tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35633312817854967892024-03-05T14:57:18.835-05:00A Piece of My Mind- Perspectives from the middle, about everything.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-14303393453453902002013-08-15T10:25:00.000-04:002013-08-15T11:30:12.077-04:00The other side of the Limbaugh-Kutcher Love FestConservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has been pitching a big tent for actor Ashton Kutcher since Kutcher's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zuBSRC1zpHw" target="_blank">insightful speech</a> at Sunday's Teen Choice Awards. The unusual seriousness of the speech in that venue was itself newsworthy, but Limbaugh's gushing over the speech has made more news than the actual speech did - probably because he is usually spewing bile over the Hollywood set.<br />
<br />
Rush Limbaugh spent several minutes of his show on Wednesday playing clips from the Teen Choice Awards and patting Kutcher on the back for sharing the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps values that young people just are not hearing enough of. (<a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/08/14/ashton_kutcher_s_profound_speech_to_kids" target="_blank">Show portion and transcript</a>) Our youth, Limbaugh contends, are being lied to and being taught that rich people and evil corporations are taking opportunities away from them.<br />
<br />
I agree with Limbaugh that Ashton Kutcher gave a great speech. I watched it and was very impressed at his message, and his passion. (As a public speaking professor I was also pleased with his speech construction: tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, remind them what you just told them.) I also agree that his messages - that hard work is necessary for success, that looks are superficial, and that you have power over your life - are ones that young people need to hear often.<br />
<br />
But the Republican pundit overlooked a few points of Kutcher's life and speech. Those hard-work opportunities the actor mentions happened before he was 19, when he was discovered in a bar and became a model. Mere months later, he was signed to <em>That '70s Show</em>, reportedly after a single audition. While I've heard modeling is back-breaking work, it is not a path to success available to many young people, and there is more than a small element of right-time-right-look in this story.<br />
<br />
Because he became a model/actor/producer, Ashton Kutcher's criminal conviction for third degree burglary and his incomplete college education did not hinder his progress. For most young people trying to get ahead, a record and the absence of a college degree would be like albatrosses around their necks. Convicts are disqualified from several occupations and employers are not rushing to hire anyone with a record. Someone with a record getting a loan to start a business is about as likely as Rush Limbaugh supporting the <a href="http://dreamact.info/" target="_blank">Dream Act</a>.<br />
<br />
In his speech, Kutcher equates sexiness with intelligence, thoughtfulness and generosity. (How does Ashton exercise those to get his washboard abs I wonder...) Rush does not mention that portion of the speech in his praise-fest - understandable, since generosity is not a core Republican value. Yet, generosity is absolutely essential to a society's success. There will always be people who need a helping hand because social strata (and in the United States, race) greatly limits their hard-work opportunities. Pulling oneself up by the bootstraps is not possible if there is no strap...or no boot.<br />
<br />
Many rich people and large corporations fight tooth and nail, within and outside the law, not to pay their taxes. Taxes pay for libraries, education, HeadStart programs, food assistance, public healthcare - boot straps for the underprivileged. Republicans stand with corporations to squash workers' rights and living wage requirements - turning hard-work opportunities into hamster wheels of poverty. Jobs and opportunities are persistently out of the reach of minorities and the poor because of racism and classism, removing rungs on the proverbial ladder to success.<br />
<br />
I applaud Ashton Kutcher's speech, and even Rush Limbaugh's sharing it with his audience. But if Rush and others of similar minds continue to ignore that we are not playing on a level-field and that all our bootstraps aren't of the same quality all the speeches in the world wont make a heck of a difference.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-3971435546304839642013-07-14T09:20:00.000-04:002013-07-14T09:20:35.812-04:00Put on your dark-colored glassesAmong my nearest and dearest on Facebook and Twitter there is a glaring distinction this morning: Black friends are outraged at the not-guilty verdict rendered in the George Zimmerman trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. Most white friends are silent or jubilant.<br />
<br />
How could there be such a disparity? We all heard the same evidence. How can we see it so differently? Again, going by social media postings we can think racism, the racial empathy gap, naivete, insurmountably different views of the world we live in, or vividly disparate life experiences.<br />
<br />
It is a scary notion that justice faces these challenges every day in the United States. Zimmerman was judged by a jury of his peers - people who likely view their world in the same way he does. Chances are, they were not a jury of Trayvon's peers.<br />
<br />
While most of us will never end up in front of a jury (despite what some folks think), our whole lives become scarier when we think of those challenges as part of our every day lives. Are friendships even possible where there is an impossibility to see the world from each other's point of view? Is rapport at work possible when experiences are so different? Can there be commonality of purpose at PTA meetings if the fears and concerns for our children are so different?<br />
<br />
A few weeks ago, while her racist language was breaking news, I was talking with two white women about celebrity chef Paula Deen. That conversation drifted into a wider conversation about race, at which point one woman said to me, "You talk about race a lot." (Trust me, I don't.) It occurred to me then, as it occurs to me now, that her (and others) inability to see that I do not have the luxury of ignoring race comes from those dissimilar life experiences. She has never been followed around a store. She has never worried about her husband or her sons being pulled over for no reason. Every time someone has ever been rude to her, she didn't get a job, or she received poor service she assumed there was some reasonable explanation. She never had to wonder if it was because of the color of her skin.<br />
<br />
Does that mean that we can't be friends? I hope not. One day she may be a member of my jury pool.<br />
<br />
<br />
Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-66184368253927080132012-12-17T20:23:00.003-05:002012-12-17T20:23:35.504-05:00The line between slut shaming and personal responsibilityIf you are a YouTube watcher you may have seen popular vlogger <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU20JnsYiXc" target="_blank">Jenna Marbles' </a><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU20JnsYiXc" target="_blank">Things I don't understand about women: sluts edition</a> </i>and the responses from fellow vloggers <a href="http://youtu.be/1l3h8fzv-BM" target="_blank">Chescaleigh</a>, <a href="http://youtu.be/CCw2MzKjpoo" target="_blank">Laci Green</a> and others speaking out against her 'slut shaming.' The women and their followers speak passionately from their positions - calling women on irresponsible behaviors or defending women against derogatory perceptions. <br />
<div>
In her video Chescaleigh refers to a 2011 <i><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us/09assault.html?_r=2&scp=4&sq=rape&st=cse&" target="_blank">New York Times</a></i> article that focused on an 11-year-old rape victim's dress and demeanor as an example of society's tendency to blame victims of sexual assaults. The inclination, like journalist James McKinley's, to find the 'why' of a rape in the behavior of the victim is not new. Laws have had to be enacted to prevent that kind of thinking from affecting rape trials. Statistics indicate that one of the primary reasons many rape victims hesitate to report their assaults is the fear of being tried in the court of public opinion. In theory, we all know that a question like "What was she wearing?" is irrelevant to the crime. Yet moral judgments about victims, and character assassinations in defense of accused perpetrators persist. Sexual assaults continue to be the only crimes about which people commonly wonder if the victim was not maybe asking for it. And before Chescaleigh and others were slapping Jenna Marbles on the wrist in cyberspace, groups (such as those that have organized Slut Walks in Toronto, New York, and other cities around the world) were condemning these attitudes in the media and in other arenas as dangerous and misogynous.<br />
<br />
<br />
Has our defense of women been one-sided though? As we defend the rights of women, shouldn't we also promote personal responsibility? 'Slut shaming' and victim-blaming have become synonymous terms and it is now politically incorrect to criticize women for any kind of sexual behavior. That there is never any circumstance in which a woman deserves to be raped is no reason for women to relinquish all responsibility for their behavior. We all take precautions to prevent personal harm - we lock our doors at night, we look both ways before crossing the road, we keep our social security and banking numbers private. Those are all smart things to do. Why, in the name of feminine rights and equality, would we advocate anything less for women? I will not be telling my little sisters, young female cousins or my co-eds that they should be throwing all sexual morality and self-respect to the wind because no one has the right to judge them. Rather than telling women in my sphere of influence that they should be able to do all the things that men stereotypically do and not be besmirched, I will be giving my little brothers and nephews all the reasons why they should respect themselves and respect all women.
</div>
Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-59267596619786503082012-12-16T17:14:00.000-05:002012-12-16T17:14:34.192-05:00The right to murder<i>" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." </i>Second Amendment to the US Constitution<br />
<i><br /></i>
I am open to being convinced. I have never held a gun but I'm not anti-gun, so I am open to being convinced. I do not believe that guns are vile and the source of all of society's ill, so I am open to being convinced. I teach my students that we are all better for sharing in the marketplace of ideas, so I am willing to wade into the debate with an open mind. Convince me that anyone's rights are being violated with stricter gun controls. Other than the politically powerful and moneyed gun lobby, who loses with laws intended to clean up gun ownership and make us all safer?<br />
<br />
The second amendment to the United States constitution is held up by some as an irrevocable right of every American to freely buy, own, use firearms of all kinds. Even if I suspend my understanding of the sentence - that citizens may not be prevented from bearing arms in protection of the country - and agree that we are endowed with an inalienable right to own and carry a M16, I still cannot fathom the resistance to gun control laws that will create safeguards against murders like those in Newtown, Connecticut on Friday.<br />
<br />
What is the resistance to requiring a license to sell firearms? What legitimate purpose is being impeded by requiring thorough federal standards for background checks? For what purpose does a law-abiding citizen need finger print resistant grips? Is there a non-violent reason to own an assault rifle like the semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle, or other weapons with large magazines? How are my rights being violated if everything is done to prevent someone with a mental or psychological illness from getting a gun?<br />
<br />
We have all heard the adage: guns don't kill people; people kill people. That may be true, but guns sure make it easier to do. Could 20 children and seven adults have been killed with a knife?Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-17670105460299781852012-12-12T08:32:00.002-05:002012-12-12T08:32:10.092-05:00Right to work laws show a forgetfulness of historyThis nation was built. Arduously and on the backs of the disenfranchised. Railroad tracks were lubricated with the sweat of men who worked 12-hour days and saw little of the wealth the lines carried. Skyscrapers were erected on the blood and bones of men working without harnesses or advocates. Miners, field hands; they all had a heavy hand in the growth and wealth of the United States. For many years they held no hope of sharing in its prosperity.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It was the establishment of labor unions that gave these workers an opportunity to share in the American dream. Labor unions gave workers a voice to secure fairer wages, safer work conditions, and shorter work hours. It is because of the work of labor unions that Americans can look at poor working conditions in China and other countries with righteous indignation.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Contrary to the attacks on labor unions over the years, neither democracy nor capitalism has suffered from workers joining forces. The "right to work" laws, like the ones passed in Wisconsin last year and approved by Michigan legislatures on Tuesday, aim to cripple unions by limiting their ability to represent workers and to collect operation funds. Proponents of these laws seem unwilling to remember the role unions played in this country's history and unwilling to see how the preservation of every employee's rights is imperative to our continued success as a nation. Rather, they seem focused on giving employers every advantage in protecting their bottom line at the demise of social justice.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Not, without blame, unions - particularly those like teachers' unions that have been in the spotlight recently - need to ensure that their intent is not to glean all they can without thought to the overall efficiency, profitability and success of their employees, their customers, and their municipalities.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Getting rid of unions is not the way to increased productivity. Engaging workers in a cooperative atmosphere to seek genuine consensus, rather than compromise; transformational leadership, rather than top-down autocracy. These are the ideas that will move America forward economically, while preserving her integrity. </div>
Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-42878122571622311702012-11-06T00:07:00.000-05:002012-11-06T00:07:55.800-05:00Race in the raceIn 2008 many of us thought we were standing on the cusp of a post-racial America. A racially diverse electorate had put a black man in the oval office and the time seemed right to hope for the fruition of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream.<br />
<br />
Four years later, we realize that we had been eagerly naive. The first signs may have been the vitriol that spewed from Republicans who forsook their duty as representatives of all their constituents to ensure that the weeks old presidency would last for only one term. Shrouded money, such as from the billionaire Koch brothers, funded the Tea Party - effigies and all - in their stances against all things Obama or Democrat, rather than for anything in particular. Since the hostilities came early, before there were any actions to object to, one can only ask at what then was the acrimony aimed. I may be lacking in imagination, but I cannot think of much else than race.<br />
<br />
As the election campaign has waged on, race has been a constant irritating wart on all our asses. President Obama's nationality, academic record and religion have constantly been called into question - as if his very qualification for the office is dubious. Black voters are accused of voting for the President based on race alone, but white voters apparently are using their good sense to vote for the better candidate. Disagreement with the President comes laced with disrespect that has not been aimed at any other president in recent history. Again, my imagination fails to conjure any other reasons than race.<br />
<br />
No matter who wins this election, we all should feel a loss - a loss of progress and pride. Not because we did or did not vote for the black guy, but because we aren't progressive enough to care more about the issues than his race.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-23478896380906853992012-10-31T22:45:00.000-04:002012-10-31T22:45:54.152-04:00Keep church out of the voting boothRecently, some of my Christian friends have been asserting that it would be unchristian to vote to re-elect President Obama. One impassioned friend seemed heartbroken that though he had voted for him in 2008, he just could not bring himself to do it again. His and many others' Christian beliefs stand in disagreement with the Obama administration's position on social issues such as gay marriage, and for them that translates into opposing the president politically.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't understand that position for a couple of reasons. For one thing, why put these particular Christian beliefs above other tenets? Those who oppose President Obama and the Democratic party based on Christian principles seem obsessed with homosexuality and abortion, while seeming to ignore other Christian tenets - caring for the poor, for example. By my study, Jesus spent far more time attending to the needs of the disenfranchised and outcast than He did preaching hell-fire on those who lived contrary to what He advocated. Yet, I haven't heard many anti-Obama Christians expressing concern for the government's lack of care for the poor or disadvantaged. Instead, they justify support for a party that for most of recent history has had an every-man-for-himself attitude when taking social and economic policy positions.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For many reasons - particularly the variant beliefs among denominations - Christians should be wary of inviting politicians and government officials to make their own beliefs part of their policy-making. Could a Jehovah's Witness, Seventh-Day Adventist, or Mormon be sure that their Catholic representative's belief-supported policies would be in tandem with their own? Our beliefs should dictate our own behaviors. If you believe homosexuality is wrong, have your intimate relationships with someone of the opposite sex. If you believe abortions are wrong, don't have one. Enforcing religious beliefs should not be government policy and we shouldn't use our votes to encourage it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The earliest Americans who fled Europe's religious persecution certainly understood the dangers of giving government leeway to base policy on any individual's or church's beliefs. We would be smart to not undo their efforts. While the size and role of government continues to be part of the country's discourse, Christians, more than anyone else, should want to keep government and their beliefs separate.</div>
Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-84087040797036313562012-07-26T01:08:00.000-04:002012-07-26T08:47:09.591-04:00The politics of black hairIt has been nine months since my last hit of the creamy crack and it has so far been an interesting journey. Even the reference to hair routines as 'a journey" is telling of the intensity with which some black women approach this particular issue. The responses to hair products company Carol's Daughter's Facebook post this morning ("Like if you have a relaxer. Do you plan on giving it up? Why or why not?") shows that the topic is a hot one, but that all black women aren't all lining up on the same side of it.<br />
<br />
In five hours, just under 1,700 people had "liked" the post indicating they are happily straightening their hair with a chemical relaxer, and more than 500 individuals (likely mostly black women) had weighed in with their comments. While it has become more commonplace to see black woman wearing their hair in its natural state, the responses to Carol Daughter's post indicates that there are still mixed attitudes towards our hair. Many black people still measure beauty - and even professionalism - against a white standard. Straight hair, to many, is prettier and neater than curly or kinky black hair. Curly styles, afros and braids are often considered out of place in corporate offices. Remarkably, those opinions are almost more likely to be held by black men and women than by white. My white friends are always complimenting me on my big (semi)natural curls. It is my brothers and sisters who are discomforted by my choice to stop straightening my hair. "What are you planning to do with it?" "What will you do with it when you have to work?" For them, black hair in all it's kinky splendor is something to be remedied.<br />
<br />
On the other side of the hair part are those who seem to wear their hair as a militant sign of black-hood. Reminiscent of the 60s and 70s, natural hair has become an indicator of how proud and comfortable a woman is to be black. For those on this side of the issue, natural curls are the anti-weave; the afrocentric response to the black majority's sell out to eurocentricty. Natural hair blogs, vlogs and websites take on a holier-than-thou attitude, spewing condescension and condemnation on those who aren't taking the road to Happy Nappy.<br />
<br />
It seems for every other ethnic group a hairstyle is just a hairstyle, but for us black women, hair is often a statement of who we think we are and who we want to look like: How black do you feel, or how hard are you trying to be white?Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-59379935457509173732012-07-25T02:28:00.000-04:002012-07-25T09:59:42.679-04:00Talking guns - again"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."<br />
<br />
In the shadow of the slaughtering of 12 innocents in Colorado last Friday morning it is inevitable that the roar of the gun control debate would become deafening. Those who put the right to bear arms above the right to live are the most deafening.<br />
<br />
I believe in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution gives each of us the right to keep and bear arms. And the Supreme Court has in recent years uphold the individual right to keep and bear arms for home defense and for hunting. If a robber - or a deer - breaks into your home and threatens your home, I say it's your right to aim straight and drop him where he stands.<br />
<br />
How many robbers and deer are we trying to drop with assault rifles though? And are the deer firing back? Is that why we need bulletproof vests?<br />
<br />
Not only couldn't the Founding Fathers have known that there would be assault rifles firing off 100 rounds per minute, they certainly did not envision that unstable individuals would be able to use the internet to acquire enough fire power to arm a small town police department. If they had, I'm pretty sure they would have expected us all to use our common sense and implement fail-safes to protect high school and college students, train riders, and theater-goers from being cut down while minding their own business. The gun lobby's persistent suggestion that our best protection is to have bigger guns than the bad guys is foolhardy and suicidal. If there had been return fire in the Aurora theater how many more lives would have been lost?<br />
<br />
Restricting access to high-powered rifles, high capacity drum magazines, explosives, and flesh-ripping bullets cannot be seen as equivalent with impinging on the intent of the Second Amendment. We should not be ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling that state and federal governments have the right to monitor and regulate arms sales. We should not be cowering from the gun lobby, but rather we should be letting common sense prevail. The Second Amendment should not threaten my right to life, health and a good movie.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-37355572716918091572012-03-25T09:00:00.001-04:002012-07-25T09:58:56.914-04:00Real justice for my boysEveryone with a sense of right and wrong is up in arms about the Trayvon Martin case; and rightly so. The idea that an unarmed young man could be gunned down for walking to the corner store in a hoodie is incompatible with our assurance that we live in a just society. Unfortunately people get killed everyday, so Martin's murder would not ordinarily have become of nationwide interest except for the Stanford Police's unwillingness to charge the overzealous cop-wannabe George Zimmerman with the murder.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As news programs and talk shows on television and radio have been analyzing the case thread by thread over the last couple of weeks, I have been struck by the recurring conversation about the appropriate behaviors for black males out in public - all the things law-abiding black men minding their own business should and should not do to avoid being targeted, harassed, or gunned down in the streets. Are white mothers being advised to sit their sons down to instruct them on always saying "Yes Sir" and always keeping their hands in clear view? As a mother of two sons, I reject the notion that I or my sons should be the ones to carry the responsibility for racism. Sure we can clad this idea in the language of protection of the innocent, but it lets off the hook those who would act based on stereotypes and prejudices. It is appalling to hear a mother describe how her son is repeatedly accosted by new tenants in their New York luxury apartment. Their assumption is that he does not belong, or that he is a service person and should be using the service entrance. I shuddered to hear a sister talk about making sure her brother always has his hair neatly cut so that negative assumptions wont be made about him on the street.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There will always be Trayvon Martins as long as being black is, on its own, grounds for suspicion. Having sit-downs with our sons about casting their eyes to the ground and not looking "Massa" in the eye is not progress or justice. If Zimmerman gets off for this murder it will confirm what American black families already know and seem to accept - that a black man is a dangerous thing to be. It will be undeniable endorsement of racial profiling - not just by law enforcement officials but also by every crazy vigilante.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Not every criminal case has a wide-reaching implication for the rest of society, but this case definitely does. Justice for Trayvon Martin not only means justice is more likely for my two boys, it also makes it less likely that they will actually need it - even if they wear hoodies and walk with their hands in the pockets.</div>Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-57476173403848346632011-07-11T08:00:00.001-04:002011-07-11T08:00:09.658-04:00Reasonable doubt in the American Justice SystemThe whole country, it seems, has been in an uproar since a jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of the murder of her 2-year-old daughter three years ago. Newspaper websites, radio call-in shows, Facebook and Twitter have all been inundated with people expressing outrage in the jury's finding. Every poll shows that people overwhelmingly believe Casey is guilty. Most people believed a guilty verdict had been a foregone conclusion.<br />
<br />
Good thing for Casey that her fate was not determined by the court of public opinion, but rather by 12 people who sat through hours of testimony and evidence and who were not convinced enough of her guilt. With the Prosecutors having put the death penalty on the table, I think that's a good thing. I also believe that this case is a good argument against the death penalty.<br />
<br />
In the last 38 years, 139 people have been released from death row because they were found to be innocent of the crimes of which a jury found them guilty. There is no way to know how many innocents have been executed. As long as the death penalty is a method of punishment in this country innocent people will die, because the system is not infallible. Guilty ones will also go free because juries will be hesitant to convict anyone to death - especially a pretty young, white woman like Casey Anthony - even in the face of convincing circumstantial evidence.<br />
<br />
Like most people, I believe Casey Anthony is guilty. However, I was more convinced of her guilt by her defense's tactics, than by the prosecutors' arguments and evidence. After careful thought, that would not have been enough for me to convict her to death either. I suspect I, and the jury, would have felt easier sending her to life in prison.<br />
<br />
Now Ms. Anthony just has to hope Nancy Grace or Bill O'Reilly, or one of the many other crazies unhappy that she got off, don't run her over as she is released on July 17.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-27844392319260182192011-03-21T09:00:00.001-04:002011-03-21T09:00:02.463-04:00Nigger please!The discussion about the use of the word "nigger" is not new. Rappers, street-wise youth, comedians and intellectuals all regularly weigh in on the appropriateness and potential harm of referring to anyone that way - whether in endearment or hostility. Personally, the word makes me bristle. I suspect that has as much to do with the fact that the word is not a part of the Jamaican vernacular (or at least it wasn't when I was growing up) as it does with any historical or cultural meaning I have assigned to the word. I choose not to use the word and will strongly dissuade my sons from using it, but I firmly defend its use by an artist who feels it necessary to his expression. <br />
<br />
I certainly defend its appearance in Mark Twain's<i> Huckleberry Finn</i>. It's unfortunate that an overabundance of political correctness or a misguided attempt to protect young people has lead some school districts to pulling the book from the curriculum. More horrifying, a publisher has printed the literary classic with the word 'slave' replacing all occurrences of 'nigger.' Destroying a work of art is not beneficial to anyone - especially not to the students being taught. To preserve it should surely be more important than preserving the sensibilities of a few hyper-sensitive administrators too limp-spined to risk criticism.<br />
<br />
Mark Twain used the word 'nigger' because that was the language of his day. He did not use the word to glorify its use. That is obvious because the novel is an indictment of slavery and racism. An author does not issue such an indictment without intending to rattle the cages of readers. Discomfort, I am sure, is an expected byproduct of reading <i>Huckleberry Finn</i>. And that discomfort is an opportunity for a discussion that can lead to understanding and healing. Removing the word 'nigger' means teachers and students lose that opportunity.<br />
<br />
The reluctance to be discomforted by discussions about race is precisely the reason why it continues to be an issue in our increasingly multiracial society. It is generally accepted that problems are best resolved by confronting them, by discussing them. For some reason though, race seems to be the exception to this rule. Most people would rather scuttle discussions about race, in lieu of pretense that we are all the same and that there is not a painful history that proves otherwise.<br />
<br />
<i>Huckleberry Finn</i> may be the only opportunity some young people will ever have to participate in a guided, sensible discussion about race, and the history of race relations in this country. Removing the sting of the word 'nigger' from the book dilutes the author's message and does disservice to the impact it has had on readers for more than a century.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-6317813745771117952011-03-20T18:57:00.000-04:002011-03-20T18:57:12.923-04:00Strength in numbersPolitics has always had a heavy hand in the meanderings between workers' rights, labor rules, and the bottom-line concerns of management. As a child, I learned about Sir Alexander Bustamante and his leadership in unifying Jamaica's dockworkers in order to get concessions for better work conditions, and subsequently starting the island's first trade union. Even then, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that workers would band together to negotiate with employers for fair salary, guarantees and working conditions. Certainly having been fired - because my supervisor did not think our personalities "meshed" - and having worked as a government employee, I appreciate even more the benefits of unions protecting the rights of workers.<br />
<br />
The industries that built this country - steel, mining, car manufacturing - would hardly be possible without having relied on the workers who valued their jobs - largely because of the security unionization provided. The state sponsored union-busting in Wisconsin and other states rocks the very foundation of commerce and industry that drives the economies of every developed country.<br />
<br />
Recently governors like New Jersey's Chris Christie and Wisconsin's Scott Walker seem intent on vilifying unions as a lead-in to balancing their states' budgets on the backs of working class people - those most protected by unions. It seems inane to me to lambaste unions because they have worked for the purpose they were intended; and to malign the benefits workers have managed to negotiate fairly - rather than meeting at the table in good faith.<br />
<br />
For sure, it is not lost on me that some unions have become bullies that try to hold municipalities, school districts, and industries hostage. Teachers' unions argue for tenure and want to make it impossible for principals to fire poor performing teachers. Municipal employees want to contribute as little as possible to their health insurance and retirement costs, even as private sector workers buckle under medical care costs and few have employer supported retirement funds. It is true that issues like these leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth and make it easier for union opponents to make their arguments. But bad taste or not, unions have an important role to play in the marketplace. Union leaders have a responsibility to restore the integrity of the bargaining process, and political leaders have a responsibility to maintain the rights and interests of the working class. There is no better way to do that, than to preserve the rights and existence of unions.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-1343122650459410682011-01-08T06:00:00.001-05:002011-01-08T06:00:01.023-05:00The educational gap and parental responsibilityA study of New Jersey's public schools published this week shows that an achievement gap persists between white and Asian students, and black and Hispanic students. As expected, the gap is reflected in socio-economic differences as well, with students in disadvantaged communities lagging significantly in every marker of academic achievement. Public schools in New Jersey's toniest neighborhoods help put the state at or near the top of national rankings at almost every level and in almost every category; yet it is also home to some of the poorest performing schools in the country. Nationally, in some reports, black students lag four grades behind their white counterparts. While administrators, teachers, and holders of the money purses are being lambasted for failing our children, parents are being let off the hook too easily. There is no denying that children in poor communities are often stuck with overworked teachers, school buildings in disrepair, underfunded budgets, and surroundings overwhelmed with various social ills. There are, however, many factors well within parents' control. <br />
<br />
There is a pervasive attitude of 'victim-hood' and expectancy among many poor black folks that prevents them from acting in their own best interest. Yes, many schools are bad. Yes, many inner schools have less technological resources than schools in wealthier communities. Yes, wealthier parents have more educational choices for their children. But to accept these circumstances as insurmountable, is to accept that every poor child is doomed at birth. To overlook parental responsibility in the equation is to miss opportunities to be advocates for our children's academic success. More than anything, to relegate full responsibility for our children's achievement to teachers, administrators and politicians is not parenting.<br />
<br />
Study and after study show that many of the situational characteristics of high performing students have to do with the actions and attitudes of parents: parent involvement, reading at home, and homework assistance.<br />
<br />
Parent involvement has been shown to be one of the most important factors in determining the academic achievement of students, sometimes even more than school performance or the socio-economic state of the community. With that kind of indicator classrooms in poor performing schools should be packed wall-to-wall with parents every day. Instead school districts nationwide are having to bribe and cajole parents to take an active role in educating their children. Lawmakers in Detroit are considering jail time for parents who don't make it to at least one parent-teacher conference in a school year. <br />
<br />
There is a clear correlation between being able to read and being able to achieve academically. Reading is at the base upon which academic learning is built, and the earlier children develop the ability and appreciation for reading, the better it bodes for their long term performance. As shown in a 20-year study conducted by the University of Nevada and published in 2010, merely having books in a child's home increases his chances for academic achievement in the same proportion as having university-educated parents. Researcher Mariah Evans found that children of lesser-educated parents benefited most from having books in their homes.<br />
<br />
There is a lot of debate about how much homework children should get, and how involved parents should be with the getting it done; but homework reinforces subject matter and lets parents know what there children are doing in school. Making sure homework gets done has always been part of Parenting 101. Now we know it can help improve a child's academic prospect.<br />
<br />
For these small investments of time and resources, parents can make a significant investment in their child's education - no matter their school, or socioeconomic circumstances. Politicians, school administrators, and teachers are failing children. Parents don't have to fail them too.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-83943212669294029152010-12-11T17:00:00.001-05:002010-12-11T17:00:02.298-05:00I'm exhausted tooYes, I too am exhausted of defending President Obama and the Democratic administration. Like Velma Hart (who famously chastised the president at a town hall meeting in September) I am running out of patience waiting for campaign promises to be fulfilled, for financial maneuvers to benefit my family budget, and for some of the political party angst to dissipate. I don't place all the blame for my exhaustion on the president though. There is more than enough blame to go around.<br />
<br />
The past two years have been a testament to how our governmental structure often gets in its own way. If toeing party lines replaces serving the best interest of constituents as the priority of elected representatives there is nothing corrective inherent in the system. The biggest flaw in our system of government and politics is that it relies on the good sense and conscience of humans - which we know for sure every one does not have in ample dose. When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell can state without impunity that his party's main objective over the next two years is to make sure President Obama is not re-elected you have to wonder if the people of Kentucky don't have pressing bread and butter issues Mr. McConnell should be putting above party politics.<br />
<br />
The president is being lambasted in the media and by Democrats for his compromise on the 'Bush tax cuts'. I don't know if he did the right thing, but I know it could not have been an easy one. President Obama faced trying to maintain the tax cuts for embattled middle income Americans like me, while making the highest income earners pay their due. He had to do this with the vacillating support of his own party and against uncompromising opposition. He doesn't bend and the tax breaks expire for middle-income workers, many of those who can least afford it will feel the economic pinch - which will result in his losing much of his political base. He bends to Republicans who want to keep the pockets of the wealthy lined, then he is accused of being weak and ineffective, thus frustrating his party and losing face. I'm glad I wasn't the one that had to make that decision.<br />
<br />
The constituents that created the groundswell that catapulted President Obama into office seemed to collectively step back after his swearing-in and start waiting for a miracle. Of course with no miracles forthcoming disappointment was inevitable. The Republican communications machinery has manipulated that widespread disappointment with effectiveness and alacrity worthy of academic study. The ability and willingness of the American populace to be manipulated has been the most tiring thing for me. At every opportunity to show ourselves true social leaders of the Free World - health care, immigration, education - we allow ourselves to be whipped into a frenetic tornado of non-issues, non-facts, and nonsense.<br />
<br />
Sense and reason are not breaking through, and the market place is devoid of equal counter to ulterior dissent and acrimonious drivel. President Obama, the Democrats and their communications staffs seem to be willing to let the American people decipher for themselves fact from fiction, and to give them the benefit of the doubt - just because. They have lacked a consistent and effective message; all the more tragic because candidate Obama won election largely on message. The connection with the people that was his ace going into office has been amputated. If he has a plan, if his plans are being thwarted by his own party or the opposition, if he doesn't have the stomach for the fight or he does, we don't know.<br />
<br />
We have an ill-informed electorate, politicians who put party above people, a castrated president and a system that doesn't self-correct. We should all be tired.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-29282352513406229102010-11-17T09:00:00.000-05:002010-11-17T20:49:02.888-05:00Show your privates, pay your taxes and stop whiningLately I've felt like a haughty onlooker watching someone else's child throwing a nasty temper tantrum, and waiting for the scolding or whack to the butt from a responsible parent. Who is going to tell these spoiled children that they can't have everything they want just as soon as they want it; that difficulties are inevitable and with patience it all passes; that we can't clamor for something then whine when we get it?<div><br />
</div><div>No one seems to disagree that the economy is cyclical. No one seems to disagree that these cycles start years before they are evident, or that turnarounds are usually almost over by the time they are felt. Yet reason seems to have been shoved through the window, forced out by whining and blame. A president in office for less than two years has been vilified for problems he could not have created; his efforts to address those problems met only with impatience and criticism. The fickle and overindulged attitudes of many have made them fodder for the moneyed who's latest business is to stir political turmoil.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Those who say they are "taxed enough already," conveniently ignore the fact that government is non-profit. Taxes pay for public infrastructure and social services. It may be that many who decry taxes and support tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are those who can afford to pay for their own 'social services.' They don't require unemployment benefits, Medicare, or food stamps; they don't use public libraries or send their children to public schools. They have no interest in the services government provides with our tax dollars.</div><div><br />
<div>Since September 11, 2001 Americans have demanded to feel secure against terrorist attacks. Politicians have been penalized at the ballot for not appearing fervent enough in pursuing ways to protect the country's residents, even as air travelers bitch and moan about long security lines and other inconveniences. The Transportation Security Administration's latest security implementations - full body scan machines and the alternate pat downs - have been lambasted as intrusive. Where would you hide an explosive device? Drug smugglers use every body orifice to transport drugs. Why wouldn't potential bombers avail themselves of the same hiding places? </div><div><br />
</div><div>Come on children. Open your eyes to the big picture, recognize who is pulling your strings and why, and quit all the bitching and moaning.</div><div><br />
</div></div>Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-65791034068976831912010-10-23T06:00:00.003-04:002010-10-23T06:00:02.658-04:00Today's colored folksJamaicans have a saying: tideh fi yu, tomorrow fi mi. We all eventually have the same experiences. The Muslim community in America is having their just-short-of strange-fruit 'tideh' right now.<br />
<br />
The on-air conversation between Juan Williams and Bill O'Reilly that got Williams fired from National Public Radio would have been unfortunate even in the privacy of their own homes. It was absolutely unacceptable on national television. Unfortunately, such hate speech is not uncommon on <i>The O'Reilly Factor</i>. Bill O'Reilly has built his success at Fox News largely on racial provocation. He has over the years prostituted his own bigotry to great success. He has bemoaned immigration and its 'browning' of America, said lives were lost in Hurricane Katrina because New Orleans were largely junkies, and once expressed surprise that eating at a restaurant in Harlem was a similarly pleasant experience as eating in a white suburban restaurant of New York. These days Muslims are his favorite target - after Democrats. After he blamed Muslims for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 on the ABC talk show <i>The View</i>, upsetting two of the hosts enough for them to walk off camera, O'Reilly says people on the street supported him. Sadly, I have no doubt many people do. <br />
<br />
Juan Williams says he was only being honest on the show when he said he feels nervous about flying on a plane with people who identify as Muslims in their dress. Mr. Williams, who is Black and who has written about the civil rights movement, would be understanding I guess if someone on national television said they were nervous around African-Americans. I am willing to bet, though, that most viewers would not be.<br />
<br />
Anti-immigrant sentiment in this country has ballooned in ferocity and scope in recent years. It is more accurately, anti-different. Blacks, Jews, homosexuals, and other groups, however, have been brought in under the umbrella of hate protection over the years. Muslims are still standing out in the hail storm of intolerance. Practicing Muslims become easy targets for their dress, for their unfamiliar religious practices and for their perceived alien status,l and extremists in their midst give prejudice a ready excuse.<br />
<br />
It has, in fact, become acceptable to vilify Muslims. No one bothers to make the distinction between the fanatical elements of Islam and the Muslim faith. Recently, amidst the dust-up about the plans for an Islamic center blocks from the 9-11 site in New York, a friend of mine (Someone in whom I have never before seen an ounce of racism) posted to her Facebook page "let them build it...but across the street put a topless bar named You Mecca Me Hot..." One of the comments she got was a suggestion to let the building go up and then bomb it. When I asked who is 'they/them', she responded, "The Muslims who were part of the terrorists attack." That the New York Muslims trying to build a community center had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks does not seem to enter her, or her commenting friends' minds. Is there any other group who is so maligned and assailed upon for the actions of a few? Americans for the near-eradication of the Native Americans? Europeans for slavery? Germans for the Holocaust? Christians for the Oklahoma City bombing?<br />
<br />
Before we dismiss anti-Muslim sentiments as not our problem, before we choose to be quiet for fear of castigation from our neighbors, before we place the responsibility for change on the victims, ask yourself: Today for them, tomorrow for who?Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-49675734050578553502010-10-22T09:30:00.002-04:002010-10-23T05:48:02.162-04:00The Leaning Towers of MediaWhen I studied journalism a decade ago I was taught that a journalist's job is to report the facts without opinion, without prejudice. I remember a class exercise in which my instructor had us read sentences and pick out words that could indicate the writer's position on the subject. Is there a difference between someone 'fleeing' and someone 'leaving?' Is the word 'bizarre' objective? I learned that the subtlest word usage, or twist of phrase could take a news reporter beyond his scope of telling just the truth. I used to do that exercise while watching television news with my husband, pointing out the opinion-filled adjectives, and unnecessary tacked on bits.<br />
<br />
That exercise is harder to do these days. Not that journalists are being more careful about insinuating their bent into their stories, but more that the craft of news reporting has moved significantly away from truth telling towards position taking. Now, viewers and readers are being asked to make the distinction between journalists and commentators - often the same people playing dual roles, and on the same screens or pages.<br />
<br />
The recent high-profile firings of Rick Sanchez from CNN and Juan Williams from National Public Radio for expressing their political views - off their main job and in other media - brings to fore the discussion about if and when journalists are allowed opinions. A larger question: Were these reporters fired for having opinions that stand in contrast to their employers'.<br />
<br />
I think viewers/readers who are filling the comment pages on various media websites with arguments about free speech are missing the point. Rick Sanchez and Juan Williams may exercise their free speech rights to their hearts content in their living rooms, among friends. Unfortunately, because of their chosen profession, and also because of their success, they now must consider first that they are viewed as newsmen - on and off the job. As unfair as it seems, they should not be free to express their opinions in any broadcast.<br />
<br />
We cannot overlook the fact that the reporters were fired for comments contrary to the perceived left lean of the employers. That they were fired for being contrary is certainly an argument that can be made. The power houses of media have almost stated political leans, in effect killing journalism. These days viewers and listeners don't so much go to their favorite news source for unbiased reports, but to solidify their already-held points of view. The market place of ideas has contracted into a fight circle where participants pick a side and stand their ground. Token opposing points are thrown in by guests sporadically in vain attempts to feign impartiality. Gross misstatements and omission or twisting of facts are commonplace.<br />
<br />
There is no growing or learning in this environment. We are not fostering an educated electorate. As consumers, it has to be our responsibility to sift through the opinions for the facts, formulate our own opinions and then challenge those opinions regularly. We can no longer look to the news media to guide our opinions, but rather be vigilant about seeing through opinions. Another option: We could watch Fox News and CNN and find the truth somewhere in the middle.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-53980713233920876922010-10-11T14:46:00.000-04:002010-10-12T14:47:20.009-04:00Happy Columbus Day<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">As one Facebook friend put it: "Today we celebrate the discovery of an already inhabited land." It is actually a good day to celebrate today's America. The frontier and the 'savages' are different but the method of invasion is pretty much the same.</span><br />
<div><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Today's Columbuses still assume right of space. After all, they have more right to be Americans than anybody else. Never mind they were not the first to get here. Never mind their grandparents immigrated here from somewhere else. The rules should be different now. No one else should be allowed in.</span><br />
<br />
Today's Columbuses still assume right of faith. Of course, Native Americans needed proselytizing. What did they know of higher powers and spirituality. Today it's the Muslims who need conversion. They are all terrorists and do funny chants when they worship. If we can't convince them to let their women dress like Beyonce we should kill them all. We certainly should not let them build a social service center wherever they want.<br />
<br />
Today's Columbuses assume right of politics. It's not good enough to agree to disagree. Anyone who disagrees with our politics are idiots. They must be fascists, socialists, communists, anti-American or any other name we think is bad. It doesn't matter if we really don't understand the terms. It's really not about truth anyway; but about grabbing headlines, sewing angst and creating division.<br />
<br />
Just like Columbus and the Pilgrims who later followed, today's Columbuses assume themselves the standard of normalcy. Everyone else must conform. Being gay, defending a woman's right to choose when she is ready to parent, or believing in any theory other than creation is just deviant and intolerable.<br />
<br />
We should all be happy we discovered this great land. Happy Columbus Day.</div>Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-37479741985535498342010-09-18T08:37:00.009-04:002010-10-09T09:47:02.760-04:00The clothes makes the womanReporter Inez Sainz has the right to wear whatever she wants. Jeans that cling like a second skin, belly-baring tops, necklines that just about burst with cleavage. It's all her choice. I'm guessing her employer, the Mexican television channel Azteca, does not have much of a dress policy, or it has decided to follow the mantra 'sex sells' and to let Ms. Sainz sell the station's programming the best she knew how.<br />
<br />
Now there is absolutely no excuse for the juvenile behavior of the New York Jets coaches and players in the locker room last Saturday, but Sainz would be more than disingenuous if she said the behavior was surprising. I suspect the sports reporter has found that her style opens many locker doors, giving her access to teams and athletes. I have no doubt that she understands fully that her clothes play a role in how she is perceived and how she gets her job done.<br />
<br />
We must always remember that claiming our freedoms require us to also claim responsibilities and acceptance of consequences. Young (mostly) black men have the right to wear their pants under their behinds to show off their colorful boxers, boxer-briefs and tighty-whities. When they unwrap that right, they cannot leave societal assumptions in the box. There is no complaining about societal perceptions and judgments when anyone wears a look associated with criminals. Police officers will slow down as they walk by, shopkeepers and store clerks will put their hand to hover just over the silent alarm when they enter, and women will give them wide berth and clutch their purses when they see them.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-63652008106172077552010-09-11T21:30:00.000-04:002010-09-12T11:18:31.709-04:00Hate in any shade is still hateIt has become a scary world to wake up in. The kind of scary that boggles my mind and makes my heart hurt. 2010 seems to be conjuring up the days of Jim Crow, McCarthy hearings and Japanese internment camps. <br />
<br />
We went from campaign grumblings about then-candidate Barack Obama's true nationality, to a seeming marked increase in the number of Americans who believe the president is lying about his religion. The media-fueled debate - is he Muslim or is he not - has been ignoring the most important consideration: Why should it matter?<br />
<br />
Tea Partiers, while certainly having the right to take any political position they like, have hinged their movement on attacks against the President's person and race, more than on position statements intended to address the maladies they identify. The group's racist statements and signage have not stirred the widespread outrage they deserve.<br />
<br />
I guess the country's general apathy made for the perfect environment and time for the State of Arizona to try to legalize racial profiling. The state's Governor Jan Brewer touted untruths and unfounded statistics in her campaign to paint Mexicans as Arizona's biggest crime and social problem. Few called her on it, and many supported the legislation that would have allowed police to stop and question anyone who 'looked' like an illegal immigrant.<br />
<br />
Jan Brewer and others who prey on the fears of the ignorant are largely responsible for my fears. As are those like Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani for whom division and discord have become effective political tools. What seemed like small pockets of intolerance in 2008, has ballooned into a canvas of xenophobia that threatens to undo all the country's progress of the last 50 years. The most recent display of hatred is ironically centered around the site of the deadliest act of hatred against the United States, nine years ago today. The actions of the September 11 attackers were motivated by hatred, intolerance and a warped sense of religious duty. (Rev. Terry Jones is apparently motivated by the very same things.) After the attacks, every speech aimed at rousing the country's spirits heralded the precepts that make America great - justice and liberty being chief among them. We need those speeches again. We need to see the lunacy of wanting to bar a perfectly legal Islamic center from being built blocks from Ground Zero - whether our discomfort is based on sentimentality or religious indifference. We need to be reminded that "liberty and justice for all" encompasses those who look, dress, worship and speak differently from us.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-40600400840364749352010-08-24T20:00:00.000-04:002010-08-24T20:09:01.081-04:00The black elephant in the elevator<div class="MsoNormal">I must admit I have never felt the oppression of racism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The concept has always seemed other-worldly to me actually.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There has been only one time (a disturbing incident in a Huntsville, Alabama Macy’s) when I walked away with a strong suspicion that I had just experienced racism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Otherwise, rude people have always been simply that - rude. I never assumed that slights, denied career opportunities, or diverted eyes had anything to do with my color.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">My husband and I have had an unspoken agreement to not make race an issue in raising our sons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have always lived in multi-cultural communities, and they have always had classmates that represented the widest cross-section of the nation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We never talked about race, always affirmed them and each other, and discouraged using race as a descriptor when talking about someone:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“the short girl with black hair and dimples,” as opposed to “the black/white girl.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Racial references were so avoided that the boys, when they do refer to someone’s skin color, don’t follow the concepts of race, but of Crayola.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They say tan or brown, instead of white or black.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I expected that my boys will be part of an enlightened post-racial society and I wanted to do a good job preparing them for it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These days, however, I am not so sure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am not sure that there will ever be a post-racial society (or what that even means).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am not sure that I am doing a good job of preparing my sons for the society that will be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Recently my 5 and 6 year-old sons in discussion at the breakfast table, both decided aloud that they would marry tan (white) girls.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I was stunned, scared and heartbroken, though I was not sure that I should be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I tried to find out what had led them to their decision, but neither seemed to be able to identify a catalyst.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They wanted to, “just because…dunno why.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An equally important consideration: if I am indeed above and beyond the considerations of race, as I like to consider myself, why was their pronouncement bothersome?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A recent struggle with my sons and their visiting cousins over Nintendo Wii Miis turned teary and gave me an ugly answer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>None of the kids wanted avatars that were representative of how they look.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They wanted lighter skin, narrower noses, and straighter hair.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When I created an image that I thought resembled my son he said it was ugly and burst into tears.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">My peers almost all reacted with the same resigned shrug of the shoulders and noncommittal references to “other influences” affecting our children when I told them about the incident.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No one seemed as startled or as worried as I was.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Race is not so much a bothersome personal issue for Blacks who have been saved the direct burns of racism through education, attainment of wealth, or geography of birth or residence.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Concern for my sons makes me conclude though, that it should be an issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We cannot afford to ignore race in our homes when there are those “other influences” – subtle yet effective – affecting our children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They will form opinions about culture, race and themselves, and parents have an obligation to try to influence those opinions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If I continue to deny race to my sons, but the world is telling them they are ugly because their skin is dark and their nose is broad, I am not preparing them for the world, I am sacrificing them to it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So there will no more ignoring race in my house.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There will be lots of talk about skin color and beauty, about men and women of color who left their mark on the world, about self-worth and the necessity for more than a little bit of arrogance. I will teach them what I have learned – that racial equality and the elimination of racism require us to affirm and value our place on the rainbow.</div>Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-55923512949977961842010-08-21T22:00:00.000-04:002010-08-22T00:14:55.291-04:00The problem with faithRecently I completed the book <i>Eat. Pray. Love. </i>by Elizabeth Gilbert and saw the movie starring Julia Roberts. For me, the book was transformative. I completely identified with the author's journey to self-actualization, inner peace, and personal happiness. When I began reading the book, I couldn't stop talking about it to friends and family, but as Gilbert's story took her to an Indian ashram to study yoga, I stopped talking.<br />
<br />
I learned some time ago that most Christians - as most of my friends and acquaintances identify themselves - see exploration of other religions and forms of worship as a threat to their own. For many, questioning is the opposite of faith and not to be tolerated. I knew more than a few of them would be discomforted by the spiritual questions the book raises and the conclusions the author reaches. Extolling the virtues of the book was not worth the uneasy conversations I was sure would ensue.<br />
<br />
I don't agree with much of the author's beliefs and have no plans to study with a yoga guru any time soon, but I believe that exploration within and outside of our belief system is healthy. While understanding the role of faith in religion, beliefs that flourish only in the absence of questions are not beliefs that will survive any real tests.<br />
<br />
The ongoing discussion of creation vs evolution is one example of how dogged Christian views ignore science and make no room for an answer that lies outside the boundaries of Bible stories. Despite the wide variety of Biblical interpretations of concepts of hell, heaven and redemption from one denomination to the next, every one stands resolutely on their own, completely dismissing all others. Even Christians who question some elements of their faith, only whisper those questions and don't truly look for answers, certainly not outside their frame of reference. This narrow view is Christianity's greatest liability I think.<br />
<br />
Surely truth is to be gleaned from many sources. Surely faith can exist in the face of questions - even those that go unanswered. Surely we can stand to open our ears and minds to other arguments and possibilities.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-5091466784602429232010-08-08T22:00:00.001-04:002010-08-09T16:02:59.701-04:00Black Media for the people, or for the dollar?I am happy to hear the discussion that has come out of Essence magazine's hiring of Ellianna Placas, its first white fashion editor - as muted as that discussion as been. It is always a good time to talk about how well - or not - Black media is serving the Black community. <br />
<br />
I have long opined the lack of a Black forum among the national issues discussions. Soledad O'Brian gets a couple of specials every year on being Black in America; Donna Brazile, Rolande Martin and Tavis Smiley are the official talking heads on all matters related to the dark-skinned; and BET has apparently given up on doing any substantive programming. There is no place where issues of national interest are discussed in the context of their effects on Black people in America. More than not acting in its best interest, some Black media are actually doing a disservice to the community.<br />
<br />
Trite entertainment trumps valuable information on radio shows like <i>The Steve Harvey Show</i> and the <i>Tom Joyner Show</i>. Director/Producer Tyler Perry has proven that he can pull an audience to the movie theater with an interesting story, but seems to prefer to dumb-down his characters and his content on television. (Does any character on <i>Meet the Browns</i> represent you or anyone you know?) There are more pages dedicated to consumer products than education or edification in <i>O</i>, <i>Essence </i>and <i>Ebony </i>- despite the fact that Black Americans make less than 58 percent of what Anglo-Americans make in salary and are in more debt. On the Food Network's <i>Down Home with the Neelys</i>, Pat and Gina Neely never discuss healthful alternatives to their fat and sugar laden recipes, though African-Americans are particularly at risk for diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease.<br />
<br />
Long before Essence Magazine thought a white woman could represent the fashion tastes of its audience, popular Black Media has been absent in any movement for the betterment of Black people - or any people. We have been satisfied with just seeing color representations of ourselves on television and on magazine pages, and have not held the people who hold our eyes and ears to their social and political responsibilities. Selecting Ms. Placas is only the latest disrespect and disregard of our community. Frankly we deserve it. We have not thought to demand more.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563331281785496789.post-17070953713587948612010-07-10T19:11:00.001-04:002010-07-10T19:13:59.866-04:00Where is personal responsibility?The Center for Science in the Public Interest announced last week that it will file suit against McDonald's if the company does not stop using Happy Meal toys to promote their kids' meals. The organization likens McDonald's practice to "the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children."<br />
<br />
U.S. lawmakers are considering requiring hybrid cars to have synthetic car sounds because the usually quiet cars are endangering cyclists and pedestrians.<br />
<br />
Parents complain misbehaving celebrities are poor role models. The fast food industry gets blamed for the country's obesity epidemic. Schools are doing something wrong if students are not doing well. What ever happened to personal responsibility and accountability? It seems everyone wants to pass on blame for their own poor choices.<br />
<br />
Here are some novel ideas: Say no to your kid when they ask for McDonald's, or go and make a healthy choice from the menu. Get off the phone, turn down your iPod, look both ways before you cross, and pay attention when you walk on the street. Use all your senses on the road and don't wait for a revving engine or blaring horn to bring you back to consciousness. Teach your children the importance of education, to respect others, and to make good choices.<br />
<br />
We have gone from a society that took responsibility for others beyond ourselves, to a society of people not wanting to accept responsibility even for our own food consumption. Now I know this argument taken to its extreme could be construed as uncharacteristically un-socialist of me, but I think personal responsibility does not negate government responsibility in matters affecting the public good. Government agencies are right to encourage the decreased use of trans fats in foods. Consumers are responsible for their portion sizes and should be able to avoid getting hit by a Prius.Toni Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14854246651475672524noreply@blogger.com0