Social media has taught me that plenty of people hold strong opinions that I consider to be quite bone headed, and the reverse is equally valid. Below is a Top
* N word usage: I'm not in favor of it being said by anybody. It's firmly entrenched in our culture as a hateful insult and I do not believe the misguided attempt to claim the word for ourselves (primarily by ending it with "a" rather than "er") has been successful in removing its sting. Otherwise nobody would get upset when a non-black person said it. It can't be denied that the N-word has successfully ingrained itself into black culture though. African Americans, particularly under a certain age or under a certain degree of educational achievement, will continue to use it. They won't mean any harm. It's like a cigarette habit, mostly self inflicted damage with some second hand smoke level injury. I believe that to be respected by others it is important to show you respect yourself. Referring to yourself by a derogatory term is not what Queen Aretha was referring to as R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
* Hashtivism / Semantics / Which Lives Matter?: I believe that activism by hashtag has led to oversimplification of what it means to be supportive of a cause. Inclusiveness seems to have become a vulgar concept. Consider what I just said about feminism. Yes it's true that certain issues pertain to people of one race more than another, but that doesn't mean we can't still be in the fight together. Yes, there are issues being brought up about mistreated black lives that have caused people to proclaim that "Black Lives Matter". I repeat, #BlackLivesMatter, for of course they do. Do all of the other racial categories of lives matter as well? Of course they do. Granted, when we're specifically talking about black lives we should try to stay on topic. We can talk about the struggles of Native Americans and Eskimos some other time. It's not as if we insist that the NRA talk about knives or that anti-smoking people discuss the perils of trans fat in fast food. A special interest group is allowed to focus on a particular topic and the specific people affected. That's fair, right? But if someone does happen to say ALL rather than black, there is no need to assume that the speaker is saying black lives DO NOT matter. Saying ALL does not mean that issues of particular importance to African Americans are being ignored. It simply means that all people are created equal, we all have the same inalienable rights, so in situations where a particular group is getting the shaft, that's a problem in need of remedy. When asked about a specific racial injustice if somebody chooses to wave it off as unimportant, then we can conclude that their definition of ALL is more limited than it should be.
* Interracial relationships: They happen. In every variety of way. With celebrities and with everybody else. It's not a trend and isn't going anywhere. So get over it. Being involved with somebody of a different race is not proof of self loathing. One does not abandon what they were born by being involved with someone of another race. Just as people can walk and chew gun at the same time, they can be themselves while loving another. If you're not in the relationship it's none of your business. If I'm not in it, it's none of mine.
* Black Twitter: It's not actually a real thing: Neither is Black facebook, black instagram, etc. There was (maybe still is) a Black Planet, I'll grant you that. Social media is one for all and all for one. There are plenty of black people on Twitter. Among them I don't believe there is 100% consensus on anything. The LA Times has put a writer on the case, think pieces are written on a monthly basis, books are in the works, all about Black Twitter. One may as well write about Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, visiting space aliens, and mermaids. They all make for fascinating stories but nothing can be proven so it must be considered fiction. I'm black. I have a Twitter account. Does that make me a member of Black Twitter? Not necessarily, as apparently not every black person tweeting is in the club. Also, I've read you can be in Black Twitter without even being black. I wonder if Rachel Dolezal was in Black Twitter before being outed. Do I have to hold certain beliefs to be in Black Twitter, 100% compliance to whatever the rules of engagement are? If so, where are the guidelines? Hidden like stations of the Underground Railroad? I doubt it. Have I forever disqualified myself from Black Twitter membership by writing this blog post? Surely it goes against several core BT principles? Or maybe it doesn't. I have no idea because I have no idea what Black Twitter is exactly, no clue what it represents, and neither does nobody else no matter how much they've written about it and swear they know the deal. Black Twitter is the ghost in the attic, the fairy in your garden, the angel on your shoulder. Nobody can get a picture of it but they swear it's real. It's not. Until someone registers BlackTwitter.com - it's nothing more than a phrase that people use to pigeonhole. One more completely unnecessary label.
Racism is a 1-way street (aka Blacks can't be racist): Hogwash. Every street runs two ways minimum, even if on some of them cars are only permitted to drive in one direction. If you (no matter what race you happen to belong to) generalize and pre-judge an entire race of people (no matter which race is the one being judged) then congratulations, you have just participated in the art of racism. We are all capable of being angels and all capable of being a-holes towards our fellow (wo)man. The more power that you personally and your race in general wields, the more harm you are capable of inflicting with it. But even if you are relatively powerless, if writing a scathing think piece read by six people is about as much damage as you can inflict, you still don't get to be excused from having a racist mindset.
Respectability does not equal self hate (except for when it does): Respectability politics affects people regardless of race (though for some reason it is most spotlighted when occurring in the Black community) because it's basically another way of referring to the generation divide. Individuals who are more mature of age, more seasoned with experienced, more laden with responsibilities, will always have a different perspective about how to dress and speak and comport themselves than those who are just starting out in adult life. For an older black person to think that a younger one wearing pants with the waistband nearly down to his knees looks ridiculous is a reasonable conclusion in my opinion. But that may be because I have lived long enough to now qualify as an older black person when standing next to a twenty-two year old. Fortunately the sagging pants era is mostly over with by the time I'm adding this paragraph in August of 2020. The fashion statement has not gone away entirely, as I saw an example just the other day. But it's no longer a dominant look, having been overtaken by other fads. By the very definition, fads come and then they go. So it's probably not worth the energy expelled to get riled up over any one fad in particular. Back in the 1990's when Bill Cosby ruled the world of network television, he branded respectability politics with great effect. Whether he was being humorous on the topic or dead serious, he was a revered authority and therefore we listened when he mocked younger people for failing to display decorum. How are you supposed to get a job when you wear those clothes and that hairstyle and speak largely in Ebonics? In some cases he had a valid point. An equally valid one would be - How dare you lecture the younger generation over matters of etiquette while being a serial rapist?! There is nothing especially respectable about being in jail as a senior citizen, not because of how you wore your pants or communicated your thoughts, but because of deplorable actions. There are other preachers of respectability politics and not all of them have ended up in jail. If given with respect, the advice of elders is worth listening to and perhaps even heeding. If spit out with derision, it will be branded as respectability politics and tuned out. Time serves as equalizer. The ones being criticized today are the ones who will do the criticizing tomorrow. World keeps spinning.
R.I.P. Sandra Bland. May the full truth be unearthed and justice prevail.
And now for some book reviews:
Mary Poppins by P.L. Travers
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
I knew from the movie Saving Mr. Banks that a personality overhaul was given to Mary Poppins when Disney adapted this book into a film. She's all sweetness and light in the film, quite the hard ass in the book. She's rather vain in the book as well. I suppose I'd be vain too if I could fit furniture into a suitcase and fly by umbrella. I learned from Wikipedia that the reason so much that happens in the movie is not in the book is because there are 8 Mary Poppins books and the movie is based on events taken from the first four, plus some stuff added by Disney. I can't say that I loved this classic book that spawned the much more charming movie. I'm giving 3 stars rather than 2 because without the books, starting with this one, there is no movie.
View all my reviews
How the García Girls Lost Their Accents by Julia Alvarez
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
This is a beautifully written book. But it's one of those works of fiction that isn't really about anything in particular. Readers spend time with alternating Garcia girls in random order throughout a portion of their lives. There is no plot to speak of. The chapters are connected by the fact that one or more Garcia girl is featured in each of them, but you could read them in any order you wanted without impacting the reading experience. The chapters/scenes hold your attention in standalone fashion as well as loosely connecting with the others. I didn't grow attached to anyone in particular. I cared about what was happening when it was happening and then the book moved on to something else. How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents is a well written series of scattered moments in the lives of girls who become women who become the memory of a book you once read.
View all my reviews
The Ruins by Scott B. Smith
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Seriously creepy stuff. What do you do if you and a group of friends end up on a hill in Mexico that is crawling with vines from hell. They can think, plot, see, hear, deceive, mock, physically and mentally torture, invade your body, destroy your soul before eventually, inevitably stripping your bones clean? You hold out for as long as you can in hopes that the cavalry will arrive before it's too late. If one of you happens to be an Eagle Scout, perhaps you can figure out ways to last longer than most. But no matter. It was too late the moment you took one step upon that hill. This is a dreams haunting kind of book.
View all my reviews
The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
Extraordinary. The Goldfinch is a deeply satisfying blend of gorgeous literary writing with a thriller style plot and Charles Dickens-esque range of scope. Theo Decker is a character we watch from boyhood to manhood, in peril for much of that time, in possession of a cherished gift. It's a gift meant for all people who appreciate art and beauty, not just for him, but it ends up in his hands to secretly protect and preserve. After surviving an explosion that takes his mother's life he moves through his days recklessly. As a teen in his father's careless charge he immerses himself in drugs. As an adult who has somehow managed to secure a comfortable lifestyle with the seemingly non perilous job of selling antique furniture, he is continually drawn to danger. His mindset is practically suicidal, we readers care about him more than he seems to care for himself. He is also cared for by those in his inner circle: his best friend Boris, father figure Hobie, and Pippa, the girl whom he loves from first sight but has no idea what to do about it. Theo protects a masterpiece meant to be displayed on museum walls much as he guards memories of his mother who was taken too soon. Memories never have to be surrendered, but eventually we all find ourselves needing to let go.
View all my reviews
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
My rating: 2 of 5 stars
There are Young Adult classics that dazzle no matter when in life a reader comes across them. And then there are those that one needs to be young to fully appreciate, it seems. If discovered too late in life, those in the latter category will fail to impress. I'm putting A Wrinkle in Time in that latter group. A lofty reputation preceded but when I finally got around to reading it, I simply failed to see what all the fuss is about. Yet if my theory is accurate then my daughter, who it was read aloud to, would have enjoyed it considerably more than I did. She didn't. We were both underwhelmed, though we were in agreement that it got better as it went along and we became used to the space age setting. I am dazzled by the best of science fiction because of the level of imagination required to create a new world from scratch. I would not call A Wrinkle in Time science fiction at its best. I'll stick with writers such as Philip K. Dick for that. I feel kind of bad almost that I didn't enjoy this book more than I did because I know it's such a beloved classic. A great many readers will enthusiastically recommend it to you. Take them up on it. Perhaps you will agree with them more than you do with my review, and that's fine by me.
View all my reviews
No comments:
Post a Comment