By now I'm sure most of you have heard of Arizona's latest "WTF legislation," banning ethnic studies classes and English teachers with accents. I won't get into the English teachers with accents in this post other than to say, what the hell does that even really mean? Can Southerners no longer teach English? People from England? Canadians? What exactly constitutes "unaccented" English?
But I want to talk about the ethnic studies ban which states that schools will lose funding if they support ethnic studies classes in their curriculum because the creators of this law think such classes will cause people to overthrow the government. Also they do not want classes to "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." This point is particularly boggling to me, because I was previously unaware that "treating pupils as individuals" and "promoting solidarity with ethnic groups" were mutually exclusive.
(Sarcasm approaching...)
And you know what, maybe Arizona has the right idea. I must admit that I was not exposed to ethnic studies classes until college, and look how well I turned out. (Ok, that's a lie, I took a class on Native American culture in HS, but that was barely enlightening or revolutionary). I was not aware of the many injustices the US participates in at the expense of other cultures, and as a consequence I just did my work and played the good little student role, regurgitating the white history of the world in my classes, not questioning anything.
And then Amado Lascar and Amanda Harris came into my life. Now, as far as Amado's Spanish class was concerned, it was more focused on the literature of Mexico, Central and South America than US foreign policy or exposing aforementioned injustices. But he did introduce me to voices in literature that are often undervalued and left in the margins, voices that do criticize the colonial legacy in Latin America from the conquest until today. But Amanda Harris' class, "Ethnicity in the Americas" really opened my eyes. I would even go as far as to divide my life into before and after taking that class.
When I say this entry is a case for this new law, it is my tongue-in-cheek way of saying that ethnic studies classes can and do make a difference, they change people. I can see Arizona and a racist, conservative government in general being very frightened by the power that these classes can wield. It is no wonder that this happened when we see that conservatives in Texas also want to keep real information from getting into the impressionable and pliable minds of the nation's youth. If a smart cookie like me is introduced to ideas that expose the seedy underbelly of the US, we might turn out to work against the wrongful actions of the government. It is really a loss to conservatives in the US when students become aware of their wrong-doings. Although I was never really pro-America, even before the ethnic studies class because when I finally became interested and aware of politics, Bush was president for 8 years and it doesn't take a strong liberal lean to recognize the evil promulgated under his regime.
What I am saying here is that those of us who are appalled by this newest legislation should not take the path of denying the influence of ethnic studies classes. These classes do have the power to influence people and change lives, and that is something that conservatives fear. I am not one to make an argument that they do not change people's opinions of capitalism, the United States, or hegemonic powers in general, because that is what they have done for me. But as a person who embraces a post/de-colonial paradigm, I know how important these classes are to raising awareness to new perspectives, the perspectives of the marginalized whose voices have been silenced throughout History.
I was hoping we were finally in agreement within the walls of educational institutions that a new history needs to emerge, a new story needs to sound out in contrast to the white noise of History we have been exposed to our entire lives. No one should fear that the US will be demonized completely throughout social studies curricula, because the overwhelming majority of such classes are staunchly pro-US, look at colonization as a good thing, and look at events (such as the "discovery of America") through the eyes of dead white men. Even new textbooks are preserving this paradigm. The old way is not going anywhere. But the option to learn of a new perspective and take a new path is vital to the future of this nation.
I keep waiting for the turnover, for the day that these old, racist assholes are no longer in the majority in charge of things such as text books, education funding and dare I say, the government. I don't want to lose hope that things are slowly changing for the better, but when legislation such as that in Arizona is passed, I lose just a little hope that things are actually changing. When my family verbalizes their bigotry, I just try to tell myself that most people don't think that way. Unfortunately that is not always the case. But I won't lose hope because I see a lot of smart individuals doing a lot of good for the world and those who are marginalized. I hope that as the aforementioned old racist assholes die off, they will be replaced by these more enlightened individuals.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Thesis Defense in Lunch Lady Land
Here is a short narrative of the most memorable part of my thesis defense. And no, it is not about the moment when Risa came out into the hall and said to me "congratulations" with a big smile on her face. But that was definitely my favorite part. Spectators may have been more entertained by someone known to me only as "The Lunch Lady."
I wanted to defend my thesis in the same building I teach in every day, just to give me the safety and security of a familiar place. However, the only room that was open during my scheduled thesis defense time was a community room, complete with a stinky refrigerator where faculty and staff can put their lunches (and obviously forget them for weeks).
Less than 5 minutes into my presentation, a woman walks nonchalantly into the room, and gets a plastic bag out of the fridge. The resulting smell from her opening the refrigerator horrified as all, but not as much as the 3 minute ritual said "Lunch Lady" performed over her lunch on a counter-top mere feet away from me where I was presenting. I looked to my thesis advisor, "what should I do?" "Keep going if it won't distract you." Well after said 3-ish minutes of the Lunch Lady noisily unpacking and repacking her lunch in various (dare I say millions?) of containers and plastic bags. *rustle rustle rattle rattle* I couldn't take it any more. Everyone is looking at one another in disbelief as Lola snaps some winning candid shots of the moment (pictured below). "I'm sorry, but can I wait until she is done?" I wait for a few seconds before asking this individual (who obviously lacks some social graces and manners) if she was planning on being done anytime soon or.... Witnesses later agreed, we were all just holding our breaths, waiting for the moment she would pop open that microwave and turn it on, too. The Lunch Lady seemed completely unembarrassed and unfazed by the whole debacle. She continued rattling around the plastic bags and containers until she was good and ready. She then took her time collecting her bags once again before she left. One last winning photo was taken, *snap* and I finally proceeded.
It was annoying, but it was an experience I will never forget. And the new-found solidarity I found between myself and my audience gave me the confidence to move forward even more comfortably than before. To all of those who came to my thesis defense, I thank you so much for being a part of this experience with me (and not just the Lunch Lady portion). And to all of those who helped push me along the thesis path, thank you as well. Good luck to those of you who have yet to defend! Si se puede!
I wanted to defend my thesis in the same building I teach in every day, just to give me the safety and security of a familiar place. However, the only room that was open during my scheduled thesis defense time was a community room, complete with a stinky refrigerator where faculty and staff can put their lunches (and obviously forget them for weeks).
Less than 5 minutes into my presentation, a woman walks nonchalantly into the room, and gets a plastic bag out of the fridge. The resulting smell from her opening the refrigerator horrified as all, but not as much as the 3 minute ritual said "Lunch Lady" performed over her lunch on a counter-top mere feet away from me where I was presenting. I looked to my thesis advisor, "what should I do?" "Keep going if it won't distract you." Well after said 3-ish minutes of the Lunch Lady noisily unpacking and repacking her lunch in various (dare I say millions?) of containers and plastic bags. *rustle rustle rattle rattle* I couldn't take it any more. Everyone is looking at one another in disbelief as Lola snaps some winning candid shots of the moment (pictured below). "I'm sorry, but can I wait until she is done?" I wait for a few seconds before asking this individual (who obviously lacks some social graces and manners) if she was planning on being done anytime soon or.... Witnesses later agreed, we were all just holding our breaths, waiting for the moment she would pop open that microwave and turn it on, too. The Lunch Lady seemed completely unembarrassed and unfazed by the whole debacle. She continued rattling around the plastic bags and containers until she was good and ready. She then took her time collecting her bags once again before she left. One last winning photo was taken, *snap* and I finally proceeded.
It was annoying, but it was an experience I will never forget. And the new-found solidarity I found between myself and my audience gave me the confidence to move forward even more comfortably than before. To all of those who came to my thesis defense, I thank you so much for being a part of this experience with me (and not just the Lunch Lady portion). And to all of those who helped push me along the thesis path, thank you as well. Good luck to those of you who have yet to defend! Si se puede!
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Sovereignty of a State
First, Happy Cinco de Mayo! I love Danny Trejo, it's no secret. And he has a special Cinco de Mayo message for you. (Apparently copyright laws have removed access to the video I posted here, but definitely check out the trailer for Machete through the above link).
All of this oppressive state-based legislation has got me thinking...Would these states be able to survive if they were a sovereign nation that did not fall under the protective umbrella of the United States? We have all heard it, California is broke. But of what consequence is that, really? The US has always got it's back, and no matter what the financial woe is, how much misfortune can really befall a state that is part of the US?
Now, I think about Arizona. SB 1070, in addition to being a racist measure, is financially going to screw the state if it works out. It is funny how economic interests are being posited as one of the motivations behind this legislation, because frankly, perhaps it is the influx of illegal immigrants taking unnaturally low-paying jobs that is keeping Arizona financially afloat in the first place. If this law is to pass, I am wondering A) if it could actually ever be "effective" in curbing illegal immigration, B) how they would measure such "effectiveness," and C) how it would really affect the state in the long-run. But even if this law becomes practice in Arizona, and it ends up hurting them financially, will it really hurt the state deep down? If Arizona were a sovereign nation, what would come out of all of this? I am thinking financial ruin might have something to do with it. But luckily the big bad US can protect all of its children from actually ever failing, so even though Cali can go broke, it is of no real consequence, is it not? I see a dissertation in the making: Can states make policies that are not in their best interest as a political move and not be negatively affected in many ways because they are a part of the US?
Luckily, many people agree that the law won't hold any water when it comes down to being put into practice. It is being called "constitutionally troubling," and I have heard that foreign policy matters do not fall under state jurisdiction. And basically, when you make a law that calls for police to detain people because of "reasonable suspicion" without defining what constitutes "reasonable suspicion," yeah, people are not going to let that fly.
And on a final note. In light of the anti-woman/choice/medicine legislation recently passed in Oklahoma, is it any surprise that some OK legislators are getting a proverbial boner over the idea of following suit with Arizona's SB 1070? Unfortunately, other states (like Ohio) are also considering similar moves. Thankfully, Ted Strickland has already said he would never sign such a measure. But read on in the article, because it looks as though there is still a looming threat.
All of this oppressive state-based legislation has got me thinking...Would these states be able to survive if they were a sovereign nation that did not fall under the protective umbrella of the United States? We have all heard it, California is broke. But of what consequence is that, really? The US has always got it's back, and no matter what the financial woe is, how much misfortune can really befall a state that is part of the US?
Now, I think about Arizona. SB 1070, in addition to being a racist measure, is financially going to screw the state if it works out. It is funny how economic interests are being posited as one of the motivations behind this legislation, because frankly, perhaps it is the influx of illegal immigrants taking unnaturally low-paying jobs that is keeping Arizona financially afloat in the first place. If this law is to pass, I am wondering A) if it could actually ever be "effective" in curbing illegal immigration, B) how they would measure such "effectiveness," and C) how it would really affect the state in the long-run. But even if this law becomes practice in Arizona, and it ends up hurting them financially, will it really hurt the state deep down? If Arizona were a sovereign nation, what would come out of all of this? I am thinking financial ruin might have something to do with it. But luckily the big bad US can protect all of its children from actually ever failing, so even though Cali can go broke, it is of no real consequence, is it not? I see a dissertation in the making: Can states make policies that are not in their best interest as a political move and not be negatively affected in many ways because they are a part of the US?
Luckily, many people agree that the law won't hold any water when it comes down to being put into practice. It is being called "constitutionally troubling," and I have heard that foreign policy matters do not fall under state jurisdiction. And basically, when you make a law that calls for police to detain people because of "reasonable suspicion" without defining what constitutes "reasonable suspicion," yeah, people are not going to let that fly.
And on a final note. In light of the anti-woman/choice/medicine legislation recently passed in Oklahoma, is it any surprise that some OK legislators are getting a proverbial boner over the idea of following suit with Arizona's SB 1070? Unfortunately, other states (like Ohio) are also considering similar moves. Thankfully, Ted Strickland has already said he would never sign such a measure. But read on in the article, because it looks as though there is still a looming threat.
Monday, May 3, 2010
WTF OK?
Wow, it looks as though 2010 is the year of eliminating states from my list of possible new homes in the US. Oklahoma's new abortion legislation (HB 2656 and HB 2780) is up there on the f-ed up scale with SB 1070 in Arizona. And I have not heard as much about this new legislation, maybe because everyone is distracted trying to bring awareness to Arizona's new law. Vetoes to both bills were overruled, meaning that HB 2656 and HB 2780 are now laws in Oklahoma. How does this all happen so fast?
Let us begin with HB 2780, which makes it so that a woman having an abortion is required by state law to see an ultrasound of the unborn fetus before the abortion, and have it described to her in detail. So she knows what she's getting into, you see... This is supposedly going to deter women from using abortion as a first-resort method of birth control. While I do believe that having an abortion is a serious matter requiring careful consideration of the consequences and what exactly all of this means, I must admit that I cannot see that too many women getting abortions are going about it all willy-nilly. This is an intense medical procedure, and I am sure that a lot of hard thinking goes into the decision for such a serious procedure. Currently, pro-choice advocates are relating this procedure to state-mandated rape, because these women have no choice whether or not they will be penetrated by the instruments used to produce an image of the fetus. Of course, nay sayers are poo-pahing the whole thing. According to one representative, you use similarly (or more) invasive techniques in order to perform an abortion, so it falls under the same umbrella. Oh wait, except the whole definition of rape revolves around consent, (meaning that there is a lack thereof in cases of rape), and in all of these cases the abortion procedure itself would have been requested by the woman, but not the ultrasound.
Moving on to HB 2656. According to this new Oklahoma legislation, doctors can outright lie to a patient about the state of her unborn fetus. Why would s/he do that? In order to prevent the woman from aborting a fetus if it shows signs of birth defects. To quote Mary Alice Carr in the above-posted article, this is "anti-motherhood and anti-medicine." You should definitely read her article, because she puts my outrage better than I ever could, speaking as a mother who was always relieved to hear that everything is fine with her unborn fetus in the doctor's office. Now, a doctor in Oklahoma stating "everything is fine" may not bring this relief, as they are allowed to violate their Hippocratic oath if they think that telling you there is a problem with your fetus will lead you to seek an abortion.
Frankly, I am a little confused with the conservative push for so much controlling legislation lately. If you buy into the liberal-conservative dichotomy as it is popularly illustrated, you will see that conservative=fights for freedom (and small government), and liberal=fights for equality. Talking to my family about the healthcare bill you would definitely get the impression that our freedom in this country has gone out the window. Yet the biggest violations of freedoms that I am witnessing are being posited by the conservative representatives. Do you like freedom? Well in Arizona you're going to have to sacrifice just a little bit of that and carry documentation of legal citizenship around with you, no matter who you are. That is so that no one else can enjoy the freedom that you earned(?) by being born in this great nation. Do you want an abortion? Well not so fast now. We didn't make it ILLEGAL, so you still have your freedom there. But we will make it an even more uncomfortable process. Oh, and there might be even more medical woes for you in the process, but no biggie, right? I mean that affects so few people, that it shouldn't even matter. Hey, 50% of us don't even have to worry about pregnancy, so there's some more freedom! FREEEEEEDOM!
Well, Oklahoma, you can now join North Dakota and Arizona on the list of states I won't be visiting or frequenting any time soon. To inhabitants of those states, keep fighting the good fight. Show the world that freedom and equality are not mutually exclusive.
Let us begin with HB 2780, which makes it so that a woman having an abortion is required by state law to see an ultrasound of the unborn fetus before the abortion, and have it described to her in detail. So she knows what she's getting into, you see... This is supposedly going to deter women from using abortion as a first-resort method of birth control. While I do believe that having an abortion is a serious matter requiring careful consideration of the consequences and what exactly all of this means, I must admit that I cannot see that too many women getting abortions are going about it all willy-nilly. This is an intense medical procedure, and I am sure that a lot of hard thinking goes into the decision for such a serious procedure. Currently, pro-choice advocates are relating this procedure to state-mandated rape, because these women have no choice whether or not they will be penetrated by the instruments used to produce an image of the fetus. Of course, nay sayers are poo-pahing the whole thing. According to one representative, you use similarly (or more) invasive techniques in order to perform an abortion, so it falls under the same umbrella. Oh wait, except the whole definition of rape revolves around consent, (meaning that there is a lack thereof in cases of rape), and in all of these cases the abortion procedure itself would have been requested by the woman, but not the ultrasound.
Moving on to HB 2656. According to this new Oklahoma legislation, doctors can outright lie to a patient about the state of her unborn fetus. Why would s/he do that? In order to prevent the woman from aborting a fetus if it shows signs of birth defects. To quote Mary Alice Carr in the above-posted article, this is "anti-motherhood and anti-medicine." You should definitely read her article, because she puts my outrage better than I ever could, speaking as a mother who was always relieved to hear that everything is fine with her unborn fetus in the doctor's office. Now, a doctor in Oklahoma stating "everything is fine" may not bring this relief, as they are allowed to violate their Hippocratic oath if they think that telling you there is a problem with your fetus will lead you to seek an abortion.
Frankly, I am a little confused with the conservative push for so much controlling legislation lately. If you buy into the liberal-conservative dichotomy as it is popularly illustrated, you will see that conservative=fights for freedom (and small government), and liberal=fights for equality. Talking to my family about the healthcare bill you would definitely get the impression that our freedom in this country has gone out the window. Yet the biggest violations of freedoms that I am witnessing are being posited by the conservative representatives. Do you like freedom? Well in Arizona you're going to have to sacrifice just a little bit of that and carry documentation of legal citizenship around with you, no matter who you are. That is so that no one else can enjoy the freedom that you earned(?) by being born in this great nation. Do you want an abortion? Well not so fast now. We didn't make it ILLEGAL, so you still have your freedom there. But we will make it an even more uncomfortable process. Oh, and there might be even more medical woes for you in the process, but no biggie, right? I mean that affects so few people, that it shouldn't even matter. Hey, 50% of us don't even have to worry about pregnancy, so there's some more freedom! FREEEEEEDOM!
Well, Oklahoma, you can now join North Dakota and Arizona on the list of states I won't be visiting or frequenting any time soon. To inhabitants of those states, keep fighting the good fight. Show the world that freedom and equality are not mutually exclusive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)