for civic engagement and the institutional value placed on volunteering, there should be some kind of noticeable improvement in cities like Chicago. Something isn’t working, and until we can figure out what that is, then we should not act as if we have all the answers for the problems of underdeveloped nations. But why does it seem that helping an “uncivilized” village in Africa is lot more cherished than volunteering in poor areas in Chicago, minority communities in Detroit, and underfunded schools in Baltimore. Hmmm, it’s almost as if this country purposefully underestimates their competence and wants to keeps them uneducated. Nonetheless, if we can’t help ourselves, what justifies us helping others internationally?

2.  Are Americans narrow minded?

In short, yes. “Peace Corps spends around $10,000 on each corps member to help him adapt to his new environment and to guard him against culture shock. How odd that nobody ever thought about spending money to educate poor Mexicans in order to prevent them from the culture shock of meeting you?” (Illich).

It’s not true, Americans are not as adored and meritorious human beings that they like to think they are. The fact that these people might experience culture shock by having us on their land lacks a presence in popular discourse. Normal equals American – and we expect people to adapt to us… as shown in our overload of hospitality and admiration towards foreigners we run into on busy streets.

3. Are Americans incapable of stepping out of their privilege?

In short, no. But far too often, yes. “You [Americans] cannot even meet the majority which you pretend to serve in Latin America – even if you could speak their language, which most of you cannot. You can only dialogue with those like you – Latin American imitations of the North American middle class [the minority]. There is no way for you to really meet with the underprivileged, since there is no common ground whatsoever for you to meet on” (Illich).

With an ethnocentric mindset, there is no common ground. But we must remember we don’t live in absolutes, so with shared humanity, ability to love, and willingness to understand, there is hope for privileged Americans to find common ground with underprivileged communities through civic engagement.

When volunteering abroad, the American purpose of offering help aligns with the purpose of the community they’re serving – to make a difference and better something. But what happens when intentions are completely different? The American wants to feel like they did something good while the intentions of the community is to literally improve their quality of life. Do intentions prove to be a barrier?

This makes me think what does it take for people with nothing in common to relate? If you have an answer to this question, why do Americans suffer with this issue domestically? The act of “Othering” is still alive and thriving in this country. Who is it that is contributing to this element?

This perspective may seem remiss of what Americans actually learn while volunteering and working abroad, and the impacts it has on their lives. But it also allows us to think about the voiceless side and how they are affected. To what extent is our help actually helping, or is it indeed creating a larger gap between cultures?

Thoughts, comments, ideas, drop them down below in the comments section!!