I don't really have much to say about this clip--it pretty much speaks for itself and others (Angry Asian Man, Gawker, The Faster Times, Huffington Post, Salon) have already weighed in (and I'm sure I'm missing a lot more blog posts about this).
Really, between The Valley Club and Fox and Friends, the instances of blatant and bald racism just keep on coming. Puts that whole idea of "post-racial American" to rest, doesn't it?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Protest The Valley Club--say NO to racism
By now most of you are familiar with the racism that has occurred at The Valley Club, a private swim club in Montgomery County, PA, a suburb outside of Philadelphia. In a nutshell, here's what happened (taken from this Chicago CBS affiliate news piece):
In case there is any doubt about the real motivation for the refund, in the immediate aftermath of this debacle, the club president, John Duesler, explained that
"There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club."
(click here to see the original quote in this story)
Let me now direct you to two blogs and their insightful/outraged/thoughtful posts on this story:
*Poplicks
*Anti-Racist Parent
And if you are feeling incensed--let me urge you to channel that anger into action. At the most minimal level, you can let people know about this issue. Feel free to forward this post to others or write your own mass email, and please do link to this site for ColorOfChange.org and sign their on-line petition to protest the actions of The Valley Club.
You can also go one step further and actually send a letter--a stamped-and-addressed-envelope-U.S. Postal Service-delivered letter to
The Valley Club
22 Tomlinson Rd
Huntingdon Vly, PA 19006
(215) 947-0700
info@thevalleyclub.com
[You can, of course, call and register your protest, although I imagine they aren't answering their phone due to heavy call volume of angry Americans protesting their racist members, but check it out for yourself! Then there's the handy email address to register your distress, although I think snail-mail, in our digital/new media age, really sends a message that you are SO PISSED OFF at this incident you are actually spending time and money to MAIL something]
What you should know is that Senator Arlen Specter has asked for a Federal Civil Rights investigation against the club. Lets hope justice prevails.
Finally, here's a clip from "This Week in Blackness" that really says it all:
The Creative Steps camp in Northeast Philadelphia had contracted for 65 children at the day camp to go each Monday afternoon to The Valley Club in Huntingdon Valley, camp director Alethea Wright said Thursday. But shortly after they arrived June 29, she said, some black and Hispanic children reported hearing racial comments.
"A couple of the children ran down saying, 'Miss Wright, Miss Wright, they're up there saying, 'What are those black kids doing here?"'
Wright said she went to talk to a group of members at the top of the hill and heard one woman say she would see to it that the group, made of up of children in kindergarten through seventh grade, did not return.
"Some of the members began pulling their children out of the pool and were standing around with their arms folded," Wright said. "Only three members left their children in the pool with us."
Several days later, the club refunded the camp's $1,950 without explanation, said Wright, who added that some parents are "weighing their options" on legal action.
In case there is any doubt about the real motivation for the refund, in the immediate aftermath of this debacle, the club president, John Duesler, explained that
"There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club."
(click here to see the original quote in this story)
Let me now direct you to two blogs and their insightful/outraged/thoughtful posts on this story:
*Poplicks
*Anti-Racist Parent
And if you are feeling incensed--let me urge you to channel that anger into action. At the most minimal level, you can let people know about this issue. Feel free to forward this post to others or write your own mass email, and please do link to this site for ColorOfChange.org and sign their on-line petition to protest the actions of The Valley Club.
You can also go one step further and actually send a letter--a stamped-and-addressed-envelope-U.S. Postal Service-delivered letter to
The Valley Club
22 Tomlinson Rd
Huntingdon Vly, PA 19006
(215) 947-0700
info@thevalleyclub.com
[You can, of course, call and register your protest, although I imagine they aren't answering their phone due to heavy call volume of angry Americans protesting their racist members, but check it out for yourself! Then there's the handy email address to register your distress, although I think snail-mail, in our digital/new media age, really sends a message that you are SO PISSED OFF at this incident you are actually spending time and money to MAIL something]
What you should know is that Senator Arlen Specter has asked for a Federal Civil Rights investigation against the club. Lets hope justice prevails.
Finally, here's a clip from "This Week in Blackness" that really says it all:
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Would Bob Marley be rolling over in his grave or am I being oversensitive?
This morning someone sent me this video of Bob Marley's song "Three Little Birds" being covered by Britain's Got Talent's young 6-year old phenom, Connie Talbot:
Now, I know that it's not fair to rip on a little girl. And I'm not trying to quibble about Talbot's talents (although I am personally not fond of young children's voices doing covers of some of my favorite songs), but when I watched the above video, I had a viscerally NEGATIVE reaction to hearing and more importantly SEEING the image of this blond, white British child covering black Jamaican Bob Marley's song, all the while traipsing about the island and coming to the aid of the poor beleagured black Jamaican children in her video.
It reminded me of the scene from Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye where an adolescent African American girl, Pecola, explains why she hates blue eyed, blond haired baby dolls--why she wanted to gouge out their eyes -- why she HATED these dolls and only later, as she grew older, did she learn to turn that hatred into love, a very twisted form of love born out of being conditioned to SEE the blue-eyed, blond haired doll as being the epitome of beauty and worthy of love and affection.
And so I just have to wonder, do the little black Jamaican girls in the music video feel like they wish THEY could be singing Bob Marley's song and making a video where THEY are the one's covering the song by this man who is from THEIR country, who is like THEM and not like the blond little white girl who is here on Easter vacation but who will go back to her own island nation--the same island nation that had colonized Jamaica, killed off the indigenous people, and enslaved men and women who were the ancestors of the little black girls in the video as well as Bob Marley.
[OK, before everyone jumps all over me, let me say that yes I do recognize that the racial politics of Jamaica are complex and reducing Marley or any of these girls into "black" Jamaicans obscures a history of racial mixing (one borne out of violence in many ways) and ignores the multiracial and multiethnic history of Jamaica--but if you go to the sidebar or search for my past Jamaican posts, you'll get a sense of me writing about this topic already]
Am I over-analyzing? Perhaps. It's what I do. So in an effort to show you that I am open to acknowledging the author's intention, let me direct you to an excerpt of the lyrics for "Three Little Birds" and a wiki answer for what those bird symbolize within the song:
"Don't worry about a thing,
'Cause every little thing gonna be all right.
Singin': "Don't worry about a thing,
'Cause every little thing gonna be all right!"
Rise up this mornin',
Smiled with the risin' sun,
Three little birds
Pitch by my doorstep
Singin' sweet songs
Of melodies pure and true,
Sayin', ("This is my message to you-ou-ou:")
Singin': "Don't worry 'bout a thing,
'Cause every little thing gonna be all right."
Singin': "Don't worry (don't worry) 'bout a thing,
'Cause every little thing gonna be all right!"
So a lot of sites talk about how the 3 little birds are a reference to the holy trinity or another biblical reference about birds and forgiveness and love, or that the 3 little birds are a reference to Marley's 3 backup singers. But according to the booklet in Marley's Songs of Freedom,
"When Bob and his brethren at the Island House would pick the cannabis seeds out, the birds would eat them off the floor"
Which means, when you re-read the lyrics, it's basically about how smoking weed helps you to relax and not worry. Which also puts the above video by little Miss Talbot in an odd context...a six-year old endorsing marijuana use to chill out.
And in case, like me, you needed to get the above video (and voice) out of your head, here's "Three Little Birds" sung by the one and only Bob Marley:
Now, I know that it's not fair to rip on a little girl. And I'm not trying to quibble about Talbot's talents (although I am personally not fond of young children's voices doing covers of some of my favorite songs), but when I watched the above video, I had a viscerally NEGATIVE reaction to hearing and more importantly SEEING the image of this blond, white British child covering black Jamaican Bob Marley's song, all the while traipsing about the island and coming to the aid of the poor beleagured black Jamaican children in her video.
It reminded me of the scene from Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye where an adolescent African American girl, Pecola, explains why she hates blue eyed, blond haired baby dolls--why she wanted to gouge out their eyes -- why she HATED these dolls and only later, as she grew older, did she learn to turn that hatred into love, a very twisted form of love born out of being conditioned to SEE the blue-eyed, blond haired doll as being the epitome of beauty and worthy of love and affection.
And so I just have to wonder, do the little black Jamaican girls in the music video feel like they wish THEY could be singing Bob Marley's song and making a video where THEY are the one's covering the song by this man who is from THEIR country, who is like THEM and not like the blond little white girl who is here on Easter vacation but who will go back to her own island nation--the same island nation that had colonized Jamaica, killed off the indigenous people, and enslaved men and women who were the ancestors of the little black girls in the video as well as Bob Marley.
[OK, before everyone jumps all over me, let me say that yes I do recognize that the racial politics of Jamaica are complex and reducing Marley or any of these girls into "black" Jamaicans obscures a history of racial mixing (one borne out of violence in many ways) and ignores the multiracial and multiethnic history of Jamaica--but if you go to the sidebar or search for my past Jamaican posts, you'll get a sense of me writing about this topic already]
Am I over-analyzing? Perhaps. It's what I do. So in an effort to show you that I am open to acknowledging the author's intention, let me direct you to an excerpt of the lyrics for "Three Little Birds" and a wiki answer for what those bird symbolize within the song:
"Don't worry about a thing,
'Cause every little thing gonna be all right.
Singin': "Don't worry about a thing,
'Cause every little thing gonna be all right!"
Rise up this mornin',
Smiled with the risin' sun,
Three little birds
Pitch by my doorstep
Singin' sweet songs
Of melodies pure and true,
Sayin', ("This is my message to you-ou-ou:")
Singin': "Don't worry 'bout a thing,
'Cause every little thing gonna be all right."
Singin': "Don't worry (don't worry) 'bout a thing,
'Cause every little thing gonna be all right!"
So a lot of sites talk about how the 3 little birds are a reference to the holy trinity or another biblical reference about birds and forgiveness and love, or that the 3 little birds are a reference to Marley's 3 backup singers. But according to the booklet in Marley's Songs of Freedom,
"When Bob and his brethren at the Island House would pick the cannabis seeds out, the birds would eat them off the floor"
Which means, when you re-read the lyrics, it's basically about how smoking weed helps you to relax and not worry. Which also puts the above video by little Miss Talbot in an odd context...a six-year old endorsing marijuana use to chill out.
And in case, like me, you needed to get the above video (and voice) out of your head, here's "Three Little Birds" sung by the one and only Bob Marley:
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The ebony & ivory approach to race relations
On Monday the New York Times had an article headline that declared "Interracial Roommates Can Reduce Prejudice." There are, apparently, studies that show that if interracial roommates (and although the language in the article refers to "roommates of different races" there is an assumption that "interracial" refers to a white and black roommate) can tough it out beyond the 10 week mark, then what the study discovers is that the white roommate undergoes a type of transformation in which s/he has less bigoted beliefs towards black people.
So, of course, I have a couple of thoughts:
*I wish the article was more explicit and detailed and careful in their use of language. Although, as noted above, they refer to roommates of different races, the article only references specific white-black interracial roommate pairings. Which is fine. But then, the article should not conflate "interracial" with white-black or even majority-minority pairings. For instance, are Latino-Asian roommates reducing their levels of prejudice against each other? Against other non-white races? Or even against whites? What about white-American Indian roommates--in other words, does the improved view of race relations hold for other majority-minority pairings other than black-white?
*Actually, there is an oddly worded paragraph that suggests that the studies in question, by Ohio and Indiana, are specifically showing positive effects for black-white pairings and NOT other types because:
WTF??? OK, so my first quibble is wording (because I taught grammar and composition for years while in grad school). The parenthetical phrase embedded in the last sentence, "the group that scored the highest on measures of prejudice"--does that mean that Asian Americans ARE the most prejudiced of racial groups--that Asian Americans exhibit more bigotry and racist values than others? And are Asian Americans haters towards all other groups or specific races/ethnicities?
[Aside: This reminds me of the strangest interview question I've ever been asked. It was years ago, at a small liberal arts college somewhere...in the nation. An octogenerian white male professor asked me: "It's clear that you can teach Japanese students, but how do you feel about teaching Filipino and Korean students?" Generally baffled, I asked him to rephrase the question, assuming I misheard or misunderstood. The interviewer repeated the question, and I answered perfunctorily (I think my generic response was something like, "I will teach any student who walks through the door of my classroom") but what I REALLY wanted to say, assuming I was going to throw that job away, was "Well, Filipino students, sure I can teach them but don't get me near a Korean student because I will just EXPLODE." Guess this guy assumed Asian Americans were a pretty prejudiced group--against one another!]
*My other beef with that above quotation is the idea that living with an Asian American means you will develop into a more bigoted individual. Really? Asian Americans are such a viral group that we will infect others with our prejudice, passing it along like the swine flu?
And furthermore, it's unclear who the target of the prejudice is. If a white guy has a Chinese American roommate, will the white guy become MORE racist towards all races or specifically towards Asian Americans?
*My other big thought about this study is the burden placed on the roommate of color; in the terms of the article, it's specifically the burden placed on black college students paired with white students I want to address. Because the person they interview for the article, Sam Boakye, said that he worked HARDER as a freshman in his classes in order to prevent his white roommate from thinking bad things about black people:
Now, it's an interesting twist on the Claude Steel study about stereotype threat. And in some ways there may be a spark of truth, at least I can relate, to Boakye's sentiments--because I definitely felt that way in grad school. But even if it yields good results for Boakye personally (and academically) and yields potentially good results for his white roommate, who must now change his opinions about African Americans' intelligence levels, it still puts the burden on the black roommate rather than the white roommate. In other words, it's up to the black student to help the white student overcome his bigotry. And that's just a lot of responsibility to put on the black student.
But the truth is, it's always there--that pressure to "represent" and hence help change racial attitudes. And while I'm heartened to know that there are some studies that suggest that things do improve under the "Ebony & Ivory" approach to race relations in college dorms, I also want more. I want a more progressive and sustained effort on behalf of white Americans, especially WHITE ALLIES and by other people of color, cross racially and ethnically so that we're not placing the burden, always, on the person who has to "represent" his/her race/gender/sexuality/religion/fill-in-the-blank identity marker.
Finally, for those of you who grew up on MTV music videos from the '80s, here's a flash backwards to the original "Ebony & Ivory":
So, of course, I have a couple of thoughts:
*I wish the article was more explicit and detailed and careful in their use of language. Although, as noted above, they refer to roommates of different races, the article only references specific white-black interracial roommate pairings. Which is fine. But then, the article should not conflate "interracial" with white-black or even majority-minority pairings. For instance, are Latino-Asian roommates reducing their levels of prejudice against each other? Against other non-white races? Or even against whites? What about white-American Indian roommates--in other words, does the improved view of race relations hold for other majority-minority pairings other than black-white?
*Actually, there is an oddly worded paragraph that suggests that the studies in question, by Ohio and Indiana, are specifically showing positive effects for black-white pairings and NOT other types because:
Several studies have shown that living with a roommate of a different race changes students’ attitudes. One, from the University of California at Los Angeles, generally found decreased prejudice among students with different-race roommates — but those who roomed with Asian-Americans, the group that scored the highest on measures of prejudice, became more prejudiced themselves.
WTF??? OK, so my first quibble is wording (because I taught grammar and composition for years while in grad school). The parenthetical phrase embedded in the last sentence, "the group that scored the highest on measures of prejudice"--does that mean that Asian Americans ARE the most prejudiced of racial groups--that Asian Americans exhibit more bigotry and racist values than others? And are Asian Americans haters towards all other groups or specific races/ethnicities?
[Aside: This reminds me of the strangest interview question I've ever been asked. It was years ago, at a small liberal arts college somewhere...in the nation. An octogenerian white male professor asked me: "It's clear that you can teach Japanese students, but how do you feel about teaching Filipino and Korean students?" Generally baffled, I asked him to rephrase the question, assuming I misheard or misunderstood. The interviewer repeated the question, and I answered perfunctorily (I think my generic response was something like, "I will teach any student who walks through the door of my classroom") but what I REALLY wanted to say, assuming I was going to throw that job away, was "Well, Filipino students, sure I can teach them but don't get me near a Korean student because I will just EXPLODE." Guess this guy assumed Asian Americans were a pretty prejudiced group--against one another!]
*My other beef with that above quotation is the idea that living with an Asian American means you will develop into a more bigoted individual. Really? Asian Americans are such a viral group that we will infect others with our prejudice, passing it along like the swine flu?
And furthermore, it's unclear who the target of the prejudice is. If a white guy has a Chinese American roommate, will the white guy become MORE racist towards all races or specifically towards Asian Americans?
*My other big thought about this study is the burden placed on the roommate of color; in the terms of the article, it's specifically the burden placed on black college students paired with white students I want to address. Because the person they interview for the article, Sam Boakye, said that he worked HARDER as a freshman in his classes in order to prevent his white roommate from thinking bad things about black people:
“If you’re surrounded by whites, you have something to prove,” said Mr. Boakye, now a rising senior who was born in Ghana. “You’re pushed to do better, to challenge the stereotype that black people are not that smart.”
Now, it's an interesting twist on the Claude Steel study about stereotype threat. And in some ways there may be a spark of truth, at least I can relate, to Boakye's sentiments--because I definitely felt that way in grad school. But even if it yields good results for Boakye personally (and academically) and yields potentially good results for his white roommate, who must now change his opinions about African Americans' intelligence levels, it still puts the burden on the black roommate rather than the white roommate. In other words, it's up to the black student to help the white student overcome his bigotry. And that's just a lot of responsibility to put on the black student.
But the truth is, it's always there--that pressure to "represent" and hence help change racial attitudes. And while I'm heartened to know that there are some studies that suggest that things do improve under the "Ebony & Ivory" approach to race relations in college dorms, I also want more. I want a more progressive and sustained effort on behalf of white Americans, especially WHITE ALLIES and by other people of color, cross racially and ethnically so that we're not placing the burden, always, on the person who has to "represent" his/her race/gender/sexuality/religion/fill-in-the-blank identity marker.
Finally, for those of you who grew up on MTV music videos from the '80s, here's a flash backwards to the original "Ebony & Ivory":
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Re: A response to Kristof's "Best Kids' Books Ever"
Yesterday, as I was perusing the New York Times, I noticed that columnist Nicholas Kristof has a list of "The Best Kids' Books Ever." Since I LOVE reading and developed my love of reading as a child, I was interested in his list.
So I guess a few caveats about Kristof and his list. To the best of my knowledge, he's not an expert. What I mean is, his academic training isn't as a Children's librarian, in reading education, or education/English at all. I'm sure he is a father (I think he alludes to this) and thus has as much "hands on" experience as any parent engaged with their children. I mention this because I'm trying to cut Kristof some slack, because I was, quite frankly, a bit shocked at his list.
My first reaction is, it's pretty antiquated. And I use that word purposely--he's got Little Lord Fauntleroy and The Prince and the Pauper on his list. Now don't get me wrong--some of the best stories that the world has produced are its oldest stories. But Kristof opens his piece by citing stats about U.S. levels of literacy and reading levels, and particularly lamenting the gaps that emerge with kids who don't come from affluent backgrounds or rigorous school districts--lower-middle, and working class kids essentially. He actually refers to them as "poor" kids (which, to the best of my knowledge, has a certain condescending ring to it, although it's also brutally honest I think in some cases).
Anyway, Kristof seems to offer his list as a exhortation to these "poor" families to get their kids to read rather than to be stuck in front of the Ninetendo wii all day. And yet, who does he thinks he's talking to? I mean, first of all, kids who grow up in working class families and communities are not going to rush out to read Little Lord Fauntleroy or the Hardy Boys series. I mean, some will and will love it, but those are the kids who are readers and who take a flashlight to bed and spend all their time in the library. We aren't worried about those kids, whatever class background they come from. The real question is, how do you get the kid who hates to read--who doesn't see anything in the books s/he is assigned in school and who doesn't see his/her LIFE reflected in these books--to start reading? Having books that either take place in the late 20th early 21st century or that were written in this time period may just be one place to start.
But my other beef with Kristof's list is its unrelenting MALE-ness. I mean, he does list Charlotte's Web as his #1 book, but if you look down the list, at the books that HE remembers liking and reading, it's no surprise that most of them have male protagonists or fairly masculine themes or were written by male writers (including Charlotte's Web, although I am a big E.B. White fan).
Let me be clear, it's not that I don't appreciate kids' books written by men or with male characters/protagonists. But this is Kristof's list for kids--all kids, not just little boys who grew up in predominantly white suburban families. With the exception of Anne of Green Gables and the author J.K. Rowling, it's a pretty masculine list--and he makes a fairly disparaging comment about Nancy Drew that I particularly take offense to, given the fact that Nancy Drew, as a children's book series, emerged at a time when there just weren't a lot of female literary role models for young girls to draw on. Books that Kristof failed to mention, either written by women or featuring strong girl characters include: The Little House on the Prairie book series, works by Madeline L'Engle, such as A Wrinkle in Time, Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising Series, a truly wonderful series of fantasy books with a central male character (like Harry Potter) but with equally strong female characters and lovely writing, plotting, character development, and works by Ellen Raskin, particularly The Westing Game, one of my favorites (and I should note that Raskin is one of the few writers to include multicultural characters in fairly nuanced ways).
Which brings me to my final bone of contention with Kristof's list: his vision of race in kids' literature. It's pretty white. No, let me amend that. It's ALL white. Maybe with the exception of a few characters in the Harry Potter series (like Cho Chang and others, but they are not main characters) there are no characters of color and there are no writers of color in his list. My guess is that at least some (dare I saw 1/3) of the "poor" people that Kristof is trying to reach out to with this list are people of color, families of color (I'd guess for some of his readers when they read "poor" they are equating "black/Latino" in their minds, but let us not forget that many rural poor families in the South and mid-West are poor WHITE families--and there are also urban poor white families as well, which isn't to say that there isn't a correlation between race and class, especially given the way that racism has operated in this nation, but you all know that already so I'll stop preaching it).
What was I saying?
Oh yeah, race. Or rather the fact that Kristof's vision of his "best" kids' books are a rather monochromatic lot. And even if all the "poor" kids he envisions are white kids, don't they still deserve to read about non-white kids? In fact, in a mixed-race America--given the demographics of race and ethnicity in America, it seems criminal nowadays not to acknowledge that the world is really racially diverse. So giving kids a list of books to read that doesn't help them see a variety of races and cultures and ethnicities (and I mean I don't even know where to begin with sexuality and I already covered gender) just seems to be of PARAMOUNT importance.
While I was in grad school I paid the bills by working for a summer program that mentored high school kids, predominantly non-white, helping to prep them to get into college. We assigned a common reading, a novel, to them, and my second summer with the program I recommended Frank Chin's Donald Duk as an appropriate reading level book, but more importantly, as a book that the kids in the program (about 1/3 of them were SouthEast Asian) could relate to. It was a big hit--not just among the Asian American kids but among the black and Latino and white kids as well. They could relate to the main character, Donald, and his feelings of ethnic self hatred and his feelings of pride that eventually grew. But especially for the Asian American boys in the program, they said that this was the first time they read a book with someone who "looked" like them--who had similar experiences and who came from similar class and ethnic backgrounds. They were profoundly moved by the experience of reading Donald Duk, and I was profoundly moved by how much literature could make a difference--the right literature. There were kids who had JUST learned English the year before, who really struggled to get through the book--but they said it was the first time they read a book in English that they enjoyed--that they finished AHEAD of schedule.
So the last thing I want to leave you with, dear readers, is a plea for some suggestions of your own--ones that will combat the whiteness, the maleness, and the out-of-touch nature of Kristof's list (and especially if you have suggestions about works that touch on sexuality, that'd be great). I'm a bit out of the loop with the world of kids' books. I grew up reading (and loving) books like The Phantom Toll Booth and fantasy works by Lloyd Alexander (like the Prydain series). But I know that the world of kids' books has really grown since the mid-1970s (thank Goodness!) and works by writers like Allen Say have grown in popularity, so hearing your suggestions in the comment section will help all of us have a better sense of what "Best Kids' Books" should be on the reading list of a Mixed Race America.
[UPDATE: This post has been cross-listed on the Anti-Racist Parent blog (click here) and California NOW (click here). Thought I'd mention these cross-postings because especially on Anti-Racist Parent, there are some great suggestions for kids' books that are much more diverse than Kristof's list]
So I guess a few caveats about Kristof and his list. To the best of my knowledge, he's not an expert. What I mean is, his academic training isn't as a Children's librarian, in reading education, or education/English at all. I'm sure he is a father (I think he alludes to this) and thus has as much "hands on" experience as any parent engaged with their children. I mention this because I'm trying to cut Kristof some slack, because I was, quite frankly, a bit shocked at his list.
My first reaction is, it's pretty antiquated. And I use that word purposely--he's got Little Lord Fauntleroy and The Prince and the Pauper on his list. Now don't get me wrong--some of the best stories that the world has produced are its oldest stories. But Kristof opens his piece by citing stats about U.S. levels of literacy and reading levels, and particularly lamenting the gaps that emerge with kids who don't come from affluent backgrounds or rigorous school districts--lower-middle, and working class kids essentially. He actually refers to them as "poor" kids (which, to the best of my knowledge, has a certain condescending ring to it, although it's also brutally honest I think in some cases).
Anyway, Kristof seems to offer his list as a exhortation to these "poor" families to get their kids to read rather than to be stuck in front of the Ninetendo wii all day. And yet, who does he thinks he's talking to? I mean, first of all, kids who grow up in working class families and communities are not going to rush out to read Little Lord Fauntleroy or the Hardy Boys series. I mean, some will and will love it, but those are the kids who are readers and who take a flashlight to bed and spend all their time in the library. We aren't worried about those kids, whatever class background they come from. The real question is, how do you get the kid who hates to read--who doesn't see anything in the books s/he is assigned in school and who doesn't see his/her LIFE reflected in these books--to start reading? Having books that either take place in the late 20th early 21st century or that were written in this time period may just be one place to start.
But my other beef with Kristof's list is its unrelenting MALE-ness. I mean, he does list Charlotte's Web as his #1 book, but if you look down the list, at the books that HE remembers liking and reading, it's no surprise that most of them have male protagonists or fairly masculine themes or were written by male writers (including Charlotte's Web, although I am a big E.B. White fan).
Let me be clear, it's not that I don't appreciate kids' books written by men or with male characters/protagonists. But this is Kristof's list for kids--all kids, not just little boys who grew up in predominantly white suburban families. With the exception of Anne of Green Gables and the author J.K. Rowling, it's a pretty masculine list--and he makes a fairly disparaging comment about Nancy Drew that I particularly take offense to, given the fact that Nancy Drew, as a children's book series, emerged at a time when there just weren't a lot of female literary role models for young girls to draw on. Books that Kristof failed to mention, either written by women or featuring strong girl characters include: The Little House on the Prairie book series, works by Madeline L'Engle, such as A Wrinkle in Time, Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising Series, a truly wonderful series of fantasy books with a central male character (like Harry Potter) but with equally strong female characters and lovely writing, plotting, character development, and works by Ellen Raskin, particularly The Westing Game, one of my favorites (and I should note that Raskin is one of the few writers to include multicultural characters in fairly nuanced ways).
Which brings me to my final bone of contention with Kristof's list: his vision of race in kids' literature. It's pretty white. No, let me amend that. It's ALL white. Maybe with the exception of a few characters in the Harry Potter series (like Cho Chang and others, but they are not main characters) there are no characters of color and there are no writers of color in his list. My guess is that at least some (dare I saw 1/3) of the "poor" people that Kristof is trying to reach out to with this list are people of color, families of color (I'd guess for some of his readers when they read "poor" they are equating "black/Latino" in their minds, but let us not forget that many rural poor families in the South and mid-West are poor WHITE families--and there are also urban poor white families as well, which isn't to say that there isn't a correlation between race and class, especially given the way that racism has operated in this nation, but you all know that already so I'll stop preaching it).
What was I saying?
Oh yeah, race. Or rather the fact that Kristof's vision of his "best" kids' books are a rather monochromatic lot. And even if all the "poor" kids he envisions are white kids, don't they still deserve to read about non-white kids? In fact, in a mixed-race America--given the demographics of race and ethnicity in America, it seems criminal nowadays not to acknowledge that the world is really racially diverse. So giving kids a list of books to read that doesn't help them see a variety of races and cultures and ethnicities (and I mean I don't even know where to begin with sexuality and I already covered gender) just seems to be of PARAMOUNT importance.
While I was in grad school I paid the bills by working for a summer program that mentored high school kids, predominantly non-white, helping to prep them to get into college. We assigned a common reading, a novel, to them, and my second summer with the program I recommended Frank Chin's Donald Duk as an appropriate reading level book, but more importantly, as a book that the kids in the program (about 1/3 of them were SouthEast Asian) could relate to. It was a big hit--not just among the Asian American kids but among the black and Latino and white kids as well. They could relate to the main character, Donald, and his feelings of ethnic self hatred and his feelings of pride that eventually grew. But especially for the Asian American boys in the program, they said that this was the first time they read a book with someone who "looked" like them--who had similar experiences and who came from similar class and ethnic backgrounds. They were profoundly moved by the experience of reading Donald Duk, and I was profoundly moved by how much literature could make a difference--the right literature. There were kids who had JUST learned English the year before, who really struggled to get through the book--but they said it was the first time they read a book in English that they enjoyed--that they finished AHEAD of schedule.
So the last thing I want to leave you with, dear readers, is a plea for some suggestions of your own--ones that will combat the whiteness, the maleness, and the out-of-touch nature of Kristof's list (and especially if you have suggestions about works that touch on sexuality, that'd be great). I'm a bit out of the loop with the world of kids' books. I grew up reading (and loving) books like The Phantom Toll Booth and fantasy works by Lloyd Alexander (like the Prydain series). But I know that the world of kids' books has really grown since the mid-1970s (thank Goodness!) and works by writers like Allen Say have grown in popularity, so hearing your suggestions in the comment section will help all of us have a better sense of what "Best Kids' Books" should be on the reading list of a Mixed Race America.
[UPDATE: This post has been cross-listed on the Anti-Racist Parent blog (click here) and California NOW (click here). Thought I'd mention these cross-postings because especially on Anti-Racist Parent, there are some great suggestions for kids' books that are much more diverse than Kristof's list]
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Independence Day -- Free your mind
Today is July 4th--Independence Day. This has never been a big holiday for me or my family. Not for any particular reason--more because it was a holiday that took place during the summer, so often my friends were out of town. Also, celebrating the Fourth of July in the California suburbs really meant having a bbq and some sparklers.
Of course, now that I'm older and understand the fuller history of the U.S. (the one that most of us weren't taught in our high school history and civics courses), the Fourth of July becomes a bit problematic when considering just who gets to celebrate "independence." But here's the thing--nothing is ever static. We can choose to celebrate today not as the ultimate expression of U.S. patriotism but as a day that we choose to free our mind--to understand the real history of the U.S. (in all its complicated, ugly, and yet progressive wonder), to recognize the progress we've made (and the costs of that progress), and to work harder to make this a nation that reflects the values we believe in--values that are for everyone.
So, for a different take on the Fourth of July, let me direct you to this Weekend America piece, "A Native American Take on Independence"--you should definitely click on the audio link and listen to the various First Nations people that they interviewed; there's a particularly funny bit that they excerpt from the film Smoke Signals, a 1998 film based on work by American Indian author Sherman Alexie.
Here's a trailer to the film Smoke Signals:
And for nostalgia's sake (and I'm talking to all you 30-somethings out there) here's how most of us learned to recite the Preamble to the Constitution (thank you School House Rock!). What I find interesting about this piece is the revisioninst history embedded within it--the jury box in the 18th C. has black Americans and women, and these would NOT be people allowed to serve on juries (or vote or be fully enfranchised citizens until the 20th C.), so in a way this little piece was trying re-vision history the way we'd like it to be (plus I don't think anyone ever put a big "O.K." stamp on the constitution...)
Of course, now that I'm older and understand the fuller history of the U.S. (the one that most of us weren't taught in our high school history and civics courses), the Fourth of July becomes a bit problematic when considering just who gets to celebrate "independence." But here's the thing--nothing is ever static. We can choose to celebrate today not as the ultimate expression of U.S. patriotism but as a day that we choose to free our mind--to understand the real history of the U.S. (in all its complicated, ugly, and yet progressive wonder), to recognize the progress we've made (and the costs of that progress), and to work harder to make this a nation that reflects the values we believe in--values that are for everyone.
So, for a different take on the Fourth of July, let me direct you to this Weekend America piece, "A Native American Take on Independence"--you should definitely click on the audio link and listen to the various First Nations people that they interviewed; there's a particularly funny bit that they excerpt from the film Smoke Signals, a 1998 film based on work by American Indian author Sherman Alexie.
Here's a trailer to the film Smoke Signals:
And for nostalgia's sake (and I'm talking to all you 30-somethings out there) here's how most of us learned to recite the Preamble to the Constitution (thank you School House Rock!). What I find interesting about this piece is the revisioninst history embedded within it--the jury box in the 18th C. has black Americans and women, and these would NOT be people allowed to serve on juries (or vote or be fully enfranchised citizens until the 20th C.), so in a way this little piece was trying re-vision history the way we'd like it to be (plus I don't think anyone ever put a big "O.K." stamp on the constitution...)
Friday, July 3, 2009
America and the myth of meritocracy
The Fourth of July holiday weekend is upon us. Fireworks, backyard bbqs, and a rhetoric of freedom and democracy permeate the air in the U.S. right now. And so I think it's appropriate to think about the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that will have lasting repercussions for how we think about race and hiring. Very specifically and recently, the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) in favor of the white fire fighters (and sole Latino) from New Haven who sued the City of New Haven for throwing out test scores that would have been used for the promotion of fire fighters into leadership positions. And in today's New York Times, there is an article about the sole Latino firefighter, Ben Vargas, and the flack that he has been receiving from other fire fighters of color and his resolve and reasoning for going ahead with the lawsuit, to quote Mr. Vargas (who is of Puerto Rican descent) on the impact this will have on his sons, he said:
“I want them to have a fair shake, to get a job on their merits and not because they’re Hispanic or they fill a quota”
Merit. There lies the rub. Mr. Vargas earlier in the article declared himself to be an "American" and that as proud as he is of being Puerto Rican, the opportunities he has for advancement could happen no place but in the United States. Mr. Vargas, the white firefighters, in the suit, and their attorney all believe in a system of meritocracy--in fact, their lawyer, Karen Lee Torre declared that the men had
“become a symbol for millions of Americans who have grown tired of seeing individual achievement and merit take a back seat to race and ethnicity.”
It all sounds good on its face. Lets evaluate people solely on merit. Let the person who does the best job get the job. Let the person who is the best manager/leader secure the promotion.
But don't we all realize that this is NOT the way it works? And the idea that affirmative action is being touted as an unfair system of racial preference is galling.
Because let me say that I agree with Ms. Torre. I think that plenty of people are tired of seeing individual achievement and merit take a back seat to race and ethnicity--except I like to refer to it as the period of U.S. history starting from colonial times before the Republic had taken shape through to our present day when implicit biases let alone conscious feelings/values of discrimination plague all Americans.
If we are supposed to celebrate freedom and democracy this weekend, let me remind everyone that the U.S. was founded on free and cheap labor, mainly by people who were darker or more foreign than the European colonists and eventual Euro-Americans who gained power and prominence in this country. So there is something to celebrate for the darker Mediterranean European immigrants who were originally vilified and then overcame their inherent "ethnic" difference to melt into the pot of American idealism. But for African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and the numerous American Indian tribes "melting" wasn't really ever an option and centuries of messages about racialized "difference" and the values of discrimination and prejudice are hard to overcome. That they have been to the extent that we have many important people of color in powerful positions is something to celebrate. And I'm not even referring to Barack Obama's election--even before Obama there have been numerous people of color who lived through Jim Crow discrimination or faced other hostile climates in which they were told that they were less-than or un-American. And they succeeded to top posts and positions of authority.
But here's the thing. Prejudice--our gut level reaction to someone of a different race, or even someone of our same race--that stuff is so embedded in our individual AND collective psyches, it's hard to overcome. And we can't learn to dismantle bigotry until we recognize it and own it and work to understand just how privilege operates. And to understand that if someone is living with oppression in this nation, then we aren't really the land of the free.
I know I'm mainly preaching to the choir on this issue, but for those of you skeptical or on the fence (or for those of you wanting to find more rationales to help you combat others' assertions that we are living in a color-blind, postracial world) let me direct you to some interesting articles/resources:
*The Myth of Meritocracy. Stephen J. McNamee and Robert K. Miller Jr. of the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, have published an article and a book on the myth of meritocracy. They have some compelling evidence for why meritocracy isn't a truly equitable means of distribution in the U.S.--why the myth of the "American Dream" has brainwashed us into thinking that we are all capable of lifting ourselves up and getting ahead on our individual merit/talent/intelligence without recognizing systems of inequity that have always plagued U.S. society (and really, racism/white privilege is but one--discrimination based on gender/sexuality/religion/class have also predominated within U.S. history).
*Claude Steele's research on stereotype threat is still as pertinent today as it was when he first began running his lab at Stanford--and the article in The Atlantic "Thin Ice: Stereotype Threat and Black College Students" in 1999 is still relevant 10 years later on the subject of why biases and prejudices impact our own abilities.
*Raina Kelley has an interesting piece in this week's Newsweek, "The Roots of Racism: What we don't know can hurt us"--in particular, you should think about the IAT...
*The IAT: Implicit Association Test. This was a test developed by researchers to measure our internal biases and prejudices. There are a variety of tests you can take on-line. I did one measuring connections between Asian Americans vs. European Americans and which group is more "American" and/or "Foreign." Interestingly my score said that I have a slight bias towards believing that Asian Americans are more "American" and that European Americans are more "foreign." In some respects I'm not surprised, since I've been trained through my PhD and my current research to really react to any associations of Asians as foreign--apparently so much so that I see Asian Americans as REALLY American. Anyway, you should try it for yourself (click here).
There you go. Four links for some Fourth of July reading on what it means to be an American in today's society. By all means, enjoy the fireworks and the hot dogs and hamburgers. And celebrate America's birth as a nation. But also remember that while we talk about freedom and democracy and who counts as a "real" American, we need to remember that not everyone feels these things and maybe being a real American is understanding our past history, warts and all, and working to make a better future. After all, open dissent and criticism is probably the most American act you can participate in.
“I want them to have a fair shake, to get a job on their merits and not because they’re Hispanic or they fill a quota”
Merit. There lies the rub. Mr. Vargas earlier in the article declared himself to be an "American" and that as proud as he is of being Puerto Rican, the opportunities he has for advancement could happen no place but in the United States. Mr. Vargas, the white firefighters, in the suit, and their attorney all believe in a system of meritocracy--in fact, their lawyer, Karen Lee Torre declared that the men had
“become a symbol for millions of Americans who have grown tired of seeing individual achievement and merit take a back seat to race and ethnicity.”
It all sounds good on its face. Lets evaluate people solely on merit. Let the person who does the best job get the job. Let the person who is the best manager/leader secure the promotion.
But don't we all realize that this is NOT the way it works? And the idea that affirmative action is being touted as an unfair system of racial preference is galling.
Because let me say that I agree with Ms. Torre. I think that plenty of people are tired of seeing individual achievement and merit take a back seat to race and ethnicity--except I like to refer to it as the period of U.S. history starting from colonial times before the Republic had taken shape through to our present day when implicit biases let alone conscious feelings/values of discrimination plague all Americans.
If we are supposed to celebrate freedom and democracy this weekend, let me remind everyone that the U.S. was founded on free and cheap labor, mainly by people who were darker or more foreign than the European colonists and eventual Euro-Americans who gained power and prominence in this country. So there is something to celebrate for the darker Mediterranean European immigrants who were originally vilified and then overcame their inherent "ethnic" difference to melt into the pot of American idealism. But for African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and the numerous American Indian tribes "melting" wasn't really ever an option and centuries of messages about racialized "difference" and the values of discrimination and prejudice are hard to overcome. That they have been to the extent that we have many important people of color in powerful positions is something to celebrate. And I'm not even referring to Barack Obama's election--even before Obama there have been numerous people of color who lived through Jim Crow discrimination or faced other hostile climates in which they were told that they were less-than or un-American. And they succeeded to top posts and positions of authority.
But here's the thing. Prejudice--our gut level reaction to someone of a different race, or even someone of our same race--that stuff is so embedded in our individual AND collective psyches, it's hard to overcome. And we can't learn to dismantle bigotry until we recognize it and own it and work to understand just how privilege operates. And to understand that if someone is living with oppression in this nation, then we aren't really the land of the free.
I know I'm mainly preaching to the choir on this issue, but for those of you skeptical or on the fence (or for those of you wanting to find more rationales to help you combat others' assertions that we are living in a color-blind, postracial world) let me direct you to some interesting articles/resources:
*The Myth of Meritocracy. Stephen J. McNamee and Robert K. Miller Jr. of the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, have published an article and a book on the myth of meritocracy. They have some compelling evidence for why meritocracy isn't a truly equitable means of distribution in the U.S.--why the myth of the "American Dream" has brainwashed us into thinking that we are all capable of lifting ourselves up and getting ahead on our individual merit/talent/intelligence without recognizing systems of inequity that have always plagued U.S. society (and really, racism/white privilege is but one--discrimination based on gender/sexuality/religion/class have also predominated within U.S. history).
*Claude Steele's research on stereotype threat is still as pertinent today as it was when he first began running his lab at Stanford--and the article in The Atlantic "Thin Ice: Stereotype Threat and Black College Students" in 1999 is still relevant 10 years later on the subject of why biases and prejudices impact our own abilities.
*Raina Kelley has an interesting piece in this week's Newsweek, "The Roots of Racism: What we don't know can hurt us"--in particular, you should think about the IAT...
*The IAT: Implicit Association Test. This was a test developed by researchers to measure our internal biases and prejudices. There are a variety of tests you can take on-line. I did one measuring connections between Asian Americans vs. European Americans and which group is more "American" and/or "Foreign." Interestingly my score said that I have a slight bias towards believing that Asian Americans are more "American" and that European Americans are more "foreign." In some respects I'm not surprised, since I've been trained through my PhD and my current research to really react to any associations of Asians as foreign--apparently so much so that I see Asian Americans as REALLY American. Anyway, you should try it for yourself (click here).
There you go. Four links for some Fourth of July reading on what it means to be an American in today's society. By all means, enjoy the fireworks and the hot dogs and hamburgers. And celebrate America's birth as a nation. But also remember that while we talk about freedom and democracy and who counts as a "real" American, we need to remember that not everyone feels these things and maybe being a real American is understanding our past history, warts and all, and working to make a better future. After all, open dissent and criticism is probably the most American act you can participate in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
