My friends and I have been discussing the philosophy of race in light of the recent release of “Obsessed”, a movie about a successful, black businessman (Idris Elba) married to a beautiful, black woman (Beyonce Knowles). The business man is stalked by a white, female co-worker (Ali Larter) that jeopardizes his happy life. I won’t give any further details away, since most people intend to watch this movie. It sold out the first night we tried to watch it.
When we were standing in line talking about our expectations for the movie and the masses of people who came out to see it, I mentioned that the racial conflict of the movie certainly drew interest. My friends insisted that race wasn’t the main issue and that the husband-snatching was the main appeal. But to think that is to be colorblind. I thought about stating that, but such a response would not be well taken. So I decided to play around with the roles of the characters and their racial attributes to better demonstrate that the racial conflict was important.
Let us say the successful, black businessman was married to the white woman and stalked by the black businesswoman. Catering to the American public and status quo, the interracial relationship would either have to be defended by some virtuous scenes of romantic chivalry and acts of true love or the marriage would be seen as on the rocks. This sort of sequence seems to be unnecessary with same race pairings in American film, they can just be assumed as good or bad with only a brief mention without the elaboration. Given these characters, Hollywood would probably turn it into a romantic comedy, where the black, businesswoman was “pursuing” the black businessman. They would create tension between the interracial couple and the two black people would eventually find one another.
The actual racial setup of the movie, with a happy black couple being stalked by a white woman, is cast as a thriller. The black man and woman are heroically defending their racially homogenous marriage against the heinous miscegenation attempts by the white adulteress. As overly dramatic and hyperbolic as that synopsis sounds, it clearly establishes the setting for the thriller by playing into the social constructs of the viewing public. Sadly, this was proven to me when I did a Google search for “Obsessed” articles and immediately found the label “miscegenation flick” in a few of the findings.
Now, these assumptions about race in Hollywood aren’t definite or certain, but merely observations of the stereotypical trends in past movies. Switching the roles opened the eyes of my friends to their colorblind attitude toward the movie and gave them something to ponder. I heard them talking about the racial role reversal tonight with some of our other friends, so it seems to have sparked a thought or two about the racial stereotyping of roles in Hollywood. I have yet to actually make it into the theatre with all of the crowds, but I am eager to see how the roles are played out and what sort of racial stereotypes are enforced.
If you've seen the movie, perhaps you would care to note any socially constructed racial themes you saw?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Religious "Passing"
A few weeks back, we were discussing if religion could become the basis of discrimination between people rather than race. Mahmood Mamdani represents this idea in Good Muslim, Bad Muslim. He explains the happenings behind the September 11th attacks that occurred because of multiple political reasons, but really, the reason behind the discrimination was religious rather than racial; as we have begun to associate Islamic people with terrorism.
I personally do not understand how it is possible for religion to become the main source of conflict between people. There are people of different races within a religion, so the boundaries of discrimination would be a blurred. Discriminating on basis of religion would be very difficult because it would cause one to discriminate against a lot of different people, not just one particular race.
As a result of many different people being of one religion, we will be forced to ask the question, what if the concept of “passing,” as seen in racial passing, became a part of religion as well? In other words, what if people began to pass as a certain religion for safety or advantage that a certain religion had, similarly to what people do when trying to racially pass as something else? For example, there is a huge controversy between Hindus and Muslims in India; most Muslims and Hindus are of the same race so religion is the basis of discrimination. It would be very simple for either religion to pass as being the other for the sake of safety. Also, during the Holocaust, it could have been possible for certain Jewish people to act as if they were against their true religion for protection against the Nazis in order to keep their families safe. However, in these cases, one criteria to prove that one person was not the religion they claim they are is to simply analyze a person’s last name, which usually indicates a person’s religion.
Religious passing would be a very complicated because religion is such a broad form of discrimination. As I said earlier, two people of a different races can be part of one religion, so passing would be easier because there are not rigid boundaries for religion. However, in order to pass through religion, one has to have those rigid boundaries to help he or she pass as a different religion. As race has certain set “criteria” or standards that people can go through and break to pass as a certain race, religion is not an innate quality but a quality that can easily be changed. You may have a certain last name that ties you with a religion, but anyone is able to convert to other religions. Religion is your set of beliefs that can change over time; therefore, conversion is a form of helping a person transition from the beliefs of one religion to those of another religion. Hence, converting eliminates the possibility of passing in a religious sense.
So I ask you this question:
If religion takes over race as the basis of discrimination, can religious passing become an aspect of religion?
I personally do not understand how it is possible for religion to become the main source of conflict between people. There are people of different races within a religion, so the boundaries of discrimination would be a blurred. Discriminating on basis of religion would be very difficult because it would cause one to discriminate against a lot of different people, not just one particular race.
As a result of many different people being of one religion, we will be forced to ask the question, what if the concept of “passing,” as seen in racial passing, became a part of religion as well? In other words, what if people began to pass as a certain religion for safety or advantage that a certain religion had, similarly to what people do when trying to racially pass as something else? For example, there is a huge controversy between Hindus and Muslims in India; most Muslims and Hindus are of the same race so religion is the basis of discrimination. It would be very simple for either religion to pass as being the other for the sake of safety. Also, during the Holocaust, it could have been possible for certain Jewish people to act as if they were against their true religion for protection against the Nazis in order to keep their families safe. However, in these cases, one criteria to prove that one person was not the religion they claim they are is to simply analyze a person’s last name, which usually indicates a person’s religion.
Religious passing would be a very complicated because religion is such a broad form of discrimination. As I said earlier, two people of a different races can be part of one religion, so passing would be easier because there are not rigid boundaries for religion. However, in order to pass through religion, one has to have those rigid boundaries to help he or she pass as a different religion. As race has certain set “criteria” or standards that people can go through and break to pass as a certain race, religion is not an innate quality but a quality that can easily be changed. You may have a certain last name that ties you with a religion, but anyone is able to convert to other religions. Religion is your set of beliefs that can change over time; therefore, conversion is a form of helping a person transition from the beliefs of one religion to those of another religion. Hence, converting eliminates the possibility of passing in a religious sense.
So I ask you this question:
If religion takes over race as the basis of discrimination, can religious passing become an aspect of religion?
The Myth of the Post-Racial Society Under Obama
Read the full story by Henry Giroux here. An excerpt:
In short, the discourse of the post-racial state ignores how political and economic institutions, with their circuits of repression and disposability and their technologies of punishment, connect and condemn the fate of many impoverished youth of color in the inner cities to persisting structures of racism that "serve to keep [them] in a state of inferiority and oppression." Not surprisingly, under such circumstances, individual suffering no longer registers a social concern as all notions of injustice are assumed to be the outcome of personal failings or deficits. Signs of the pathologizing of both marginalized youth and the crucial safety nets that have provided them some hope of justice in the past can be found everywhere from the racist screeds coming out of right-wing talk radio to the mainstream media that seems to believe that the culture of black and brown youth is synonymous with the culture of crime. Poverty is now imagined to be a problem of individual character. Racism is now understood as merely an act of individual discrimination (if not discretion), and homelessness is reduced to a choice made by lazy people.
Racist Advertising?
Although the two young African Americans in a dark setting romanticizing about the great chicken nuggets is extremely wrong for a number of reasons, one aspect is it tries to appeal to the assumed average African American. In this advertisement, there are many visual characteristics that are directed towards racial profiling of the black population. First, there is the obvious attractive black man and woman each embracing the stereotypical outfits with the baggy jeans, undershirt with a button down, clingy dress and both are decked out in their “bling.” The beginning of the commercial shows the man standing outside in the rain at night with a hat on pulled down over his eyes. Just as he says the word “creepin,” he is actually embracing the idea of a creeper. The surroundings of the building and street only add to the supposed area of their consumers. They imply that the area is not the best part of town, possibly the ghetto. When the location changes to a bedroom, it has very similar qualities of a hotel room. This could even attribute to the idea of a one night stand. It may have been the R&B soul singing of the man that gave off that impression. The sensual vibe from his voice and the sexual lyrics fuel the supposed idea of R&B as being a black genre of music historically and in the present.
After viewing the commercial for yourself, you probably picked up on these same auditory and visual characteristics in the advertisement. What do you think McDonalds advertising campaign was trying to do with this commercial? Are they trying to captivate an economic class by appealing to the stereotypical aspects of the African American race? In our economically difficult time, McDonalds could have been trying to boost their sales. It has been researched and shown that African Americans are the number one consumers of the McDonalds food. Or, is it racial profiling to adjust a commercial to appeal to a certain race? In our politically correct world, is this form of advertisement acceptable or racist?
There are the occasions I do enjoy a McDonalds run, but I do not consider the restaurant some place I would go dressed up with my significant other for dinner. It is usually to grab something quick and cheap. I would not want to be associated with what it entails to be part of the McDonalds crowd, and I can’t think of a lot of people that do. Would this be considered a white privilege to not be associated with the presumed and advertised McDonalds fast food goers? I feel that not being targeted as a consumer is a way of discarding that race as a possible option. What do you think when you see commercials advertising to a specific race? And is it even a possibility to incorporate everyone without racial profiling?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Sartre's Socialist Revolution Solution: Would it Really Work?
I'm not sure how the socialist revolution effectively addresses the innate hatred Sartre posits as the root cause of anti-semitism. It looks as though considerable tension exists between Sartre's idea that some people will hate others no matter what--although the hate may manifest itself differently so that groups like blacks, asians, fat people, etc. become the new scapegoat instead of Jews--and, on the other hand, the vision of a socialist utopia. How exactly is the socialist revolution supposed to defang people's hatred in a way so that the anti-Semite’s fundamental hate doesn't have ramifications for the social order? To claim that a critical mass of people will hate others and simultaneously imply that that hate won’t bring about discrimination looks like a very high hurdle to clear.
I can see a kind of Kantian solution to this problem where the anti-semite puts aside his/her feelings and inclinations, and instead treats the person hated as a rational agent with absolute dignity. But Sartre explicitly rejects that sort of answer, because it is the democrat’s answer of treating the person in question simply as a human being and denying to them their Jewishness. Additionally, if Sartre really thinks the anti-Semite, not the democrat, authentic jew or inauthentic jew, literally makes a Jew Jewish (a flawed and ridiculous view btw for the reasons Lowery nicely laid out in his earlier post), then I don't see how the socialist revolution avoids the democrat's pitfall of robbing the Jew of Jewishness, unless it also allows for antisemitism to survive. At which point, I wonder if the problem of racism has really been resolved at all.
I'm not an expert on socialism or communism, so I don't know what potential resources Sartre has to counter my critique of his view. If ya'll have any suggestions or ideas on this topic or anything else, please don't hesitate to give them.
Ending on a less critical note, I do think Sartre deserves some credit: one of his main strengths is that he recognizes and emphasizes the importance of the non-rational elements to racism, such as hatred, fear, or jealousy. At times, I think some of the other philosophers we've read have glossed over this element, or approached it as solely characteristic of interpersonal racism. In my opinion, non-rational emotions and attitudes like hate, fear, jealousy are too widespread and important a phenomenon to completely overlook when grappling with the horror of racism. From class yesterday, it sounds like Sartre does a good job of pointing out how these rabid emotions, which are mostly experienced at an individual personal level, find social expression in large groups, such as anti-semites or neo-Nazis. The socialization of the hate then only further intensifies the originating irrational emotions, and subsequently continues to entrench society-wide racism.
I can see a kind of Kantian solution to this problem where the anti-semite puts aside his/her feelings and inclinations, and instead treats the person hated as a rational agent with absolute dignity. But Sartre explicitly rejects that sort of answer, because it is the democrat’s answer of treating the person in question simply as a human being and denying to them their Jewishness. Additionally, if Sartre really thinks the anti-Semite, not the democrat, authentic jew or inauthentic jew, literally makes a Jew Jewish (a flawed and ridiculous view btw for the reasons Lowery nicely laid out in his earlier post), then I don't see how the socialist revolution avoids the democrat's pitfall of robbing the Jew of Jewishness, unless it also allows for antisemitism to survive. At which point, I wonder if the problem of racism has really been resolved at all.
I'm not an expert on socialism or communism, so I don't know what potential resources Sartre has to counter my critique of his view. If ya'll have any suggestions or ideas on this topic or anything else, please don't hesitate to give them.
Ending on a less critical note, I do think Sartre deserves some credit: one of his main strengths is that he recognizes and emphasizes the importance of the non-rational elements to racism, such as hatred, fear, or jealousy. At times, I think some of the other philosophers we've read have glossed over this element, or approached it as solely characteristic of interpersonal racism. In my opinion, non-rational emotions and attitudes like hate, fear, jealousy are too widespread and important a phenomenon to completely overlook when grappling with the horror of racism. From class yesterday, it sounds like Sartre does a good job of pointing out how these rabid emotions, which are mostly experienced at an individual personal level, find social expression in large groups, such as anti-semites or neo-Nazis. The socialization of the hate then only further intensifies the originating irrational emotions, and subsequently continues to entrench society-wide racism.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Anti-Semite
The question of whether the Anti-Semite creates the Jew or the Jew creates the Anti-Semite is one of those chicken or egg questions. Jean-Paul Sartre believes that the Anti-Semite (A.S.) creates the Jew because he is motivated by his fear. I order to cope with the fear of an undecided existence the A.S. creates a creature which is essentially the opposite of himself and considers it an evil entity. By forming this “doppelganger” he places himself in the category of the good creating a small amount of assurance in his life. In addition to this he is also bonded to others with similar viewpoints to his own placing him in a group of like minded (insecure and fearful) individuals. This group formation adds another layer of stability for the A.S.’s while further ostracizing Jews.
While this idea fits with Sartre’s existentialist ideology very well I would have to disagree with his belief that the A.S. creates the Jew. The characteristics of the anti-Semitic idea of a Jew(Big nosed, underhanded, hardworking etc.) were established by the A.S. the Jewish people were not brought about by the hatred of others. The Jewish people are those that share religion, history and the “Jewish experience.” The establishment of the Jew as a target might have been what Sartre was referring to which I can agree with, but the A.S. is not the creator of what it means to be Jewish. I believe that the Jews were the target of anti-Semitism not the creator of it.
Anti-Semitism was created by several factors; people’s innate fear of the world, hatred/jealousy that develops from this fear, and the ability of a person to categorize people. The fact that people have an innate fear of an uncertain future causes an illogical disruption in a person’s psyche. This disruption turns into a passionate hatred when they are wronged in some way or unfairly treated. The passionate hatred which develops needs a target to be acted upon. The target is acquired from our ability to categorize people. By saying someone is different from ourselves we can attribute negative qualities to that person without feeling bad about it because they are “not like us”.
This formula can also be applied to other types of discrimination, including racism, sexism etc. By saying we are different from those people we can apply negative characteristics to them while staying on our pillar of perfection.
What do y’all think, is Sartre right when he says the A.S. creates the Jew?
While this idea fits with Sartre’s existentialist ideology very well I would have to disagree with his belief that the A.S. creates the Jew. The characteristics of the anti-Semitic idea of a Jew(Big nosed, underhanded, hardworking etc.) were established by the A.S. the Jewish people were not brought about by the hatred of others. The Jewish people are those that share religion, history and the “Jewish experience.” The establishment of the Jew as a target might have been what Sartre was referring to which I can agree with, but the A.S. is not the creator of what it means to be Jewish. I believe that the Jews were the target of anti-Semitism not the creator of it.
Anti-Semitism was created by several factors; people’s innate fear of the world, hatred/jealousy that develops from this fear, and the ability of a person to categorize people. The fact that people have an innate fear of an uncertain future causes an illogical disruption in a person’s psyche. This disruption turns into a passionate hatred when they are wronged in some way or unfairly treated. The passionate hatred which develops needs a target to be acted upon. The target is acquired from our ability to categorize people. By saying someone is different from ourselves we can attribute negative qualities to that person without feeling bad about it because they are “not like us”.
This formula can also be applied to other types of discrimination, including racism, sexism etc. By saying we are different from those people we can apply negative characteristics to them while staying on our pillar of perfection.
What do y’all think, is Sartre right when he says the A.S. creates the Jew?
Monday, April 20, 2009
white privilege
When Dr. Johnson gave us the assignment of reading the article on white privilege by MacIntosh, and then creating our own list of white privileges at Rhodes, I admit that it proved to be much more difficult than I thought it would be. Perhaps because I found MacIntosh’s list to be so exhaustive, but also partly because our white privilege is so indelibly ingrained in our everyday life that it is hard to disconnect the two.
In light of our class discussion on Thursday, I wanted to write my blog on some of my leftover thoughts from our conversation about white privilege. Somebody brought up the privilege that if they were written about in the campus safety report in the Sou’Wester’ they would have the privilege of not having their race attached. And I thought that was interesting. And it made me think of my grandmother, who lives in a tiny southern Mississippi town of about 3,000 people, and it’s probably 90% white. On countless occasions, my grandmother will tell me something about the “nice black family” at the table next to her in the restaurant, or the “sweet black girl at the grocery store”. And I don’t believe her to mean those descriptions offensively. But to me, they just seemed like unnecessary qualifiers. It didn’t change the story to know that the family was black, just as it wouldn’t have changed it if the father had been tall. So perhaps her descriptions are not racist so much as racial (to borrow terms from Sartre). But to tie this back to the campus safety example, if my grandmother met a nice white family at the grocery store, she would undoubtedly just call them a nice family, and not race them. Because that would be the norm, as we talked about in class.
Are we somehow lessening what we have learned in this class if we use race as just a way to describe people, as my grandmother does? Or what if we “race” things that do not necessarily need to be raced? If my grandmother uses the term black just to distinguish between people, but does not mean to attach any value to it, is it racist? Is it just another white privilege to be able to race everyone around us, because we are the norm and they are not? What would the philosophers that we’ve read this semester say?
In light of our class discussion on Thursday, I wanted to write my blog on some of my leftover thoughts from our conversation about white privilege. Somebody brought up the privilege that if they were written about in the campus safety report in the Sou’Wester’ they would have the privilege of not having their race attached. And I thought that was interesting. And it made me think of my grandmother, who lives in a tiny southern Mississippi town of about 3,000 people, and it’s probably 90% white. On countless occasions, my grandmother will tell me something about the “nice black family” at the table next to her in the restaurant, or the “sweet black girl at the grocery store”. And I don’t believe her to mean those descriptions offensively. But to me, they just seemed like unnecessary qualifiers. It didn’t change the story to know that the family was black, just as it wouldn’t have changed it if the father had been tall. So perhaps her descriptions are not racist so much as racial (to borrow terms from Sartre). But to tie this back to the campus safety example, if my grandmother met a nice white family at the grocery store, she would undoubtedly just call them a nice family, and not race them. Because that would be the norm, as we talked about in class.
Are we somehow lessening what we have learned in this class if we use race as just a way to describe people, as my grandmother does? Or what if we “race” things that do not necessarily need to be raced? If my grandmother uses the term black just to distinguish between people, but does not mean to attach any value to it, is it racist? Is it just another white privilege to be able to race everyone around us, because we are the norm and they are not? What would the philosophers that we’ve read this semester say?
Yellow Fever
I could not figure out how to post videos in the actual body of my post like Walter did before (and yes, I defy the stereotype of a tech-savvy Asian male), so here is the link:
In addition to this being both humorous and personally relevant (because, you know, I'm Asian), I found it to be quite the commentary on interracial relationships in general. I cannot say too much on the main character's point of view because most of my relationships have indeed been with white people (gasp!). However, a few questions did come up as I was viewing the video that I thought I should put to the rest of you, a predominantly white group. Please note that I am suspending that "there is no race" argument in this line of questioning; I do not really know how to do this any other way so a point blank inquiry seems the best approach.
When looking for a partner, does skin color really factor in to a potential mate's attractiveness? I understand that there can be a cultural divide; believe me, I have been there. I would like to believe attraction is indeed based on personality and confidence as stated (somewhat questionably) in the video, but my previous personal inquiries have yielded mixed results.
Some people claim to be color-blind and base attractiveness completely on compatibility. Some find certain races exotic and refuse to date within their own race. Some are the exact opposite and find anyone outside of their race to be unattractive. And I think all these claims are legitimate. Not everyone thinks alike and I feel that generalizing something as absurd and profoundly confusing as sexual attraction can just be seen as history's biggest load of bollix. Even if these claims are philosophically proven false (which I expect at least one of you to do), I can be fairly positive that the people who gave me these answers believed what they were telling me. If they believe that is how attraction functions, who would I be to challenge that?
I don't wish to put anyone on the spot for their personal preferences, but a general answer to Phillip's "phenomenon" would be appreciated. Also, if you have not seen Taming of the Shrew yet, you should. It has nothing to do with race (other than the three of us that were cast that are not white), but I figured as long as we were talking about uncommon relationships I would toss out a shameless plug.
Regards,
Octo-Hobo
In addition to this being both humorous and personally relevant (because, you know, I'm Asian), I found it to be quite the commentary on interracial relationships in general. I cannot say too much on the main character's point of view because most of my relationships have indeed been with white people (gasp!). However, a few questions did come up as I was viewing the video that I thought I should put to the rest of you, a predominantly white group. Please note that I am suspending that "there is no race" argument in this line of questioning; I do not really know how to do this any other way so a point blank inquiry seems the best approach.
When looking for a partner, does skin color really factor in to a potential mate's attractiveness? I understand that there can be a cultural divide; believe me, I have been there. I would like to believe attraction is indeed based on personality and confidence as stated (somewhat questionably) in the video, but my previous personal inquiries have yielded mixed results.
Some people claim to be color-blind and base attractiveness completely on compatibility. Some find certain races exotic and refuse to date within their own race. Some are the exact opposite and find anyone outside of their race to be unattractive. And I think all these claims are legitimate. Not everyone thinks alike and I feel that generalizing something as absurd and profoundly confusing as sexual attraction can just be seen as history's biggest load of bollix. Even if these claims are philosophically proven false (which I expect at least one of you to do), I can be fairly positive that the people who gave me these answers believed what they were telling me. If they believe that is how attraction functions, who would I be to challenge that?
I don't wish to put anyone on the spot for their personal preferences, but a general answer to Phillip's "phenomenon" would be appreciated. Also, if you have not seen Taming of the Shrew yet, you should. It has nothing to do with race (other than the three of us that were cast that are not white), but I figured as long as we were talking about uncommon relationships I would toss out a shameless plug.
Regards,
Octo-Hobo
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Egypt is in Africa?
This blog post is a tangent from our recent talk of alternative epistemologies and white privilege. Instead I am turning to something that I came across while reading Good Muslim, Bad Muslim by Mahmod Mamdani for our class. I was reading the first chapter of the book called “Culture Talk” in the section called “Modernity and the Politicization of Culture”. Mamdani discusses nationalist versus metanationalist history writing and inaccuracy of mapping. He discusses the tendencies for nations to place their country in the center of their maps although it is not geographically correct is common throughout the world. However, the European map is the most familiar map to the Western world and the one that many of us see as the “standard” map. This map shrinks the “less important” continents so that North America and Europe dominate the visual composition promoting their importance in a global context.
We have discussed European influence over “lesser” cultures frequently in our class so it comes as no shock as something that should be neutral, like our maps, is actually a device to assert power over other nations. What Mamdani addresses is the influence that European power has over the history of the world.
The “traditional” Eurocentric history of the world says that “history began in the ‘East’ and the torch was then passed successively to Greece and Rome and finally to Christians of northwestern Europe, where medieval and modern life developed” (Mamdani, 29). This history divides the world into “the West”, “the East”, or Europe and Asia but this leaves out some pretty substantial civilizations. These gaping holes in history are Africa, the pre-Columbian Americas, and the lands of the Pacific. Mamdani goes on to explore this historical darkness and focuses on Africa. However, what he points out that the history of Africa is blank with the exception of Egypt. Throughout history, Egypt seems to stand out as its own civilization completely isolated from the large continent to which it belongs.
Mamdani mentions historian Cheikh Anta Diop who studied African history in the 1960s and “questioned the racist tendency to dislocate the history of pharaonic Egypt from its surroundings, particularly Nubia to the south, thereby denying the African historical identity of ancient Egypt” (Mamdani, 31). Diop pointed out in his work that “in the study of classics, Egypt faced a double loss: its connection with Greece in ancient times was reduced to being external and incidental, and its location in Africa was denied historical significance” (Mamdani, 31). It was here in Mamdani’s book that really grabbed my attention. I read this chapter a few weeks ago and I have not stopped thinking about it since.
Perhaps it is because I am an art history major and what I read in Mamdani’s book presents a dilemma for my studies, but both Mamdani and Diop are right about Egypt, I do not think of it as a part of Africa. I know that it is part of the huge continent of Africa off to the right hand side, but when I see Egypt in my mind I see it in a Mediterranean context. I related it to Greece, Turkey, and the ancient cities of Babylon or Jerusalem due to the context that I have studied Egypt. It took looking it up on the Internet right now for me to know what African countries surround it (they are Sudan and Libya). As embarrassing as that is to admit, it proves Mamdani and Diop’s point; Egypt is the exception to the historical darkness of Africa but it becomes removed from it.
Right now I am taking an art history course called “Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt and the Near East”. The class is an interesting and every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday I take pages of frantic notes on the treasures of the ancient world. However, after I read Chapter One of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, I began to look at my current class and my entire art history education with alarm. Not once in my entire semester of studying ancient Egyptian art have I considered it in an African context. Currently in my class, Alexander the Great has just come into Egypt, died, and his successor has set up the Ptolemaic period when the famous Cleopatra ruled. The art is becoming much more “normal” to me and my “Western” perspective of art. It is looking more natural, realistic, classical, and ultimately Greek. This is pushing my distorted perspective of Egyptian art farther away from Africa and solidifying it in a Mediterranean and Western context. I feel as though the entire semester has been building up to this one moment when the Egyptians will finally retire their old traditions of depicting the figure in favor of the classical nude.
Until I read Chapter One of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, I was happy to hear about Alexander the Great and the influence of the Greeks, Persians, Macedonians, etc on Egyptian culture and agreeably took my notes. But now that I realize that I have absolutely no idea how AFRICA impacted Egypt! I am shocked an alarmed that I have never studied Egypt in the context of its actual geographic placement. I have taken many classes where we have studied ancient Egypt and not once can I remember talking about the civilization in an African context. I started asking my fellow art history classmates along with friends about how they saw Egypt and they all felt the way I do and thought it was strange. As I thought about it, I realized that I have never studied anything other than Western art. I have zero knowledge of the art that has come from Africa, India, China, or Japan unless it is a very stereotypical notion of their art. I cannot count how many times I have heard a professor say “Picasso’s art was heavily influenced by African masks” but I have never seen an African mask. I know that there must be more to African art than the very cliché tribal “African mask” that pops into my head but I have yet to see it. Or I have heard that many French Impressionist artists were influenced by Japanese woodblock prints, but I have never studied Japanese art. How am I, and other art history students, supposed to fully understand an artists work, or the work of entire culture like Egypt, if we do not understand their cultural context?
It is unfortunate that my lack of knowledge about the art of these cultures just stems from colonization and the undermining of new cultures that were being encountered. Perhaps Egypt became the exception because the wealth and power of the civilization was so great that it could not be denied. Or that art tends to be looked at through a “Western” perspective so we tend to compare cultures based on whether or not they fit the norm or not. Mamdani pointed out something that I had never considered and has caused me to evaluate my knowledge, or lack there of, of the cultures and art that I study.
We have discussed European influence over “lesser” cultures frequently in our class so it comes as no shock as something that should be neutral, like our maps, is actually a device to assert power over other nations. What Mamdani addresses is the influence that European power has over the history of the world.
The “traditional” Eurocentric history of the world says that “history began in the ‘East’ and the torch was then passed successively to Greece and Rome and finally to Christians of northwestern Europe, where medieval and modern life developed” (Mamdani, 29). This history divides the world into “the West”, “the East”, or Europe and Asia but this leaves out some pretty substantial civilizations. These gaping holes in history are Africa, the pre-Columbian Americas, and the lands of the Pacific. Mamdani goes on to explore this historical darkness and focuses on Africa. However, what he points out that the history of Africa is blank with the exception of Egypt. Throughout history, Egypt seems to stand out as its own civilization completely isolated from the large continent to which it belongs.
Mamdani mentions historian Cheikh Anta Diop who studied African history in the 1960s and “questioned the racist tendency to dislocate the history of pharaonic Egypt from its surroundings, particularly Nubia to the south, thereby denying the African historical identity of ancient Egypt” (Mamdani, 31). Diop pointed out in his work that “in the study of classics, Egypt faced a double loss: its connection with Greece in ancient times was reduced to being external and incidental, and its location in Africa was denied historical significance” (Mamdani, 31). It was here in Mamdani’s book that really grabbed my attention. I read this chapter a few weeks ago and I have not stopped thinking about it since.
Perhaps it is because I am an art history major and what I read in Mamdani’s book presents a dilemma for my studies, but both Mamdani and Diop are right about Egypt, I do not think of it as a part of Africa. I know that it is part of the huge continent of Africa off to the right hand side, but when I see Egypt in my mind I see it in a Mediterranean context. I related it to Greece, Turkey, and the ancient cities of Babylon or Jerusalem due to the context that I have studied Egypt. It took looking it up on the Internet right now for me to know what African countries surround it (they are Sudan and Libya). As embarrassing as that is to admit, it proves Mamdani and Diop’s point; Egypt is the exception to the historical darkness of Africa but it becomes removed from it.
Right now I am taking an art history course called “Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt and the Near East”. The class is an interesting and every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday I take pages of frantic notes on the treasures of the ancient world. However, after I read Chapter One of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, I began to look at my current class and my entire art history education with alarm. Not once in my entire semester of studying ancient Egyptian art have I considered it in an African context. Currently in my class, Alexander the Great has just come into Egypt, died, and his successor has set up the Ptolemaic period when the famous Cleopatra ruled. The art is becoming much more “normal” to me and my “Western” perspective of art. It is looking more natural, realistic, classical, and ultimately Greek. This is pushing my distorted perspective of Egyptian art farther away from Africa and solidifying it in a Mediterranean and Western context. I feel as though the entire semester has been building up to this one moment when the Egyptians will finally retire their old traditions of depicting the figure in favor of the classical nude.
Until I read Chapter One of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, I was happy to hear about Alexander the Great and the influence of the Greeks, Persians, Macedonians, etc on Egyptian culture and agreeably took my notes. But now that I realize that I have absolutely no idea how AFRICA impacted Egypt! I am shocked an alarmed that I have never studied Egypt in the context of its actual geographic placement. I have taken many classes where we have studied ancient Egypt and not once can I remember talking about the civilization in an African context. I started asking my fellow art history classmates along with friends about how they saw Egypt and they all felt the way I do and thought it was strange. As I thought about it, I realized that I have never studied anything other than Western art. I have zero knowledge of the art that has come from Africa, India, China, or Japan unless it is a very stereotypical notion of their art. I cannot count how many times I have heard a professor say “Picasso’s art was heavily influenced by African masks” but I have never seen an African mask. I know that there must be more to African art than the very cliché tribal “African mask” that pops into my head but I have yet to see it. Or I have heard that many French Impressionist artists were influenced by Japanese woodblock prints, but I have never studied Japanese art. How am I, and other art history students, supposed to fully understand an artists work, or the work of entire culture like Egypt, if we do not understand their cultural context?
It is unfortunate that my lack of knowledge about the art of these cultures just stems from colonization and the undermining of new cultures that were being encountered. Perhaps Egypt became the exception because the wealth and power of the civilization was so great that it could not be denied. Or that art tends to be looked at through a “Western” perspective so we tend to compare cultures based on whether or not they fit the norm or not. Mamdani pointed out something that I had never considered and has caused me to evaluate my knowledge, or lack there of, of the cultures and art that I study.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
White Privilege
After reading the article for tomorrow I have a few comments and questions for everyone.
(1) In response to privilege 10, can she really be pretty sure that her voice will be heard in a room filled with people, all of whom are a different race than she?
-Does it not seem likely that in the ghetto (latino, black, asian) she might find trouble trying to address a group?
(2) She implies in privilege 12 that minorities music, food, and hair cutting places are less available in mainstream America; is this really the case?
-What race is she talking about that is not represented in this category? And how does food which fit a cultural tradition link directly to one's race (i.e. it seems like she is presupposing something here.)
(3) Privilege 15 states that she does not need to worry about physical harm towards her child, as a result of systematic racism.
-While John Smith may not have to worry about racial profiling from the cops, he might have to worry about the prejudices bred from those racial profilings. For instance, could her son not end up dead as a backlash of his father's systematic racial underpinnings (especially if he was a law enforcement officer)? Should her child not be aware of systematic racism, his inherent involvement in it, and the possible repercussions?
(4) This is my favorite. In privilege 35 she says that when hired into an affirmative action workplace she does not have to worry about a co-worker suspecting that she got the job because of race.
-Doesn't this seem to presuppose that affirmative action undermines the value of a minorities accomplishment? And does it mean that a white person securing a job in an affirmative action based workplace is more valuable than in a non-affirmative action based workplace? Is she looked at in college or in a non-affirmative action based workplace as having been handed that space partly because of her race?
This last question is interesting because this seems to be similar but different. She may get into college or secure that job because she was privileged to do so from birth (because she had money and a good home). The accomplishment could be diminished but not because of her race and rather because of where she came into this world, which is more characteristic of whiteness but not inherent to it's intrinsic properties. Blackness on the other hand has negative intrinsic properties from birth, aside from probable socio-economic problems, they will be followed around the store more often than whites regardless of status. They will still be the exception, and this seems to be where the real racial problem lies.
Some of the privileges that seem to be afforded to white students at Rhodes.
1. I do not have to try hard to find someone of my own race inside the gates of Rhodes. (the opposite may be true outside the bubble)
2. I am not questioned at the guard shack because of my skin color.
3. I will not be the only person of my race in any class I take at Rhodes.
4. My professor will probably be the same race as me.
5. The majority of the administration is of my same race.
6. My success in college will not represent the success or any advancement of my race.
8. I need not worry about being on the front page of the website because of my race, nor if I ended up there would I ever have to worry about people thinking I got there solely because of my race.
9. I do not have to worry that my acceptance into this college was based on my race.
10. I will forever bear the burden of white privilege, the guilt that comes with it, and shame for all of the things that my ancestors generations have done. I am privileged/indoctrinated to feel that guilt and shame, yet relieved of any responsibility for eradicating an entire race (yes the indians). I have the privilege of picking which oppression to feel most guilty about.
11. I am also constrained to not walk in parts of Memphis, which I must say doesn't seem equally true for minorities. While a black man, dressed in non-rich/white clothes, walking in a rich white neighborhood might be stopped, questioned, and even detained, the rich white man might want to fully explore the possible consequences of walking around the mound at night. This also seems to be a privilege of a white person as well though; we are privileged to live in areas with less crime. How would the two be treated when walking into an east Texas trailer park?
--wdc--
(1) In response to privilege 10, can she really be pretty sure that her voice will be heard in a room filled with people, all of whom are a different race than she?
-Does it not seem likely that in the ghetto (latino, black, asian) she might find trouble trying to address a group?
(2) She implies in privilege 12 that minorities music, food, and hair cutting places are less available in mainstream America; is this really the case?
-What race is she talking about that is not represented in this category? And how does food which fit a cultural tradition link directly to one's race (i.e. it seems like she is presupposing something here.)
(3) Privilege 15 states that she does not need to worry about physical harm towards her child, as a result of systematic racism.
-While John Smith may not have to worry about racial profiling from the cops, he might have to worry about the prejudices bred from those racial profilings. For instance, could her son not end up dead as a backlash of his father's systematic racial underpinnings (especially if he was a law enforcement officer)? Should her child not be aware of systematic racism, his inherent involvement in it, and the possible repercussions?
(4) This is my favorite. In privilege 35 she says that when hired into an affirmative action workplace she does not have to worry about a co-worker suspecting that she got the job because of race.
-Doesn't this seem to presuppose that affirmative action undermines the value of a minorities accomplishment? And does it mean that a white person securing a job in an affirmative action based workplace is more valuable than in a non-affirmative action based workplace? Is she looked at in college or in a non-affirmative action based workplace as having been handed that space partly because of her race?
This last question is interesting because this seems to be similar but different. She may get into college or secure that job because she was privileged to do so from birth (because she had money and a good home). The accomplishment could be diminished but not because of her race and rather because of where she came into this world, which is more characteristic of whiteness but not inherent to it's intrinsic properties. Blackness on the other hand has negative intrinsic properties from birth, aside from probable socio-economic problems, they will be followed around the store more often than whites regardless of status. They will still be the exception, and this seems to be where the real racial problem lies.
Some of the privileges that seem to be afforded to white students at Rhodes.
1. I do not have to try hard to find someone of my own race inside the gates of Rhodes. (the opposite may be true outside the bubble)
2. I am not questioned at the guard shack because of my skin color.
3. I will not be the only person of my race in any class I take at Rhodes.
4. My professor will probably be the same race as me.
5. The majority of the administration is of my same race.
6. My success in college will not represent the success or any advancement of my race.
8. I need not worry about being on the front page of the website because of my race, nor if I ended up there would I ever have to worry about people thinking I got there solely because of my race.
9. I do not have to worry that my acceptance into this college was based on my race.
10. I will forever bear the burden of white privilege, the guilt that comes with it, and shame for all of the things that my ancestors generations have done. I am privileged/indoctrinated to feel that guilt and shame, yet relieved of any responsibility for eradicating an entire race (yes the indians). I have the privilege of picking which oppression to feel most guilty about.
11. I am also constrained to not walk in parts of Memphis, which I must say doesn't seem equally true for minorities. While a black man, dressed in non-rich/white clothes, walking in a rich white neighborhood might be stopped, questioned, and even detained, the rich white man might want to fully explore the possible consequences of walking around the mound at night. This also seems to be a privilege of a white person as well though; we are privileged to live in areas with less crime. How would the two be treated when walking into an east Texas trailer park?
--wdc--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
