Saturday, February 27, 2010

Response to Carlson

Though the title threw me off, he begins exactly the same way that the other authors have started. He addresses that white, straight, male, middle-class is privileged and that black, working-class, women, homosexuals are not. Then he says that there is such a thing called normalizing community, which is basically Delpit's culture of power. Saying that if you aren't in the normalizing community then you are looked at as different (this case in a bad way). But now, I believe this is one of the first authors to say that people have began to "speak out" and taken initiative to fix this problem. Though it is not as easy as one would hope. There are still communities that live by the old ways and there really is no way to fix that. Now, with the rapid change of communities (due to the many new cultures) a fear has grown among the privileged that the way things are is being changed. Then I get a little confused. Carlson starts to talk about the different terms all relating to the word "gay" and says how they are harmful. Now this is what confuses me in that paragraph, is he trying to say that those words are harmful in the context of how you say them? or is he just saying the history of those words? because he said how they can be harmful and then he goes on and talks about how they are acceptable and commonly used. So maybe he is just saying that they are only acceptable when used appropriately (homosexual for scientific use, gay for naming the group, etc) I don't know. Anyway then Carlson starts addressing the problems of being gay in school. I agree that especially with teachers it is hard to be openly gay and they usually try to closet these people so that they practically hide who they are so that no one will look at them differently, and take them seriously in the teachers case. But then there are some students who don't care and they just be themselves and I say good for them. Usually to my own experience those who just go out and say they are gay are usually respected for it, no one usually treats them any differently and are okay with their decision. If anything at my old school those kids who were proud to be gay were probably more popular and had more friends than most other people. I was a little surprised on the 3rd page (236) when he says that some schools prohibit teaching about homosexuality. I thought that you could mention it, but it just never came up, I didn't think that it was completely prohibited. Then how in Minnesota they allow homosexual practices basically everywhere but school. What made me a little upset was when Carlson said how some look at being gay as "a loss of respect", there is really nothing I can say about that other than that is horrible and definitely untrue. Followed by some of the reasons why gay or lesbian teachers are not hired. The first reason he says that everyone thinks homosexuality is "contagious", the second is because they think that homosexuals hold crushes on their students. How in the hell can being gay or lesbian be contagious? that is what I want to know. Also who says that homosexuals have crushes on their students? they aren't all child molesters as well. In the end he wraps it up by saying that we should adapt to the way things are and leave what is "politically correct" behind, and I agree with him when he says that everyone should get equal opportunities and have their voices heard as well. For the most part this battle is much like the other ones we have been over, only this time addressing sexuality.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Rodriguez Response

Interesting, it's good to finally look at society and the topics that we face in this class from someone who isn't white. I can only imagine how difficult it is to grow up in a place where you dont speak the launguage of the public. It would sound like a bunch of noise, and I'd panic if I was being spoken to. Then the nuns were angry that he wouldn't just speak perfect english! I'm sorry but learning a new language doesn't just happen over night. Makes it sound like he was a problem child. I felt so bad as he started to learn english and the families closeness slowely diminished. When he was first describing them they were so happy and got along very nicely, next thing you know they are hardly talking and Rodriguez addresses his parents only with eye contact. I mean all families grow seperately as they get older, but they are all still young. Just taking away the language the family spoke took away their whole culture, the whole togetherness of the family. His dad only seems happy when he's talking to his family in spanish. Finally, I totally get the end of this article. Where he mentions how not only was his private individuality lost but also his public individuality. No one looks at him the same way, neither him or his family.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

McIntosh Response

After reading White Privilage: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, I was extremely bothered by one of the last comments she had to say. I mean I suppose it could be true in a sense, but her just going out and saying that everyone is racist no matter what is kind of rediculous. Then when she says that men don't recognize their privilage, that bothers me as well. I understand that we have these invisible privilages, we've talked about it over and over, but has anyone ever touched base upon how everyone else is privilaged as well? Even if you are lower than "white men" there is a very good chance that you are way better off than a lot of people in this world. All over there are homeless people, abused families, and those who can't even take care of themselves for whatever reason. Like this family who can barely take care of their family because they have too many issues of their own http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3akft5wENjw. Those people are the underprivilaged, everyone else is just sweating the small stuff. They have the problems everyone else has, and more. Anyway, then there was a few bullet points that interested me, while others were just silly. Point 6 mentions how we learn about how our nationality made things the way they are. That is true and kind of unfair. I would like to know how everyone contributed to how everything is the way it is now, and yet all we see is how we did it. Then point 20 where she says how she can find all sorts of white toys and cards etc, but not any other kind of variety. It reminded me of what Heather had to say about how she had white dolls for the kids but none for the other races of kids. Then the rest of them kind of bothered me. Like point 4, anyone can be harrassed or followed and it happens all the time to all kinds of people. Then point 9 where she says how she can easily find music and such of her race represented. This is true because there are a lot of white singers, but there are also a lot of black and every other kind of singers I guess she forgot to mention that there was a whole bunch of other variety there too!! Basically I had many problems with this and don't care very much for it. Though it is just Wikipedia, it is a useful site and has much information on white privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege