Tonisha Spratte Blog 9

 Blog 9 Racism!

The movie we started on Thursday was really captivating to me.  I kept thinking about it over the weekend.  There were so many different points within the first hour of this film.  I really liked the point of view of this movie; it showed that of the white man who despises blacks and foreigners or people of color.  I can’t say that I’ve seen this side of racism so clearly before.  There were a few instances where the reasoning for their hatred was stated, explained, or rationalized.  The two most prominent ones which stick out in my mind is the scene right before they raid the store and the dinner scene where the teacher is over (and he subsequently breaks things off with the boys’ mother).  The leader, Cameron Alexander, was the brains behind these people.  He saw a group of young white men who were tired of the fear they were living with.  He had these racist, Neo-Nazi, ideals which he then planted into their eager and willing minds.  He obviously believed in some/all of the ideals and arguments made by Hitler.  But why?  Why was it so simple to get the attention of these young men and woman and plant these racist/supremacist ideas in their head? 

                At one point, before the store raid, Derek made a speech, and in his speech he said something about the good hard working white man, who slaves to make a living for his family, and these foreigners come in and take jobs away from them.  So, it’s like America is only for white folks, everybody else get out.  In Imagined Communities Anderson basically says that nationalism and racism stem from the same place but went down different paths.  “Where racism developed outside Europe in the nineteenth century, it was always associated with European domination, for two converging reasons.  First and most important was the rise of official nationalism and colonial ‘Russification’.  As has been repeatedly emphasized official nationalism was typically a response on the part of threatened dynastic and aristocratic groups – upper classes – to popular vernacular nationalism.  Colonial racism was a major element in that conception of ‘Empire’ which attempted to weld dynastic legitimacy and national community.”   Therefore, one can argue that learned nationalism has affected theses young men and women in an unconscious or subconscious way.  Having been exposed to class differences and race differences as well as colonial history, where the white man was on top and inherently superior to the native inhabitants, they were easily captured in what___ had to say, especially since there was unrest between the whites and blacks/people of color. 

                A by-product of building a sense of nationalism was the racism that ensued.  When Cameron found Derek he found his protégé and was able to really control and influence this group of people with his Neo-Nazi ideals of white supremacy.  The upbringing of these young men and women along with the current tensions between the white and colored community left them open and ready for someone to come and provide structure and empowerment to them.  Racism which, according to Anderson, stems from ideals of “inherited superiority” was associated with European domination.  Therefore, could we say that if there was never any imperialistic rule or colonization, that there would be no racism?  Because there would be no imperialistic ruler who faced marginalization and had to create nationalism in order to remain relevant or a need for the indigenous people to rally together and forge a sense of nationalism in order to combat those in power. 

Tonisha Spratte Blog 8

Blog 8 A Look Back/Black Feminism

Anderson describes a nation as something that is quite natural and unchosen.  Stating in chapter 8 “As we have seen earlier, in everything ‘natural’ there is always something unchosen.  In this way, nation-ness is assimilated to skin-colour, gender, parentage and birth-era – all those things one can not help.”  He also says “Even in the case of colonized peoples, who have every reason to feel hatred for their imperialist rulers, it is astonishing how insignificant the element of hatred is in these expressions of national feeling.”  In my very first blog, I wrote about what ties one to a nation.  First I tried to describe what a nation is.  I looked online at Merriam-Webster and had to dig a little until I found what I thought was a good understanding of the word.  I then went on to describe what ties one to a nation.  We had just seen the film/documentary Passing Through, in which an adopted Korean American was basically searching for his roots, trying to figure out where he belonged.  I argued that he felt the strongest connection to the place where he cultivated those memories of his childhood and growing up and where his family was.  Although he went to Korea, he had no real feelings of connectedness and even had to extend his sixth month stay in order to try and create or find these feelings.  In the end, despite the fact that he did finally get in touch with his biological family, he still ended up having the strongest ties with the people and to the place he was raised.  This led me to think about my own community.  What community do I belong to and how can I try to bring my classroom community closer to this other community I belong to? 

So, what community do I belong to?  Well, there’s the William and Mary community, which is one that I am quite proud of!  There’s the Virginia community or Suffolk community.  Maybe more generally, I should be grouped with blacks, or women, or, better yet, the community of black women!  I’d have to say that is a community I definitely identify with.   This community is one that is built less on nation-ness and more on race and sex.  We have talked about feminism and black feminism and watched a film or two which address it either directly or indirectly.  The most direct pieces were found in the Colored Museum, in the scene with the wigs, and the woman with the egg.  These scenes addressed the image, her hair, and the value, her offspring, of the black woman.  We also watched La Noire de, which was about a young Senegalese woman who went to work for a white woman in France.  This one was a display of the treatment of the black woman.  Diouana’s boss treated her as if she was a slave, manipulated, and then degraded her in order to get what she wanted from her.  The latter sentence is basically a summary of colonialism, but I digress.  I believe that screening these films was a great way for the classroom community to become better acquainted with black feminism, even those of us who are in this community (of black women) can benefit from the discussion of the topics displayed in these films in class. 

Inspired by documentary, Passing Through, I started blogging about what ties someone to a specific place.  It all boiled down to the relationships and memories a person has in a specific place which will lead the person to call the place ‘home’ or feel connected to it.  This relates to what Anderson talks about in chapter 8, these are the things one cannot choose which influences one to have specific feelings about a certain place.  Nathan could not choose the place he grew up in or the people he grew up with and this relates to nation-ness because they are all unchosen.  This led me to think about the community I most relate to, which is that of black women, and even though it is not based on geography, I feel that it is just as real or significant a community as any other.  Black feminism is an area that has been created in order to explain and rectify the mistreatment of black women and I think educating the community of this subject will be one of the best ways of increasing the pool of knowledge shared in the classroom.  But there is something that perplexes me; why is there a difference between feminism and black feminism?  What is the goal of feminism and since its been around for quite some time, why aren’t its goals reached?  Why hasn’t feminism been more successful in creating the desired environment?  Chakraborty says it’s because the feminists can’t get along enough to unite for the common goal; “Because the notion of subject formation is crucial to the feminist academy, a host of theoretical, identitarian, and seemingly generational differences have come to interrupt feminisms timely arrival in a post-patriarchal future.”  But one could argue that even with all the fractions within feminism, since they have the same goal it should be able to be accomplished.  Is there more to feminism’s slow ability to change or is it merely lack of unity within the movement itself?  Do those in power, the men, even listen, or could it disrupt hegemony?  Or is it just that the forerunners in this movement have not been as progressive as they should have been?  Or have they been too progressive that they have scared off needed supporters?  

Blog 7 Tonisha Spratte

Blog 7:  Nationalism For Who?

In reading Jonno’s blog, I was stuck with a question.  He mentioned something about how American Nationalism came to be Euro-centric.  Which made me think, why would the creole put the Englishman at the top of the hierarchy before themselves?  Why were those from England revered?  Why would the people born in America allow themselves to be seen as somewhat of a “second-rate” citizen?  I think it’s the power of influence.  Like we were talking about in class, we listen to authority, (of course within a certain context) but we are eager to do what we are told.  So, these people were told to believe that the European’s were what they should to aspire to be.  One example is in Amigo, the women in the baryo could be said to have been trying to emulate the priest.  He was an authority figure and one that the women wanted to be closer to and more like.  So even religion is a means by which those in power influence and try to control the dominated people.  This reminds me of black women and their hair.  Some people would say that black women do not like their hair and that they try to make it more like other races’ hair by using relaxers and finding other methods of straightening their hair.  This was exemplified in The Colored Museum, in the scene where the woman was going on a date to break up with her boyfriend.  She had to choose which wig she wanted to wear, a straight wig or an afro, one representing the tamed African American woman and the other is most associated with Black pride.  The most important detail, but it wasn’t emphasized was the fact that it was mentioned in the film that she was bald because she had processed her own hair to the point where it had just all fell out.  So, if she wouldn’t have tried to change herself every time the wind blew, maybe she would have some hair.  This in turn is also similar, but the latter to a lesser extent, to some people over in Asiatic (see if that’s a real word) countries.  It is popular for Asians to get surgery on their eyes in order to make them look more like that of the rest of the world.  Why are these people trying to change themselves?  Why do they, black women, Asians, and the creole Americans, think that they aren’t every bit as good as or as beautiful as those in power?  Why do they feel they have to emulate another group of people?  Is it because they are purposely brainwashed by those in power? (I think that may be the case for early American creoles)  Or is it because this is what they see in the media, they see these people living lives that they think are appealing and worth emulation.  Anderson does mention that the media, the school, and administrative regulations are the ways in which commonalities are created.

I believe several factors influence why the natives and creoles kept the colonizing power at the head of the national hierarchy, one being the strategic spread of nationalism by the colonizers through the schools, the other being the mistreatment and inadequate employment available for these people, and the other being the belief that assimilation into these groups is the best way to uplift one’s self.  Anderson says that this sensation of nationalism was mainly spread to the youth through the newly popularized schooling that the children were now receiving.  The school system was used to promote nationalism.  He goes on to talk about how what they were called, effected them as well, and even though they may have come from different places and spoke different languages they were all called the same thing which was, of course, inferior to the colonizing power.  This, in turn, leads me to my next point of the treatment received from those in power is another reason for the feeling of inferiority.  Anderson notes that the importance of modern knowledge and education increased in the early 20^th century and the phenomenon of educated and unemployed had already begun.  These people, knowing that they were smart, educated, just as well qualified for various positions and jobs, yet not getting any job, or at least not anything that is related to what they were educated in, may have a drop in self-esteem over time.  Rejection from a job or occupation, just to see it go to someone else, someone who is of the same social group as the people who hold all the power has the effect of making someone feel inferior.  Another reason they may want to seem, whether in appearance or any other aspect, like they are part of the, for lack of a better term, “elite”, those who are in power, is because they also want to share in this power.  They want to make it seem like they are one of them, like they belong or that they aren’t much different than the people in power in society.  So, in changing their appearance, they believe they are making it much easier for them to ease into the “elite” inner circle.

The feeling that the people in power are the elite in society is understandable for many reasons.  Nationalism was taught through the schools to the youth in society, the natives and Non-Europeans were treated inferiorly, and in order to get involved with those in power the subaltern would try to change their appearance in order to be associated with those in power.  All of these reasons, and I am sure that there are many more, came together in order to ensure that the colonizing power is at the top of the country’s nationalism totem pole. 

Blog 6 Tonisha Spratte

Blog 6:   The Power Of The People To Amass

There is strength in numbers; this is demonstrated in the case of Vincent Chin.  If the people weren’t outraged, then Ebens would have never been retried.  Although he never served jail time and it seemed that his attitude was less than apologetic, he was punished in other ways.  He was fined, the amount of which now amasses to millions of dollars, lost his job and couldn’t find another because he was “infamous”, lost friends and family, and ended up divorced from his wife (and in class one person had said something about “how could she still be with him”, well apparently, she couldn’t stand to be with him too much longer.  Maybe she just didn’t want to leave the man in his time of need like that.)  In no way am I saying that justice was served, it should have been served in the first trial with the idiotic and racist (and not so honorable) Judge Charles Kaufman.  As mentioned in class, this is where the most injustice was served.  The original case and sentencing was the first step in this story and the judge took a huge leap backward.  Maybe a little background on this man will shed some light.  He was a navigator in the Air Force during World War II and at some point became a POW, prisoner of war, in a Japanese prison camp[1].  This is evidence behind my thinking that this man is a racist, especially against those of Asian descent.  However the power of the people, or the subaltern, to come together to speak can be quite powerful and can be related to the creation of ‘official’ nationalisms.

The power of the people to amass is strong, so strong that when those in power recognize that the people are coming together they quickly maneuver and develop a strategy to become the power-wielding authority once more.  Anderson speaks of this power-struggle in chapter 6 of Imagined Communities.  The creation of an “official nationalism” was the response from those in power when threatened with marginalization by the masses, in order to regain control.  The example he mentions is that of King Wachirawut of Siam.  He talks about how the relations with the Chinese were deteriorating and how the Chinese were the forerunners of a “republicanism” that Wachirawut felt threatened by.  He continues on page 101 saying “It goes without saying that Wachirawut also began moving all the policy levers of official nationalism: compulsory state-controlled primary education, state-organized propaganda, official rewriting of history, militarism – here more visible show than the real thing – and endless affirmations of the identity of dynasty and nation.”  He is doing all of this to ensure that the popular nationalism didn’t develop “very differently from that of nobility”, he is manipulating the people to ensure that he does not become irrelevant and remains a powerful authority figure.  This can also be tied into Spivak’s article Can the Subaltern Speak?  One could view this as the subaltern trying to speak.  The Asian community at that time was hated and discriminated against, so, in a way, one could say that they were the subaltern or had some notions of subalternity.  Of course the ultimate finding in Spivak’s article was that the subaltern cannot speak, but I believe that they can, although not alone.  And also not just through vertreten, darstellen, vertretung, or darstellung (which are the various words that translate as ‘representation’ in English with slightly different meaning of which English has no equivalent words for) but through coming together.  This banding of the masses is how the subaltern can speak, alone their voice is not heard but together, they are a force to be reckoned with.

The Vincent Chin case reminds me of something that happened quite recently, down in Florida, the case of Trayvon Martin.  This was another act of senseless violence, although not as brutal as the Chin beating.  Trayvon was an unarmed 17 year old African American teenager wearing a hoodie who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, head of the neighborhood watch in the gated community where the shooting occurred.  The outrage in the community was made well known, with candle-light vigils being held throughout the nation.  The case against Zimmerman, who pleads not guilty and that the killing was an act of self-defense, will begin on June 10 of this year.  With the media coverage and overall vocality of the people, I doubt that the same thing will happen that happened with the Vincent Chin case.

The notion of assembly is powerful.  I am not saying it is the answer to all of our prayers, but if people could organize themselves in an intelligent way and for specific goals, then there will be voices heard and changes made.  Everyone may not be able to get what they want, but at least the subaltern can get a chance to speak using this collective voice.  Of course, the power of assembly is much stronger in democratic nations like the United States and similarly designed governments, so just how effective will this be in places ruled more like a dictatorship?  Honestly, this can still work, because I know that the held down, subaltern, masses greatly outnumber those in charge and they could easily work together to overthrow those in power, but how realistic is it?  How many regular people will be willing to risk their lives just so that they can be heard?  When one looks at it in this light, then, according to Spivak and her notion that the subaltern result to suicide in order to be heard, and therefore are not afraid of death,  this notion of the people amassing should work.  But why doesn’t it?

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kaufman_(judge)

Blog #5 Tonisha Spratte

The State of Womanhood; Esp. Minority Womanhood

Womanhood.  What is this word?  What does it mean to be a woman?  It seems that women have always come after men.  From the workforce to voting, women have been historically seen as weaker, mostly fit for domestic jobs and most importantly taking care of the home and children.  In the past women, especially minority women, have been viewed as property, something to rule over and use as you please.  This is definitely seen in the movie La Noire de… by Ousmane Sembene.  In fact the title of this move does not translate perfectly into English; translated literally it says “the black of/from”, which is definitely an example of women as the ostracized and oppressed.  Even feminism, being a response to marginalization of women in a patriarchal society, is strained and made complicated by race issues between the women.  In Chakraborty’s article “Waving it all away: Producing Subject and Knowledge in Feminisms of Colours” she elaborates on these racial challenges within feminism. 

In the English translation of “La Noire de…” the “de” gets left out in translation, (as do the ellipses).  I believe this can be quite important in the exegesis of the movie/title.  “De” can mean either from or of depending on the context.  If it means from then it could mean ‘The black girl from…’ and the ellipses leave the phrase purposely incomplete.  In doing so, it signifies that the place where the girl is from is unimportant because she is unimportant.  If it were to mean ‘The black girl of…’ this would imply possession, meaning that someone owned or had the potential to own her.  Which I believe was a common thing in Senegal at that time, to have a ‘maid’, to practically own some poor African woman because there were no other jobs for her to be able to do in those times.  Ousmane Sembene wanted to show the conditions that the women of his day had to endure.  He wanted to show how they were being treated and that they are people too. 

Chakraborty’s ariticle highlights the racial tensions within feminism.  As noble of a cause as feminism is, it cannot continue to grow and build on such a fractured foundation.  White privilege is still in effect and the colored woman is constantly “hotfooting” from all of the various roles she is expected to fill.  “…whereby the feminist of colour hotfoots between being and not-being the race-maid in the academic kitchen, between trying to negotiate her newly acquired job profile and, at the same time, self-reflexively, interrogating the conditions of possibilities that make her presence viable.”  Therefore, the colored woman is still trying to prove herself within the feminist community, which seems counterintuitive because the feminist movement was supposed to be one that uplifts women.  Even in 'The Colored Museum' the bald woman felt that she had to choose just the right hair in order to prove her worth to the man she was about to break up with. Why didn't she feel that she could be just as empowered as she was?  Why was her as herself not good enough?  This seems to be the common theme for the woman.  Constantly trying to prove herself and demonstrate her value to the skeptics, the doubters, and deriders.

Ousmane Sembene wanted to show the difficulties and distressed situation of the Senegalese woman and Chakraborty wanted to emphasize the racial tension between women within the feminist movement.  Both people wanted to highlight the difficulties of the colored woman and the fact that, even within feminism these women still feel the need to prove themselves to other women.  If the women are constantly bumping heads with each other then how can they pull themselves together in order to further the goal of feminism?

Tonisha Spratte Blog #4 What makes me an American?

What makes me an American?

What makes me an American?  I don’t know, the fact that I was born here is the best reason I can think of, there are many examples throughout chapter 4, where Anderson mentions how different people determine who is a native or citizen of an area and it is dependent on where they were born (the definition he uses of a Creole).  This, in my opinion, is the foundation of all the other reasons one may feel that they are an American.  Additionally, another criteria Anderson speaks of throughout the chapter is Language.  On page 56 he says “But in experiencing them as travelling-companions, a consciousness of connectedness (‘Why are we… here… together?’) emerges, above all when all share a single language-of-state.” This makes me think of the question asked last week.  “Do you speak English?”  Is this the link that makes one feel just that much more Americanized?  Are birth place and language the two heaviest criteria to be weighed when thinking about what makes one an American?

I immediately think of the very first movie we watched.  Nathan, although seemingly confused, ultimately had a sense of belonging to the family he grew up with in America.  Nathan was bilingual but was more fluent in English and felt the connections with his adopted family because that was the language he grew up speaking and that was the family he was raised with.  In addition to this movie when thinking about nationality and its foundations in language and place, I think about La Noire de… (Black Girl).  There was one point in the movie where someone, I believe it was the mistress, was calling her an animal and saying that she doesn’t know how to speak French.  This seemed to be a tactic in order to make her feel like she was less than les patrons, the so-called French people she was working for.  When the mistress made this claim it was in order to mock her, to put her down.  Of course the mistress knew she spoke French, otherwise how else could they understand each other?  It just seemed like she needed to make herself feel better and the best way she could do that was by asserting her superiority over the little black girl and putting Diouana down.  This is why I believe it is another great example of how language can make people feel connected and by saying that she doesn't speak French the mistress is trying to put more space between herself and Diouana.

Being born in America, I am used to the ways, the language, the habits, and mannerism of Americans.  I feel that there are many differences that people claim even though they are all Americans.  Although we may not have all been born here, language is the one thing that we all share.  There may be someone out there thinking, ‘but there are people who live in the United States and do not speak English.’  Well, let’s be honest, do they think of themselves as Americans?  If one speaks no English at all, was he or she actually born here and consider him or herself an American?  On the whole, the answers to those questions are no.  And sure there are different dialects and slang, but the ability to communicate is essential in forming bonds with other people.  Which is why I could argue that Diouana’s refusal to speak to the mistress was Diouana’s way of protesting her working and staying there.  By not speaking with this woman, she gives the mistress no opportunity to learn about her through conversation.  There are some who say language is the only thing separating us from the animals (although, ironically, there are some animals who can talk).  Even with language and birthplace being two of the most pervasive characteristics of an American, one’s “Americaness” is not based on some concrete characteristics that someone else thinks an American should have but it’s one’s own feelings of connectivity and relation to this nation.  Language happens to play a key role in the way we communicate in order to build relationships, form bonds, and create memories which make us call any one place ‘home’.  Also, the simple fact of being born in a place will leave most people with a feeling of connectedness to said place. 

In all, I think to be American is a feeling.  This feeling is created by many different things but the main two foundational characteristics are birthplace and a shared language, which Anderson seems to think is fundamental in forming a community.  In fact, it is such a strong foundation that some people, who do not want to be associated with others, may try to sever their ties on this very basis.

Side note:  This topic brings up a more specific topic, one relevant to me:  What makes someone an African American?  What does it mean to be black?  Is it the language, Ebonics?  Is it the color of one’s skin?  Is it one’s mindset?  Is it the clothes one wears, the food one eats, or the music one listens to?  What about where the person is from, or better yet, the amount of money flowing into the household?  I will not answer these questions here but merely pose them to everyone else, maybe just as a something to think about when eating some cereal or working out at the gym.

Tonisha Spratte Blog #3 Riot v. Rebellion

In class on Tuesday January 29^th the same event was called two different things; a riot and a rebellion.  This made me think of what the difference between the two words is.  This, in turn, made me think of a funny, yet slightly thought provoking, clip from Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia, where Danny Devito inquires of Dee her thoughts on looting versus survival (In case the hyperlink doesn't work http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y2BSbVpMTw), but I digress.

Riot vs. rebellion:  Are they synonyms, similar perhaps?  Or maybe on completely different ends of the spectrum.  Merriam-Webster defines it as unrestrained revelry (noisy partying or merrymaking); noise, uproar or disturbance made by revelers; public violence, tumult, or disorder; and profligate, which is self-indulging and restraint-less, behavior.  Rebellion is defined as opposition to one in authority or dominance; open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government.  So, these words have some similarities and it seems to depend on the individual’s view of the reason for/goals of the uprising/calamity.  Going by the definition, a riot has no real underlying foundation, or if it does it is not political or for the benefit of the people as a whole.

Therefore, what benefit could the people of the LA “Riots” obtain or have been seeking to obtain?  One may say they just wanted to make trouble, act recklessly, and steal.  During the movie, there was a clip played where Bush said something about the LA Riots having no political bearings and is an act of profligacy.  Those aren't his exact words, but I could not for the life of me find this clip.  In response to this I ask the question, why did these riots start?  Did a bunch of black people just wake up one day and say, “Hey, I want to burn down some stores and cause a lot of ruckus for no reason.”?  I don’t think so.  The people were outraged by the ‘justice’ that was rendered when, on April 29^th 1992, the four policemen associated with the Rodney King beatings were found innocent of using ‘excessive force’ in order to subdue him.  The people felt that the judicial system let them down.  The police officers, while blatantly guilty to the public at large, were found innocent by an all white jury, or more precisely, a jury of their peers.  Even president Bush openly refuted the verdict, which, in one article I was reading the author believed that this equates to some of the blame belonging on his shoulders because the president openly criticized the verdict, weakening the belief in the system to render justice.  Read the article here (again, just in case the hyperlink didn't work http://capitalismmagazine.com/2012/04/remembering-the-1992-los-angeles-riots/.)

Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to excuse their actions, I am merely trying to bring to the forefront the thoughts and feelings of the people at that time.  Whether it is labeled as a riot or rebellion the facts are not changed.  There was racial tension, probably bubbling up for quite some time between many different races, and a highly publicized trial that didn’t go the way the general public thought it should.  But one can ask oneself what are the reasons and underlying forces driving the LA Riots?  What were the goals and what was trying to be expressed through their actions?  Why was this the immediate reaction of the people?

Tonisha Spratte Blog #2

Race/Nationality and Shade

Francis asked a question last class; what is out/the human way of organizing/dividing?  The first thing that popped in my head was by race.  Honestly, whether intentionally or not we tend to divide ourselves by race more often than not, especially in places such as W&M where our minority status is blatant or easily recognized.  It is a common joke amongst me and my friends and I suppose the larger black community as well, that all the black people know each other and when we see a black person we do not know we are usually quick to change that.  Race is typically one of the quicker/easier ways to try and identify someone you could get along with or have similar experiences or interests, tastes, and background.  The activities we did on Thursday, in my humble opinion, seems to have weakened this logic through explicitly exploring it.  By separating ourselves by race we not only learned of about the commonalities we share through race and nationality but also about our differences.  I’m pretty sure that everyone there had a follow-up question for someone or wanted someone to expand upon a topic.

Also, while we were doing the exercise and Francis was talking about how all of us black people probably have some European ancestry (which I agree with) as well as the many “bridges” we had in class connecting different circles of races it reminded me of this South Park episode where people from the future came to South Park to find jobs.  Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, do such a good job on criticizing so many different aspects of not only American life but humans in general.  But I digress, the people who came from the future were al one color, looked one way, and spoke one language, which happened to be some sort of mix of all the languages as their race was a mix of all races.  Not saying that this is scientifically correct but it is a reminder of how commonplace interracial couples have become, which, of course, I’m not knocking it, half of my family is in or is a product of interracial marriages and relationships.

The last point I will get into is “Shade-ism.”  This was brought up at the end of class on Thursday and as a young dark skinned African American woman, I know and feel the effects of this aforementioned –ism.  Shade-ism, for those who do not know, is a form of disdain that people, commonly throughout the African American race have for different shades of brown in said race.  A lot of people like to say that light skinned black people look better than dark skinned black people.  Now, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but that is just ridiculous.  For example, when someone belittles another they might say something along the lines of “You old black….”  Why is that used in degradation?  Why is being darker a bad thing?  Oh, or something along the lines of “He was real dark, but he was cute.”  using ‘but’ to introduce a contradictory clause.  Meaning ‘real dark’ would never equate to cute ordinarily.  Or “Oh, she’s dark skinned and has long hair?” like it’s impossible or something.  And this is the worst; “You’re pretty for a dark skinned girl.”  [In my head “Fuck you.] *stale face* -_- *gets up and walks away* This is just the ignorance of this world.  It is perfectly fine that dark skinned black women may not be your preference, to each his/her own, but to project your shade-ism onto myself and others is unacceptable.  Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Or even know what I’m talking about/where I’m coming from?



In relation to my comment, after on the left and before on the right:

Tonisha Spratte Blog #1 What ties one to a nation?

Nation is defined by Merriam-Webster as

a (1) : nationality 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality(3) : a non-Jewish nationality <why do the nations conspire — Psalms 2:1 (Revised Standard Version)>

b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government

c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status

With that said, I don’t know about you but I know I’m still left wondering what a nation is! So I went on to search what is this “nationality” that Merriam-Webster speaks of. One definition says “a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state” Now that we know what a nation is, how do we know when we belong to one? Referring to the movie we watched in class, Passing Through, what is it that triggers one to feel that they belong, or feel a connection to a specific area, region, or nation? Although Nathan was Korean, when he went to Korea and stayed for six months, he still felt no connection to that nation and I think it’s because, one will not feel a connection to a place without a reason to feel one, and just because you may be Korean or Japanese you will feel no ties to these areas without concrete reason to feel so.

For example, Nathan was Korean but since he had no family (that he knew of), no old friends, or true loves, or fond memories he didn't feel a connection to Korea. He did however, seem to feel a connection to the place where he spent most of his life, where he had a family and childhood memories. It’s like when people get home sick, you don’t get homesick for a “home” that you have never experienced, you long to be at the place that you know, that you have fond memories of, where family may be or where memories of loved ones can be evoked and almost re-experienced.

To sum it all up, in my humble opinion, I do believe that regardless of a person’s race, he/she will feel a connection to the area or nation that they grew up in, the place where their memories start, where they have family, where they call home. I think that that comes with the people you grew up with, with the people you live with and call your family. Without that, what reason would anyone have to call an unknown territory home, or have any type of nationalistic feelings for such any unfamiliar place?