Colorblind: fools-gold

In passing, Celia mentioned to me how susceptible to identity we are on campus. Because of the campus’s small nature, we are unable to slip into the crowd and walk faceless, anonymous to those around us. In order to combat this, she along with a few other people, dressed up in full body (including the head) suits. Still, even with their bodies and faces masked, I found that their veiled self distinguished them from the population far beyond what their true identity ever served. In this sense the removal of identity was unsuccessful. With this, they undertook two roles:  the elephant in the room and the open focus of everyone’s attention.  This is what colorblindness does. The blind are not just blinding themselves, but they are cloaking the identity of those who they refuse to see.  In a nation that is so utterly white and systematically enforces its whiteness, it is impossible to erase the ink that marks our history. Colorblindness is the refusal to read it—to recognize the individuals, whom have been silenced for so long. Unable to erase, white Americans’ cap this pen and disown the identity it marks. My reflection picture project embodies how ridiculous the idea of colorblindness is. It singles out those with an identity and removes it. The very idea of who are colorblind and who face the blind eyes emphasizes the inequality of the whole movement. White people are not blind to white people. White people are blind to colored people. Since whites are the majority, it leaves the minorities to be the elephant in the room. Ignored, but the focus—the center of everyone’s attention.

Michelle Alexander speech--a nice foundation for upcoming reading

For this blog post I wanted to provide everybody with a summery of the speech that Michelle Alexander gave at UPenn. I took pretty detailed notes, and I think that her speech stands to be a great introduction for and foundation to her book The New JimCrow. It makes clear her aims and goals that she will unfold throughout the text are reading. Also at the end I offer some advise of how we might need to approach our group projects. My advise comes from what I have gathered through people and observations of how Michelle delivers her speech so to  different audiences. She slightly alters her speech based on the audience--so that she can offer the most affective delivery every time. One can't afford to lose any followers due to an audience's slight disconnect to the content provided--especially when the delivery could be altered, even if only slightly, to better target and captivate that given audience. Anywho here it is:

     Michelle Alexander began her speech by telling the audience that we must have a dialogue with ourselves. Between our conditioned self (by society) and our true self. We must ask is this who we are? Or is this our conditioning? Is this our genuine moral as a human being? Or is this a moral that has been driven into us since day one.

            From there she introduced a little about her book and then spoke about this sense of self within the black community. She was saying that there is a sense of self-blame within the black community. You often here things like “pull up your pants, get a job, be a father, etc., then there will be no problem”. This might not be a drastic as black on black crime (which she goes into as well) but it adds to this unconscious understanding that they ARE the problem, when what she is arguing, is not the truth.  It is really everything that is going on around these communities that add to their predicament acting as subliminal advertising to train this way of thought.

            Alexander also touched base on the “get tough” movement, as she is working towards the main point of her speech. She talked about how the few black politicians that joined this movement only added to this ideology. Now there were figures to idolize, one’s that were actually part of a movement that was to further misplace these inner city communities. Along with this movement and capitalism seeking cheaper labor, these communities were even further situated in poverty and seeking some way to live. Labor moving overseas took thousands of factory jobs away from these inner-city livers leaving them with nothing. Jobless they turned to anything to support themselves and a family. Most of which was illegal activity, which this “get tough” movement was focusing on. This is what turned the bias towards inner cities.

            This led to where we are now. Where the media provides the sensational stories of “gangsta life” replacing menstrual shows that were popular during a time where overt racism was accepted. It provides for this dramatic and sensational “show” on the news that really appeals to the white audience. I actually thought this connection was amazing and well sanctioned. These lines can be drawn, and they are more obvious than one might think.

            She ended the speech talking about how before we achieve civil rights, we MUST gain human rights. We cannot jump the gun as Americans to civil rights, because we are overlooking so many other problems that would make it unachievable. An empty dream is worthless and effort made for no reason. This is where the decriminalization of ALL drugs comes in hand. Starting off towards this first goal of human rights, so we as America can finally truly start working towards civil rights.  Overall, her speech was amazing. Michelle Alexander is a great speaker, her content was interesting and factual, and she really speaks to her audience. I spoke to a classmate who heard has heard her speak before at a Christian conference. He said, while most of the information was the same, she altered it to focus more on the religious community. While at this UPenn event, she spoke to a more intellectual and aware audience, with the assumption that at least most of the people there read and are more aware of the issues at hand. This ability to tend to the audience at hand is extremely valuable. Otherwise the movement she is promoting could be harmful or mean nothing to an audience that finds no relation to it. She encourages her movement of decarceration and drug decriminalization through finding its relevancy to her audience. This is something I think we should learn from and try to practice during our group projects. We will make more of an impression and hopefully activate more thought, if the audience can find familiarity or relevancy in what we present to them.

smh

Halloween has just passed and yet the ridicules costumes are still making their way to the media. Blackface has consistently made its way into the halloween costumes of racist ignorant white people. But of course native americans, mexicans, and other radicalized costumes have also always made its way into the Halloween scene.  This year however, Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman seem to make its way to be the most popular costume of racist bigots this year. I have also seen pictures of suicide bombers--depicted as arab of course, and today my friend showed me a picture of someone who dressed up as one of the Boston marathon bombing victims. I also saw a news clip where a young 7 year old boy dressed as a KKK member and went trick or treating. His mothers only warning is, "people might say things, if you're ready for that". I also sent that news clip to the class, where fox news covers a story on a universities warning about these costume choices. Yet it seems that the news casters were insinuating that these choices are okay... because of freedom of speech. Your boss might just not like it in the future.... unless its Fox. One cannot say that overt racism does not exist anymore. Because if someone dressing up in blackface, a smile, a bloodied shirt, and a bag of skittles for the halloween costume as an innocent murder victim who is still a child laughing along side their friend who is the murderer--is not overt racism... then I don't know what the heck is. This was a terrifying Halloween.