Monday, February 23, 2009

What's in a name?

A few months ago I was in a workshop about How to Teach Biracial and Multiracial Students: Racial Literacy for Today’s Classroom. The Presenter started off the session with a simple question, “What are you?” I choose to sit at a table where I knew I would have allies. I will admit, being a person from a biracial background and one who all to clearly knows the meaning of White Privilege, based on outward appearance and outward appearance only, I was getting looks from participants not of my table. To those around me, I was out of place. Sitting at my table were an African American male, two African American females, as well as a male and female of Latino descent. We were sitting at a table in the centre of the room and all along the perimeter was White Privilege. Keep in mind, we were there for similar reasons, to gain the ability and experience to talk about race.
When the question was posed by the facilitator, “what are you?”, and interesting thing happened, no one talked and all eyes pointed to our table. Finally after the longest 30 seconds of my life, and I am sure of the facilitator’s life, someone answered the question, “I am Irish American”. A few seconds later, “I am Russian American”, followed by “I am Italian American”. Not one person from my table spoke up. I found this fascinating, everyone who labelled themselves during this small exercise, had white privilege. They all felt the need to define themselves. It got me thinking, why do these people, who from outward appearance seem to fit the loose definition of race we were all taught growing up, feel the need to differentiate themselves from on another by labelling? Why were the people sitting at my table not labelling themselves? Is it because they did not feel the need to do so, or was it because they knew everyone in the room had already given them a label because oft heir outward appearance?
As the session went on, one male from another table asked an interesting question, “Ok, so what do we call these kids who are biracial? What is the new safe term we can use?” As I looked around the room, I could see many of those in a privileged position hanging on, waiting for the wonderful answer to all their problems from the facilitator. In the meantime, I could feel a real shift in the aura around my table. We all sat there, not looking at the facilitator, not looking around the room, but looking at each other. I could not take the silence any longer. People were no longer wanting to talk about race, they simply wanted the “quick fix” to all their problems. I blew up…no sorry, spoke up. The following is a recap of my words: Why is it that the dominant Eurocentric society feels the need to give those around them a label? What is it that gives you the right, the power, the justification to do so? These names you give, YOU choose, are they ever what the group wish you to use? If you want to know what to call someone, here is a novel idea…ask them! Let’s take a look at naming though history. Seeing how we are in America, how about we look at the term that is given for Native Americans, Indian. Where does that come from?
From this question I got all the typical Columbus answers one would expect. When I shared the truth about this term, people flat out denied the true history of the meaning.
As educators, we must realize the hidden meanings some of labels we use for people carry. Unfortunately, the only people who seem to see the hidden meanings in these labels are those the dominant society choose to label.

Disturb the flow and create change

I once heard an analogy to describe the work of anti-racism as walking on a moving sidewalk similar to those found in an airport. People generally get on these and continue to walk. When you look at those with privilege (the dominant society), they are all going their same way, in the same direction on that moving sidewalk. It is comfortable, it is easy. There are no obstacles in your way. This is the blinders that let the privileged society ignore racism and the privilege it gives them. Now, what happens if someone stops moving? Absolutely nothing. Things go on as it was. These people that stop are those who recognize that yes, racism does exist. However, by only noticing racism, just as stopping on the moving sidewalk, you still move forward. You may be moving at a slower pace, but you are still moving with the flow, with society, with the dominant society, with the privilege racism gives you. What happens if you stop, turn around, and start walking against the flow? Is it uncomfortable? Yes. Does it break the flow of people on the moving sidewalk? Yes. Does it make others angry, upset? Definitely. This is the same as someone realizing the free privilege society gives one based on the colour of their skin and trying to do something about it. By walking against the flow, by creating that disturbance, you are making people uncomfortable, you are making yourself uncomfortable. But we must remember, the best way to learn is to be in that uncomfortable state.

Which way are you walking?

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Take a History Lesson.. Just which history are you talking about?

In the Chronicle Herald today (Feb 12) there was a letter in the Voices of the people section (A12) talking about the just recently canceled re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham; a battle that entrenched the defeat of the French in Canada. The writer goes on to state the outcome of this battle allowed English Canada to "show its true colours as one of the brightest examples of democratic society, as the French were allowed to stay and flourish. Democratic you say? If the English were so democratic, why were the First Nations of Canada not allowed to vote in the democratic atmosphere (in a land that was taken, stolen, appropriated, conquered, use whatever language you want, it all boils down to theft) until March 31, 1960. So you are saying the English were oh so democratic since the battle in 1759, so how does this explain the 201 years in between. Does not sound so democratic to me. There is no universally accepted definition of the term democracy, however there are two held principles that are generally agreed on. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. Easy to get around I guess. Do not count First Nations as "citizens"(once more, in their own homeland, stolen)
If you are going to give a history lesson, be sure to give the whole history lesson and not just the side to support your argument, no matter how one-sided your argument may be.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Ethnic cleansing in Grade 4?

A class in a school in New Brunswick has made the news because one grade 4 student was upset about a recent exercise the teacher assigned (see story here). The students were asked a question based on the following scenario: Imagine an Acadian francophone on a planet with an anglophone, a black African, a Chinese person, and an Aboriginal person. The planet is going to explode and you can only fit 3 people in the rocket. You have 10 minutes to decide. Which three should be saved? Are you kidding me? Why is it a grade 4 student (who is adopted from Ethiopia, and from the interview I heard on the radio yesterday, one of the only children of colour in the school) the only one to see the problem with this exercise. The teacher saw nothing wrong with it. The principal, during an interview, said there was nothing wrong with the exercise. Some of the conversations created between the students were great. Some students said the francophone, anglophone, and aboriginal should be saved, because they can communicate. some said the same group should be saved because they were the first ones here (who is teaching history in this school and whose history are they teaching?) This exercise is wrong on so many levels. With so little information given to the students, their decisions had to be made on stereotypes and outward appearance. This sounds like a training exercise for genocide 101. How can anyone justify and defend this exercise. Remember the most dangerous people are those who think they know what they don't know

Monday, February 16, 2009

Suscribe and follow

If you want to subscribe and follow my blog, click on the links to the right, "follow this blog" or the subscribe to feeds link.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Nothing like a good old fashion drug raid to bring out the BEST in people

This past week we have seen the arrest of a First Nations band manager for possession, trafficking, and weapons offences. While scanning through readers' comments, it appears the accused's actions speak for a whole race. Amazing the number of racists events like this bring out. Some of the posts I read include: "Reserves breed drug use", "Corrupt politicians", "What do you expect", "Bet he plays the Native card","typical, those people will defend him", "The sad part about this is you will most likely see this guy back in business soon. Most likely going to see the native card pulled on this. I wonder if drug trafficking is mentioned in the treaty. .", " Chief must of been sleeping on that day or nursing a hang over"," No wonder First Nation's people are in such dire straits", The list goes on and on. So why is it the actions of one individual, guilty or not, are representative of a group? Let's look back at the recent events in Halifax involving two families heavily involved in the drug trade. There were almost daily shootings, one in front of the Children's Hospital. These two families are located in the same area. I did not recall seeing any comments stating the actions of these groups represent the actions of all white folk. Saying something like that would be , well, just plain silly. So why is it, the actions of individuals of colour, African Canadian, Latino, First Nations, to the dominant society, seem to represent the group as a whole? Racism at its finest

Friday, February 6, 2009

A picture says a thousand words

Looking through the paper this morning and I noticed a trend that seems to be long running. Just curious, but do you think posting a picture in the paper of a suspect of a bank robbery, who is still out there, is more important than posting a picture of a suspect of a person who is in custody for a robbery? Ok, I agree, both are crimes to be reported, but what makes one priority over the other? I find it ironic, no, surprising, no typical, that the picture of a black male being put into the back of a police car warrants a large picture on page two, but a suspect in a bank robbery, who is white, in a predominately white community (Cole Harbour), and still on the loose, gets his tiny picture on page seven in the small Across Nova Scotia section. This seems to happen over and over in the paper. The same type of crime, different coverage.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

York University study on racism in Canada, my response the paper did not publish

I understand the point Mr Duffy was trying to make with his article "Do the right thing, stand against racism", Jan 11. However, some comments made confirmed the results. The experiment conducted at York University showed us one thing, the exact opposite of Duffy’s assumption. Duffy said he is “not willing to assume the silence of those young people means they were indifferent to intolerance”. To me, this shows perfectly well the indifference to intolerance of the dominant society. If you have a room full of people, a racial comment is made by a white person towards a black person and not one, not a single white “participant” says anything, they are just as guilty. We, as adults, teach our children bystanders to bullying are just a guilty as they bully. Why is it inappropriate for kids to do, but justifiable by excuses when an adult does it? To top it off, when the students are asked to pair up, the people in the group are more willing to pair up with the white person who made the inappropriate comments rather than the black person. I saw all the usual excuses, let me say that again, excuses, in the article for not dealing with racism; the danger aspect, the intimidation factor, the whole what can “we” do. As I read the article, I was reminded of the work of Peggy McIntosh on White Privilege. This experiment as well as the article, reaffirmed her work, and the writings of anti- racism activist Tim Wise. We have to remember that race is a social and political construct developed by the dominant European (white) society to justify such things as slavery and colonization. Race means absolutely nothing until our minds give it a meaning. These students gave it a meaning. What meaning will you give it?

Chronicle Herald Jan 2 2009 Equality reached its meaning?? Pardon me?

According to the article by Kipling in Jan 2 paper it would seem that equality will finally reach its meaning in the U.S. After all, they did elect a black man to the presidency. If this truly means equality has finally arrived, does that mean the end to racial profiling by police? Does that mean that black males will no longer be three times more likely to be pulled over and have their vehicles searched, even though white males are four time more likely to have illegal drugs in their car? Does this mean an end to new prisons and the beginning of new schools? After all, equality is here, so does that mean prisons will no longer be disproportionately filled with people of colour, even though the majority of crimes are committed by white males? Has equality really at long last reached its meaning because a black man is the president of the United States? Lets ask those who feel discrimination every day. Those who are denied a mortgage because of the colour of their skin even though they are better qualified to pay it. Lets ask those of colour who have their resume thrown in the garbage because their name does not sound white. Lets ask those who are overlooked at a counter, as if they are not there and the person behind them is waited on. Has equality really reached its meaning? I say no.

Well, I have finally done it!

so, I have finally done it. Started my own blog. After reading, reading, and reading some more, I figured it was time to put my own thoughts about racism on the web. My goal here is to post at least once a week, on articles I have read in the newspapers, online, and stories on the news. Stay tuned.