Ever since the Marathon I've been holding down the impulse to write about the concept of Enough. Regardless of the situation, you are never doing Enough. In the wake of the Marathon bombings I saw a flurry of activity from people who wanted everyone upset about Boston to know that they hadn't been upset Enough about Syria, or Afghanistan, or India, or the Sudan, or whatever topic that particular person is upset about and wishes everyone else would get upset about too. I see this version of Enough all the time and it makes me feel vaguely violent. It's the political equivalent of walking into a wake and screaming "Do you know how many people die each year? Why didn't you cry this hard for them?" There is a scale of grief. You care about the neighbor dying, but you care more when someone in your house does.
I can't stop hate in the world. I can't even stop it in my HOA. Society is a boulder we continually push uphill. If enough people stop pushing, it crushes those remaining. Sometimes, you get a miracle. Sometimes the boulder clears the top and you can breathe for a second before it starts rolling backward. Trayvon got that breath of relief. Rekia did not. They're still dead. Hate can't push a pebble so we tap it down to push on. If you tell me there is no point to my effort I have to wonder why. How have you defined Enough? Since you are obviously doing it, is it working? Have you solved what you wanted to solve?
I didn't think so.
Some define Enough as a constant engagement with those around them. Some define Enough as an abdication of their daily life in favor of continual activism. Some define Enough as radicalizing and joining a militant group. But the struggle continues. Enough isn't even enough. The Sandy Hook Parents and 90 percent of the American people united to call for a bill making tiny commonsense restrictions to our gun laws. It wasn't Enough. Like Gold Star Parents or the 9/11 Widows the Sandy Hook Parents are now accused of doing too much. If they had just done things differently, then magic would happen and our efforts would be Enough. Bostonians defined Enough as staying indoors while their first responders responded to bombings, murders, carjackings, and shootings. To many people who don't live in Boston, this wasn't Enough. The city of Boston exists because the native people of the area didn't do Enough to repel the invading force of European settlement. In 1642 my ancestor was granted a farm of 92 acres in Watertown (an upgrade from his previous 10 acre homestall). To the people who lived in Watertown before it was Watertown, before he arrived, was there the same inability to define Enough? The struggle is the struggle is the struggle.
To the people who are upset when I don't care Enough, when I don't march Enough, when I don't define Enough the same way they do I say I am out here. I am pushing. We are all together in wanting peaceful coexistence. We are all together in rejecting extremism and radicalism. We are all working on our side of the boulder. It's going to crush us all. Look for those moments to breathe. Make them enough to push you forward. America is largely safe of bombs in public spaces. I'd like that to be true for every nation. I won't squander the privilege of that safety by accepting it may end. There are struggles all over the world. The boulders will always be rolling. I don't deny our part in them, but push on the surfaces I can touch with the strength I have. It might not be Enough for you, but it will have to be enough for me.
*The tipping point for this rant was this Salon article, more specifically the passage: "Don’t look the other way and tell me that you signed a petition or voted for John Kerry or whatever. The fact is that whatever dignified private opinions you and I may hold, we did not do enough..." without then defining what Enough looked like.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Too Big To Fail
I've been waiting for J.C. Penney to replace Ron Johnson since shortly after they hired him. He had a fundamental failure to understand the J.C. Penney customer. While I was not the Penney's customer, I've worked for them and my great-grandfather was friendly with their founder. Actually, let's hear from the man himself.
“We told store managers that, unless they knew their communities and unless they were prepared to enter sympathetically into community life, they could not make a success of their stores.” - James Cash Penney
Penney believed in meeting the customer on their own level. He believed strongly in individual service as a path to success. This is a basic truth of retailing that I rarely see deployed. Even this otherwise spot on article misses that point. The best tool a retailer has is not pricing but staffing. Current trends in retail are to reposition payroll hours into stock and cashier positions while expecting stockers to do double duty as service persons. In some retailers this works. Target has a customer who expects little to no service and a call button system that loudly reminds those in the store that floor personnel are timed in their response. Some retailers staff adequately but train and deploy that staff poorly. (Looking at you, Best Buy.) Staffing is an art, best handled by the store manager, not by a chart from the home office. Retail workers wages have declined steadily. Walking into a store I can tell you who makes what. The paycheck shows in the performance.
Penney's customer is a service driven budget shopper. Their shopper can't (or chooses not to) pay high end department store prices but wants to have the same shopping experience. The Penney's customer is not a person of leisure. They're busy. Generally they know what they want but they are also willing to add purchases. They prefer to order things that are out of stock rather than waste time hunting sizes or styles down. If they like an item, they may order the full color range. Before Johnson came in Penny's was losing customers by increased centralization of ordering and reduction of staffing. If the Penny's customer has to hunt down their own purchases, they might as well shop at Target. It's not a surprise to me that Johnson wanted to reposition Penny's as Target without the groceries. The problem is that Target already does Target, and quite well. That customer is being served.
At the top of retail choices are made that lose sight of what those at the bottom of retail know. The key to success is not focusing on the customer you don't have, it's increasing the amount of money your customer spends. Find out what your customer likes and give them more of it. As James Cash Penney knew, this requires local involvement. School event with specific dress code coming up? Let the stores order for it. Lots of size 5 feet in the area? Stop shipping them size 14. When the customer walks into a Target in Miami and sees a wall of ear muffs you might as well throw that merchandise away. The widget model cuts costs and excites Wall Street but it's the retail equivalent of telling the customer you neither understand them nor care to. You see a shipping model with a loss threshold offset by organizational practice savings. The customer sees a bunch of idiots running this place.
Penney's is a common tale. (I play a game with former coworkers called "Months Till Closing" where we put major chains on deathwatch.) I've worked for or shopped at any number of retailers who were once Goliath but are now gone. They fail because failure seems impossible to them. They are too big to fail. For part of my career I worked for Service Merchandise. It was a great job with a highly profitable company. We had real benefits, real wages, respect from corporate and a fair amount of local control. They hired a new CEO. This guy was already known to rank and file as the dude that broke Dalton's. He gave his first internal broadcast briefing. I gave notice and sold my stock holdings. It was clear he didn't understand our concept or our customer. In the broadcast he showed serious class blindness by using Spam as the prop for a series of jokes about low profitability. To much of his audience Spam was a luxury purchase, not a punchline. His opening move was to show contempt for the people he was trusting to execute his vision. You know who made a fortune by taking over the Service Merchandise concept? Amazon.
*Too bad they didn't adopt the profit sharing model of Service Merchandise's founders.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Cheesecake And A Fork
Magritte, a photo by The Physiognomist on Flickr.
There's this actor named Jon Hamm. Every so often it's pointed out that he's got a rather large dick. Being a slow news week, the latest acknowledgement of his package led to a media frenzy. Knowledgeable sources were quoted talking about on set reaction to the The Full Hamm. Quotes popped up in the usual places from friends of friends who know this guy who walks this dog that once passed by Jon Hamm and wow did that dog react! Reporters asked Hamm to discuss his endowment. Understandably, the actor was not amused by this sexual harassment.
Thus more ink was spilled. Should Hamm expect pants privacy? What does it mean that the age of junk measurement is upon us? Some excellent satire was written using the language usually applied to women's bodies. Discussions are underway about how we objectify women (That new hairstyle is not doing John Kerry any favors. Staffers hide his styling products but he just buys more!) while allowing men bodily autonomy. Except, you know, not really. There was something missing from the last few weeks for me. I did not feel any piece had a real sense of regret for Jon Hamm, the man. While I understand the impulse to come from a place of "How do you like it now, male members of society!" the man has been violated. He has been victimized and I will be happy to cry him the appropriate river.
As a society, we should absolutely not be so obsessed with policing each other's bodies. That includes the bodies of men. The recent focus on Hamm brings to mind an internet conversation I once had with Mark Consuelos. At the time, he was better known than his wife (Kelly Ripa) and was holding a chat for whatever project he was promoting. I asked him about his stint as a romance novel cover model. Consuelos was uncomfortable with it. It's been far too many years for me to recall his exact words but it was obvious that this was a career choice he was not happy to have made, one that he would prefer to forget. We talked briefly about the Cult of Fabio that was in it's heyday and the odd objectification of these cover models by book fans. I hope, and believe, that he understood I was speaking from a place of curiosity (which turned to empathy) and not from fandom.
I am uncomfortable with the way we depersonalize humans once their image has been captured. It might be Man Titty Monday, it might be Turkish Oil Wrestling, but women who would rail against soft core galleries of female celebrities are completely at ease objectifying their male counterparts. The answer of objectification is not more objectification, and yet as Jon Hamm has discovered - that's how we roll. If your coworker came home, cracked open the laptop and began composing explicit sex scenes about you and the boss it would freak you out. It would cross boundaries. It would be very not ok. Yet this is an accepted practice in fan fiction - to write about sexual relationships between actual people. Actors and actresses are told that they have to expect these objectifications as part of their employment. By going to work, they have invited this.
I can't agree. I have never agreed. There is a privacy we should each be afforded as humans, a line that is crossed so often we forget it exists in their lives, as it does in our own. Finding an individual attractive, admiring their publicity shots or collecting a gallery of ridiculously photogenic people is normal. Viewing other humans as something consumable, something to be examined and used in whatever way the viewer feels appropriate is simply wrong. When we encounter it, our reaction should always be the same. Regret. Sorrow. An understanding that something undesirable has taken place.
I wrote this piece earlier today. I was thinking in terms of celebrity and online culture. A man I've known casually for almost two decades told me something I'd never known about him. For 16 years he moonlighted as a male stripper. It was, he said, degrading dehumanizing physically painful work he would never wish on anyone. Men were generally respectful, possibly as a result of the homophobia of the time. Women, especially once drunk, became frighteningly aggressive. It was routine for them to yank on his dick, to tug his concealed sexual organs into the open without warning or permission. Stripping was a life that once he started, he had trouble leaving. If he knew now how he would feel about it, it's not a life he would have chosen. But at the time, it seemed an ideal second job. The days turn to weeks to months to years to decades to bad memories that you don't shake. Those women saw their fantasy, not the man in front of them. Fantasies don't require consideration. By showing up for work, their consent is presumed. To all of them, whoever they are, my support.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Fair Rarely Means Balanced
This is about specifics and about generalities and about all points in between. Really, it's about the life cycle of an open mind. I've lived on the internet for enough years to know better but I always hope. I hope that whatever community I wind my way into, on whatever topic, will resist the quiet whispers of the Civility Police. You would think, as a person that moderated boards for AOL before that was a badge of shame, that I'd know better.
Here's how it goes.
Someone (or a group) decides the problem with their current habitat is an excess of moderating. They decide to form a new group where open conversations are the rule, not the exception. Big girl (and boy) pants are handed out. The community grows because people enjoy open conversation. Fervent disagreement educates as much as it link baits. Eventually, the community faces a crossroads. Are they chicken, or are they fish?
Always, the question comes couched as the question of civility. It's the tone argument. The strong voices, the ones that build the community, attract conversation, and distinguish it from the bland, are undervalued. There are important people not being heard. Fearful people. Quiet people. People who send emails and whisper in ears and quake in the self satisfied boots of the pious. It doesn't have to be a book community. I've seen it play out in places as absurd as travel communities. On the face of it, it seems so reasonable. Rather than institute an ignore feature or tell people to man up, the choice is made to change. To become more like the place they fondly remember as great, before the moderation drove away the strong voices and the self policers.
The thing is, I've never been interested in people who hold civility up as a goal. The poison they drip is far more vile to me than the frontal assault of a true believer. When asked "You don't want to make people uncomfortable, do you?" I say yes. Yes I do. I want the gays to marry, the people of color to party at the beach, the country club to celebrate Purim, the headscarf to be worn at the school play. Yes. I want people to be uncomfortable. I do. When you are uncomfortable you are forced to examine if you are right.
Then the argument is made that passionate debate is still welcome. Just not with that voice, not in that tone, why are you taking it personally? Yes, these people may be directing their words at you but... and but.. and but. Wait your turn. Raise your hand. Think about the other person but don't expect them to think about you because you, you're loud. You make people uncomfortable. You want them to defend their words instead of bask in them. Often those who are most vehement in their tone arguments are the most hateful, the least inclusive, the quickest to uphold the status quo and wave away the dissent. Class issues? Race issues? Pish and tosh. Pish and tosh, we say! How you speak becomes more important than the content of your speech. More important than the content of your character.
Civility goes hand in hand with solidarity. Trust in us! Support this feminism and that feminism will follow! Believe in the past instead of the present! Every book is a good book for someone! Toxic messages are in the eye of the beholder! If that fails, then it is generally pointed out that the ball is owned by the rule maker, and the rule maker makes the game. Which is why I run a series of blogs instead of communities. I believe that communities belong to those who populate them, not those who begin them. A lack of civility is not abuse. People no longer sharing your taste is not disdain.
Some of you have been in communities with me for ten, twenty, maybe even thirty years. You know that nothing I say here is inconsistent with any position I previously held. Some of you don't know me at all, and that's fine. Choosing to honor the whispering horsemen of the nicepocalypse isn't a crime. Having the right to take an action is not the same as being right in your actions. Communities rise and fall, they struggle on or enjoy rebirth. Somewhere there is someone thinking about building a new one. It may be six weeks, it may be six months, but one thing I know about the internet is a new home is always under construction. My choice forever is to go with the loud girls, the proud girls, the girls we say we want but almost never support.
Here's how it goes.
Someone (or a group) decides the problem with their current habitat is an excess of moderating. They decide to form a new group where open conversations are the rule, not the exception. Big girl (and boy) pants are handed out. The community grows because people enjoy open conversation. Fervent disagreement educates as much as it link baits. Eventually, the community faces a crossroads. Are they chicken, or are they fish?
Always, the question comes couched as the question of civility. It's the tone argument. The strong voices, the ones that build the community, attract conversation, and distinguish it from the bland, are undervalued. There are important people not being heard. Fearful people. Quiet people. People who send emails and whisper in ears and quake in the self satisfied boots of the pious. It doesn't have to be a book community. I've seen it play out in places as absurd as travel communities. On the face of it, it seems so reasonable. Rather than institute an ignore feature or tell people to man up, the choice is made to change. To become more like the place they fondly remember as great, before the moderation drove away the strong voices and the self policers.
The thing is, I've never been interested in people who hold civility up as a goal. The poison they drip is far more vile to me than the frontal assault of a true believer. When asked "You don't want to make people uncomfortable, do you?" I say yes. Yes I do. I want the gays to marry, the people of color to party at the beach, the country club to celebrate Purim, the headscarf to be worn at the school play. Yes. I want people to be uncomfortable. I do. When you are uncomfortable you are forced to examine if you are right.
Then the argument is made that passionate debate is still welcome. Just not with that voice, not in that tone, why are you taking it personally? Yes, these people may be directing their words at you but... and but.. and but. Wait your turn. Raise your hand. Think about the other person but don't expect them to think about you because you, you're loud. You make people uncomfortable. You want them to defend their words instead of bask in them. Often those who are most vehement in their tone arguments are the most hateful, the least inclusive, the quickest to uphold the status quo and wave away the dissent. Class issues? Race issues? Pish and tosh. Pish and tosh, we say! How you speak becomes more important than the content of your speech. More important than the content of your character.
Civility goes hand in hand with solidarity. Trust in us! Support this feminism and that feminism will follow! Believe in the past instead of the present! Every book is a good book for someone! Toxic messages are in the eye of the beholder! If that fails, then it is generally pointed out that the ball is owned by the rule maker, and the rule maker makes the game. Which is why I run a series of blogs instead of communities. I believe that communities belong to those who populate them, not those who begin them. A lack of civility is not abuse. People no longer sharing your taste is not disdain.
Some of you have been in communities with me for ten, twenty, maybe even thirty years. You know that nothing I say here is inconsistent with any position I previously held. Some of you don't know me at all, and that's fine. Choosing to honor the whispering horsemen of the nicepocalypse isn't a crime. Having the right to take an action is not the same as being right in your actions. Communities rise and fall, they struggle on or enjoy rebirth. Somewhere there is someone thinking about building a new one. It may be six weeks, it may be six months, but one thing I know about the internet is a new home is always under construction. My choice forever is to go with the loud girls, the proud girls, the girls we say we want but almost never support.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Social Media - "Dear God You're Doing It Wrong"
Look at how I mess people's feeds up. Land sakes.
"Ok, cool. Thank you for the Magpul background, I had none of the Colorado information.
So, I'll try to keep my response thoughts orderly but I will be long winded and I apologize...
Weaponry: I gotta go back to flashbangs. Or for hyperbole myself - I am not taking a ride in Air Force One any time soon, but in a literal sense you and I both own it. Sure, I could drop insane money and buy my own fancy plane, crew, and bodyguards, but not unrestricted secure communication, prioritized air space clearance, military fighter pilot escort, unrestricted landing clearance... the president is The President, but he's a citizen too. I'm not put off by any of that. His function and role is different than mine.
So to scale it back down to police - I am not doing what they are doing. I am not kicking in crack-house doors, or serving warrants to child prostitution ringleaders, or detaining a bank robber in LA wearing body armor. I don't have that beef. The only time I would legitimately need the muscle (because let's face it, MS13 don't give a crap about me and if enough of them did that I would need a full AR15 mag to balance the issue I would already have bigger problems than a rifle would be solving) is if my beef were with the police/feds. Besides "I enjoy having them" which is a fine consideration in a free society, I don't honestly see another driving reason for mass sale beyond the argument that is often brought up about keeping fascism back.
History: we have 200 years of that type of fascism pretty much not being how things are done here. I mean we brutalized the African and Island population we brought over, we cheated and murdered the Native Americans, Mexico? I mean hello. We wage financial and cultural fascism all over the place, but actual dictatorship? The Civil War was initiated by the states - not really citizen soldiers, but actual government against itself - essentially Sequestration with cannon fire by the people who liked living off free labor. I have said before but will again that if that type of dictatorship/fascism which proponents claim amassing guns would solve were to start, no number of private citizens would do anything here but get themselves killed in tank/jet/howitzer/drone blasts. Our culture is not the fragile banana republic type of culture in which the results of armed conflict would ever be in doubt. If there were division in the military, well, they'd already all have guns and I promise there would be an unequal access to firepower there too.
Now, I am passingly familiar with what a d-bag Castro, Raul, Ernesto and their buddies were/are. My real historical base is the internet trope of the Nazis, because I've studied it and have family members who lost staggering numbers of ancestors in camps.
I would never say it can't happen here.
In fact, it's very easy to happen (or something functionally identical as far as political control goes) here if there were any kind of gain by doing it, but it would be with the frog slowly brought to boil by changes in legal process, like extraordinary rendition, harsh legal penalties for whistle-blowers and cognitive dissidents, obfuscation and marginalization of political protest free speech, removal of habeas corpus, military strikes on US citizens, censorship and anonymous monitoring of communication...
Note that ALL of this has already happened and continues to at this moment. For me, lefty idealistic rationalist that I am, it's about corporate control. The occupy movement illustrated what many born of a certain color already knew from experience - that the police are not here to protect us in terms of life or liberty (court cases have ruled that explicitly, actually) - they are here to protect the societal norms and to protect industry and property.
So yes, Virginia, we're a nation that's owned, but the fascism comes in terms of capitalistic trade-off. Eli Lilly keeps my diabetic butt alive at the retail cost of $300 a month just in insulin, and that's criminal, but mostly because of how our political system is paid for by people working for Eli Lilly.
From my position the NRA is very similar, in that it's their paycheck to sell guns and to make gun sales more common. The only difference for me between the two is that Pharma pays dollars to keep their costs high because they're not able to increase market by convincing people to become diabetic (ambien/adderall different story), which causes people to die from financial hardship and lack of medication or care. The gun lobby pays dollars to keep their volume of transactions high and as unfettered as possible because hey - government might take you in the night, buy more guns.
I might think that the astoundingly high gun death rate the US enjoys compared to other industrialized nations is reason enough to do something (new law or just changes in existing practice) to curb that pattern. You should check out that slate.com crowd-sourced running tabulation of gun deaths in the US since sandyhook. The numbers are fantastic and the data is hard to compile by design.
To bottom line my position - if the reason for arguing equality in all gun type access is sport and a general argument for Constitution, I would not dismiss that out of hand, but I would strongly weigh the totality of gun violence which no other sport enjoys against specific subsections of the hobby if any strides could be made in curbing the death toll.
If the reason is tactical from a law and order position, I think the position is worse, perhaps more damaging than redundant.. I strongly believe that just as knowledge of language structurally changes our brains and modifies the way we literally think, there is a demonstrable effect of culture on a society's expression and even our understanding of possibilities. If we earnestly look at gun ownerships and accept increasing militarization as our option for political voice, then guns will ultimately become the only option we can imagine... and I think that if that were to happen, we'd have nothing left to fight for but real estate and empty slogan, because our sense of political, and cultural identity would already be forfeit. "
"Ok, cool. Thank you for the Magpul background, I had none of the Colorado information.
So, I'll try to keep my response thoughts orderly but I will be long winded and I apologize...
Weaponry: I gotta go back to flashbangs. Or for hyperbole myself - I am not taking a ride in Air Force One any time soon, but in a literal sense you and I both own it. Sure, I could drop insane money and buy my own fancy plane, crew, and bodyguards, but not unrestricted secure communication, prioritized air space clearance, military fighter pilot escort, unrestricted landing clearance... the president is The President, but he's a citizen too. I'm not put off by any of that. His function and role is different than mine.
So to scale it back down to police - I am not doing what they are doing. I am not kicking in crack-house doors, or serving warrants to child prostitution ringleaders, or detaining a bank robber in LA wearing body armor. I don't have that beef. The only time I would legitimately need the muscle (because let's face it, MS13 don't give a crap about me and if enough of them did that I would need a full AR15 mag to balance the issue I would already have bigger problems than a rifle would be solving) is if my beef were with the police/feds. Besides "I enjoy having them" which is a fine consideration in a free society, I don't honestly see another driving reason for mass sale beyond the argument that is often brought up about keeping fascism back.
History: we have 200 years of that type of fascism pretty much not being how things are done here. I mean we brutalized the African and Island population we brought over, we cheated and murdered the Native Americans, Mexico? I mean hello. We wage financial and cultural fascism all over the place, but actual dictatorship? The Civil War was initiated by the states - not really citizen soldiers, but actual government against itself - essentially Sequestration with cannon fire by the people who liked living off free labor. I have said before but will again that if that type of dictatorship/fascism which proponents claim amassing guns would solve were to start, no number of private citizens would do anything here but get themselves killed in tank/jet/howitzer/drone blasts. Our culture is not the fragile banana republic type of culture in which the results of armed conflict would ever be in doubt. If there were division in the military, well, they'd already all have guns and I promise there would be an unequal access to firepower there too.
Now, I am passingly familiar with what a d-bag Castro, Raul, Ernesto and their buddies were/are. My real historical base is the internet trope of the Nazis, because I've studied it and have family members who lost staggering numbers of ancestors in camps.
I would never say it can't happen here.
In fact, it's very easy to happen (or something functionally identical as far as political control goes) here if there were any kind of gain by doing it, but it would be with the frog slowly brought to boil by changes in legal process, like extraordinary rendition, harsh legal penalties for whistle-blowers and cognitive dissidents, obfuscation and marginalization of political protest free speech, removal of habeas corpus, military strikes on US citizens, censorship and anonymous monitoring of communication...
Note that ALL of this has already happened and continues to at this moment. For me, lefty idealistic rationalist that I am, it's about corporate control. The occupy movement illustrated what many born of a certain color already knew from experience - that the police are not here to protect us in terms of life or liberty (court cases have ruled that explicitly, actually) - they are here to protect the societal norms and to protect industry and property.
So yes, Virginia, we're a nation that's owned, but the fascism comes in terms of capitalistic trade-off. Eli Lilly keeps my diabetic butt alive at the retail cost of $300 a month just in insulin, and that's criminal, but mostly because of how our political system is paid for by people working for Eli Lilly.
From my position the NRA is very similar, in that it's their paycheck to sell guns and to make gun sales more common. The only difference for me between the two is that Pharma pays dollars to keep their costs high because they're not able to increase market by convincing people to become diabetic (ambien/adderall different story), which causes people to die from financial hardship and lack of medication or care. The gun lobby pays dollars to keep their volume of transactions high and as unfettered as possible because hey - government might take you in the night, buy more guns.
I might think that the astoundingly high gun death rate the US enjoys compared to other industrialized nations is reason enough to do something (new law or just changes in existing practice) to curb that pattern. You should check out that slate.com crowd-sourced running tabulation of gun deaths in the US since sandyhook. The numbers are fantastic and the data is hard to compile by design.
To bottom line my position - if the reason for arguing equality in all gun type access is sport and a general argument for Constitution, I would not dismiss that out of hand, but I would strongly weigh the totality of gun violence which no other sport enjoys against specific subsections of the hobby if any strides could be made in curbing the death toll.
If the reason is tactical from a law and order position, I think the position is worse, perhaps more damaging than redundant.. I strongly believe that just as knowledge of language structurally changes our brains and modifies the way we literally think, there is a demonstrable effect of culture on a society's expression and even our understanding of possibilities. If we earnestly look at gun ownerships and accept increasing militarization as our option for political voice, then guns will ultimately become the only option we can imagine... and I think that if that were to happen, we'd have nothing left to fight for but real estate and empty slogan, because our sense of political, and cultural identity would already be forfeit. "
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Good Intentions Gone Wrong
My third grader was assigned a black history month project. Kids were instructed to write six letters as though they were friends with a major historical figure, who did not have to be black but had to be of some general cultural importance. Whitesplaining and bootstrapping follows. It is hardly Z's fault that at eight years of age she still has cultural baggage to unpack. It's a big culture and she's a little girl. Let's check this thing out without her.
Dearest Zee,
Life on the plantation has been very unusually hard this time, but I'm hoping it will stop. All the fuzz and lint in the air is making me cough. I can't concentrate, so I keep getting whipped. Tomorrow I hope I get to work with Mrs. Cook's husband and not her.
Sincerely, Harriet.
Here I give Z a few points. It's not Harriet's fault she's being whipped, it's a result of external forces. Harriet is not defined as lazy. Z can't be expected to realize a young female slave might avoid the master.
Dearest Harriet,
I am so sorry that you have to deal with that. I hope that you get to work with her husband instead also. Please have some good news next time!!!!
Sincerely, Zee
Here things start to go, um, South. While Z is appropriately sorry she doesn't really get what whipping is. Harriet is encouraged to be less of a downer. After all, mail should be happier.
Dearest Zee,
Well I can tell you that I have some good news. I got to go back to my family, but I have to work in the field. I just helped a runaway slave but got hit in the head with a weight. It left a scar, but I'm ok now.
Sincerely, Harriet
Whew, at least Harriet isn't always going on about her problems. Because Z is not here for that. I give her points for bringing in family separation and the risk involved in helping a fugitive.
Dearest Harriet,
I hope you don't have an aching head too much. I hope you get treated with respect by not just other slaves, but by slave owners too. I would also like to find a way to help you keep your hope that you will find a way to be a free person.
Sincerely, Zee
At the beginning of this letter I thought we were headed up. Z shows compassion for Harriet and a desire to improve her life. Unfortunately, while acknowledging her own helplessness she accepts the reality of slave owners. Z stops short of wishing slavery would end, because that's radical. Z wishes for her friend's freedom, but not an end to slavery. This is an interesting bit because it falls into Having A Black Friend. Z has inadvertently shown the typical response of a white friend to injustice suffered by a person of color; a desire for the specific person to be well treated rather than an end to the system that mistreats.
Dearest Zee,
You are the best friend ever! And thanks to you, I am finally free! There was a man who worked on the same plantation as I did named John. He was a free slave so he wanted to stay but I didn't want to keep being a slave. I used the skills my father taught me and got help from a Quaker woman. Now I am free! I have money! Thanks!
Sincerely, Harriet
Where do we start? Z has given a few encouraging words and some empty wishes to Harriet and in return Harriet has ceded all the credit for her escape. Without that lightbulb moment, our fictional version of Harriet might have stayed under the whip. Instead she bootstrapped her way over to the Quakers and increased her economic standing. This is where I realized how deeply ingrained cultural fictions are in historical lessons at the grade school level. Because dude. Z wrote this. With sincere intent.
Dearest Harriet,
That's great! I hope you can get your family and friends to freedom too. I'll try to meet up with you sometime soon! Hey, you know, you should help other slaves too!
Sincerely, Zee
This is just so brilliantly dominant culture that it could be satire. Z blithely accepts the credit then offers to party. As an afterthought, she creates the Underground Railroad. The fictional version of Z doesn't offer to help the fictional version of Harriet Tubman because anti-racism work is hard and it's something that should be done by people of color. I'm not sure how Z sees the fictional version of herself or what she considers her obligations to be in this relationship. I'm going to ask her when she's ten.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)