Racism v. Racialism?

Of course, racism is bad. To prejudge or limit others based on what one perceives to be their race(s) undermines their self-determination—affronts their human dignity. And the fact that an individual may derive a significant chunk of his or her identity from a chosen racial identity is fine and good—so long as that's a choice (although racism sometimes finds egress through such articulations).

But what about an idea of race based on something less culturally constructed? Even if we can’t transcend language, some statements seem more empirically-based, yes? Science strives—asymptotically, admittedly—for fact, and biology speaks to us about genes and natural selection. Humanity is a species, which means we’re all basically the same. But within every species is genetic variation.

Physical anthropologists used to classify humans into three basic races—then five, then seven or nine, then twelve or fifteen, then twenty-two… Then they gave up. Since observed variations in “racial” characteristics aren’t discrete, drawing hard-and-fast lines doesn’t seem to have a biological basis.

But if we think of race in terms of geographical-genetic nodes, it might still make scientific sense. Humans didn’t always move around quite as much quite as quickly, and more-or-less isolated populations had time to adapt genetically to particular environments, even if, at their geographical edges, they flowed genetically into other human populations.

Racialism is the idea that particular, primal human populations developed particular adaptations to particular environments. Unfortunately, it suggests the politically incorrect possibility that those different populations may have had particular strengths and weaknesses, relative to other human populations.

We are too close to this problem to study it effectively; due to a cultural-observer effect, the historical unpacking of racialism has typically trailed off into racism. And that’s a darn shame, if we want to know our whole story.

Culture in Elementary Schools

One of the most important things my mother has taught me thus far in life is to never become an elementary school teacher. This is partially because she knows I'm not good with kids, but also partially because she says that so little of what she does anymore is actually the teaching aspect of being a teacher. The school that my mom teaches at is diverse. The number of languages spoken there are in the double digits, and is not matched by the school's staff. In fact, parent/teacher conference are becoming a struggle. There have been times when a translator wasn't available, and the student had to sit in on the meeting/conference in order to translate for both the teacher and the parent.

If I had to define a the "culture" of the school, however, it would technically be an "English" school. The school has a program for what they call "ESL" kids- or, English as a Second Language. The children of each grade level that do not speak English at all or as their first language get together at certain parts of the day and are taught as one group. This way, an instructor can spend more one-on-one time with each student so he or she can learn the material. Having an "ESL" program is good in theory, but interesting to look at in terms of what we've been studying in class. The school does not offer different classes or instructors depending on the student's native language. Therefore all of the students who do not fall into the "English" category are grouped into one non-descriptive group. They are not considered "Hispanic" or "Asian" or any of the other terms we've talked about in class. Instead, they are all clumped together into one "English is not my first language" culture. Their class is known as the "ESL" class. In a way, it's defining them by what they aren't, instead of defining them by what they are. I realize that there aren't many solutions, due to funding issues and the like. It isn't feasible to have separate teachers for each and every language being spoken in the school. And I also don't think that the students feel offended being called the "ESL students" (although I can't speak for them). But it is an interesting topic to look at based on what we've talked about.

Can you tell me how to get to Sesame Street?

http://www.sesamestreet.org/parents/diversity

During our Culture Unit, we've discussed race and not much else. There is more to a person's culture than the color of their skin or what ethnicity they choose. Yes, I said choose for a reason. I took a Language and Society course during my undergrad and we discussed that race and ethnicity are based on a person's perspective of themself. I could call myself Black/African American if I wanted to, but then during converstation I would need to be prepared to say why I associate myself with this race. On to Sesame Street. Sesame Street has a section within their website dedicated to Diversity. Some of the different topics include who makes up your family, what holidays you celebrate, and why we all look different. These factors, along with others, create diversity between all individuals. There are non-traditional families (single parent, adoption, and interratial, etc). We celebrate different holidays (Easter, Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza, Rhamadan, etc). Physically, we all look different- even identical twins have individual features and personalities for others to tell them apart. Ernie explored why we all look different. He used an example with 4 red, identical, ball-shaped "people." Ernie couldn't tell them apart, and they couldn't identify who the mother, father, son, or postman was. Each "person" knew his or her own identity, but it was not apparent to anyone else. Ernie's point through this was if we all looked exactly the same, how would I know if the person next to me was my mom, relative, friend, or a stranger? Diversity and culture create our identities. Sometimes these identities are positively perceived and sometimes negatively. You can't change who you are (well.. you could but that's more related to the Gender Unit or Michael Jackson).

The Road to Hell . . .

On the first day of our gender-and-sexuality unit, I startled everyone by smacking myself in the face mid-discussion with one of the style guides that Professor Lunsford had brought for our perusal. I regret having caused the disturbance—not least because the gesture had nothing to do with the topic at hand—but I reacted on pure instinct to an example of good intentions gone bad. Permit me to explain.

The problematic word? Concertmaster (the principal violinist of a symphony orchestra).

The preferred alternatives? Concert leader or Concert director.

From the perspective of gender neutrality, the substitution makes sense: why preserve a seemingly antiquated, clearly masculine term if a gender-neutral option exists—particularly if the individual thus titled is a female? As Paula Treichler and other feminist linguists emphasize, language both reflects and shapes culture, so linguistic and cultural change must at some point join forces on the march toward utopia. But history and precision, it seems, risk becoming casualties of the more militant movements for equity (of gender, ability, and race). The distinctive (sub-?)culture of Western classical music holds as negative a record toward gender parity as perhaps any other institution. As a woman and a musician, this fact dismays me. As a historian, I have tried to create a more complete historical record by writing and teaching about women in music. I do heed gender considerations as I work; I try, for example, to avoid the phrase “woman composer,” since it suggests an exceptionalism that the historical record does not necessarily support. Yet, I cannot fathom the circumstance in which I would employ concert leader or concert director. Concertmaster, for all its masculine connotations, is as historically accurate as foreman (of a jury; of a plantation; of a construction project). Moreover, it is also accurately job-specific in a way that neither of the suggested alternatives can match. A grain of historical truth accompanies concert leader, in that the concertmaster actually did lead the orchestra before the advent of the modern conductor in the early nineteenth century. Concert director, however, invites confusion with the role of conductor (or director, as a wind ensemble leader occasionally is called) and with the various organizational support positions attached to a professional orchestra. For the sake of historical accuracy and contemporary clarity, I would no more call a 21^st-century woman principal violinist a concert director than I would an 18^th-century male in the same position. Nor would I tolerate an editor who insisted on changing my terminology to align with a personal (ahistorical) agenda, no matter how well intended.

Style guides and “alternative” dictionaries have a place, but the responsibility to gauge and prioritize sensitivity and accuracy lies with the end user.

Starting Early

I came across an interesting article in searching for some topics for this blog. The article, titled "Gender Bias Still Exists in Children's Literature," states that gender bias is still common in many children's books. A duo at Centre College surveyed over 200 childrens books and found that they were still very gender-biased and showed an under-representation of female characters.

The kicker? Most of the books were from 2001, except the seven-year Caldecott winners, which were still recent. We're not talking classic children's literature that ranges from fables to Winnie the Pooh to Where the Wild Things Are, but we're talking modern-day women-can-work-and-make-as-much-as-men, don't-write-he-because-it-could-be-she children's books.

So what all did this entail? Well, as a short summary, and directly from the website, "There were nearly twice as many male as female title and main characters... Male characters appeared in lillustrations 53 percent more than female characters... Female main characters nurtured more than did male main characters, and they were seen in more indoor than outdoor scenes... Occupations were gender stereotyped, and more women than men appeared to have no paid occupation."

Nature versus NURTURE, anyone?

The duo also did studies on books from the 80s and 90s, and found no reduced sexism in the books from the year 2001.

Two other intersting facts: First, in these 200 books, "more than twice as many had more male title characters than female (75 versus 32) and more male main characters than female (95 versus 52)." But, possibly more intersting is the The People = Male and Animal = Male phenomena, or that there exists in us a tendency to assume an animal or a person is male unless there's strong information to the contrary.

And what all does this mean? According to one of the researchers, "Modern children's picture books continue to provide nightly reinforcement of the idea that boys and men are more interesting and important than are girls and women."

It's interesting that, for the most part, I doubt these authors sat back and said "Hm, how can I make this as gender-biased as possible?" but we're still giving children the hidden implications of male-reigning society. Why? Because it's still subconsciously in our heads as well, perhaps. Either that or the authors really are sitting around trying to figure out how they can make it as gender-biased as possible.

See the article at http://www.collegenews.org/x6773.xml

"Why I am a Feminist"

I’m a man, and I’m a feminist. Not only do I perceive no contradiction there, but I cannot understand how it should be otherwise. Let me explain what I mean, starting with a simple definition. Dictionary.com is not considered a feminist (much less a radical) resource, and its first definition of feminism is: “The doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.” It’s tempting to say it would take a Neanderthal to disagree with such a doctrine, but that would be an insult to Neanderthals!

I perceive the essence of feminism to be a logical expression of our Enlightenment-democratic / egalitarian impulse. To paraphrase Jefferson, we hold this truth to be self-evident: that all people are created equal. The fact that our Founders were inconsistent in their application of this principle has not been an argument against it, but rather it has been an incentive to realize its full unfolding (a fact not appreciated by those who ungratefully bask in emancipations painfully secured for them by others).

I believe that, to paraphrase MLK, a threat to freedom and dignity anywhere is a threat to freedom and dignity everywhere. From Blacks to Womyn to Queers, groups historically disenfranchised by “The Man” have struggled to acquire the “Rights of Man”—which is to say their human rights (thus I justify the paraphrasing of men here). And recognizing that the smallest minority is the individual, I affirm the rights of minorities not just as a matter of fairness—although it is that—but as a matter of self interest.

And that is why I am a feminist.

Sexism in Comedy

In the world of humor, comedians push the boundaries of taste. They confront uncomfortable issues head on. Today is no different. Daniel Tosh’s television show, Tosh.0, is one of the most popular programs on basic cable. In the show, Tosh gives a scathing commentary about viral videos found on the Internet. Tosh claims, “I’m not a misogynistic and racist person, but I do find those jokes funny, so I say them.” As a result, many of his punch lines are racist, sexist, or homophobic.

http://http://tosh.comedycentral.com/video-clips/web-redemption---cartwheeling-goalie

In one of the episodes, which ran June 30, 2010, Tosh featured a clip, the Cartwheeling Goalie. During the video, Tosh interviews a goalie, known for a viral video where he performs cartwheels before penalty kicks. Throughout the clip, Tosh belittles soccer. In one scene, he suggests the goalie try out for a more masculine sport, American football, and, in another, Tosh parodies the famous celebration when Brandi Chastain scored the game-winning goal in the 1999 Woman’s World Cup.

But, is this ok?

Comedy provides an outlet for taboo subjects to be discussed. Bill Maher, host of Real Time, explains, “There are a lot of issues you need to tread carefully on, but sometimes the best disinfectant for a messy topic is sunlight, and it's comedy's job to be that sunlight.”

Personally, when I hear a joke that goes too far, I think to myself: is that how that sounds? It makes me more aware. By forcing us to confront the elephant in the room, comics like Tosh may be doing us a favor.