Since I can remember, I've thought the United States' racial problems can be traced to one solid fact; rich people are scared of poor people. And I always imagined how nice it would be to have one giant party where rich people would learn, poor people aren't so bad. I thought of a similar situation for white people who are scared of black people, but the party looked the same as the first one I imagined.
Racial relations have continued to fascinate me but as I get older, I find myself returning to that original idea, enjoying its childish simplicity, especially as I read these articles on spatialization and racialization and New Orleans' Mardi Gras Indians. When all the convolutions are stripped away, it still remains the same. Black people are scary; Asians/Indians are nerdy; Latinos will do all your work for a dollar. Oh, and the Irish are alcoholics; the English don't tip and Native Americans...well, no need to worry about them.
Throughout these two articles, I found two things to be the most interesting. Firstly, in Racial Formation of the United States, Omi and Winant intricately analyze the development of the United States as an inherently racial state, with its all of our state institutions being racial ones, carrying out the same policies of exclusion and repression.
Secondly, in Lipitz's article, (and this actually angered me more that interested) he writes about the actions of the police officers as proof of the "racialization of space and the spatialization of race". "The officers felt their obligations to protect property values, to keep local thoroughfares open for commerce.... These same officers, however, would never act in the same way toward the crowds of revelers that routinely congregate near the Louisiana Superdome" (Lipitz 2). I mostly detest his use of the word "never", which I find to be just as racist as the actions of those officers. It makes a presumption, yes, about the majority, but a presumption nevertheless.
All in all, I continue to fail at seeing the point to this type of dissection of our country's institutions and practices. While I admire the time and effort put into the research, I get incredibly frustrated when I read words like "never" in research and then repeatedly see biased phrasing throughout the work. Because at the end of the day, none of this has brought anyone, black or white, together. The problem still lies in our individual world views and I just don't think fair housing laws is the solution.
4 comments:
the point of classes like this, essays like the ones we read, is to give voice to large populations of people who have been historically ignored in scholarly texts, people who have been forgotten and ignored, legally and socially repressed, so that we may understand not just the upper class, white, heterosexual, male narrative, but also the stories of the lower class, racialized, queer, female. it is not meant to "bring people together" - which is not to say it is meant to tear them apart, either, but that the significance of these studies is to allow the underrepresented to gain recognition for their struggles, their inequalities, and to criticize the accepted hegemonic structures of the united states, in which power comes not to those who deserve it, but to those who inherit it because they were born the right race, or the right gender, or into the right families, and so on. in order to fight the hegemony, we must understand first how these structures were created, how they are still maintained today, and what consequences they have in the real world; that is "the point."
where are you from? how were you raised? and how old are you?
and what voice are we-this NYU SCA predominantly white class-giving these large populations of people who have been historically ignored in scholarly texts, these people who have been forgotten and ignored, legally and socially repressed? the essays we read this week didn't give any of these populations a voice. sure, Lipsitz described the Mardi Gras Indians and conducted some interviews but that is a not a voice. Omi and Winant chart the historical development of racism in the U.S. but that is, again, not a voice.
your last sentence makes very much sense. despite how much it sounds like a course description--and you seems were trying to convey the point of the class--it re-enlightened me to the point of those readings: my problem there was that the only response that came to mind was "i know". now i remember 'i need to know'.
however, on that point, if we aren't here to bring people together, then none of us should bother going to class or college because there is no point. whatsoever. to bring people together is to understand and accept one another. that is, and should always be, the goal we [and when i say we, i mean the world] are consistently reaching for.
Tiffany,
Glad that your post has sparked some dialogue. First, you are a very good writer and have a clear "voice" - that's great. Your first paragraph made me laugh out loud. I encourage you to keep questioning the "why" of the readings. However, not only is it important to understand how structural, institutional, and historical forces have made the world we live in today - perhaps in order to change it (as Eric points out) - I hope that in this course we will also address all the other kinds of worldmaking that go on, on a daily basis, which act as counterforces or alternatives to this vision of an oppressive state before which people are helpless.
And although you are right that an NYU classroom is an elite space, I would be careful to generalize the kind of lives your classmates or professors live, the work that they do, and what they might go on to do (which might be influenced in important ways by the very ideas we're talking about in this class).
That being said, I like very much your response to Eric's comment: "my problem there was that the only response that came to mind was "i know". now i remember 'i need to know'."
Post a Comment