Blog 4 Conversations about Race

Why do we need to have conversations about race?

We need to have conversations about race because it makes us behave in ways that effect how we function in society. From a biological factor such as skin color, we form these ideologies about people's languages and cultures. Racism becomes a mental illness we all suffer from, in the sense that it is desensitizing. We forget that we are a human race-- instead we are broken down to ethnic categories that allow us to be victims of discrimination, social exclusion, marginalization, genocide, cultural mistrust and colorism. Fear, hate, and schizophrenic ideologies of superiority separate us, when in fact we are all equal. Which means, if my neighbor lay on a operating table on the brink of death, I can give him my blood, or my organs to sustain his/her life. It doesn't matter what race, color or creed I am.
For 37 years, I have struggled with the pain of racism and how it has effected my journey through life. Being a victim can cause so much detriment to your soul and self-worth. Being in this class, having conversations about our experiences has allowed me to move forward with a lot of my issues. Talking about race can do the same for others. Reading about race relations, identifying issues that effect the community allowed me to learn why I have been a victim, as well as other cultures. Culturally, minority groups are underrepresented in ever aspect of American culture from sciences, the arts, media, literature, and popular culture. Our histories are ignored, and stereotype and ignorance are standing in place of our real identities.

To shift the tides we need to confront the stereotypes, microaggressions, and racial biases head on. Black bodies are only respected for entertainment on the basketball courts, and football fields, or as objects of sexuality. All Latinos are being identified as immigrants-- America's problem, yet the solution to economic development in the labor industry. Muslims are viewed as a threat to the security of our nations borders. While Asian American's seem to be synonymous with math and technology. Once we get past these assumptions, we can look to seek some form of justice and social change. 







A speculation, a marathon, a gamechanger

To begin, dig: coming clean. Your Boy ain seen his group all break-week long. That not to say he ain been working. He just been working. But he back off that break now like therapy and game for what’s up, know what I’m sayin. Or he sayin. Never mind.

As for what’s up, secondly: all hunkered down in The Stacks all week before literally pounds of dusty hardcovers ain NO ONE probly even THINKIN bout checkin out no time soonish and I thought I just might confiscate for perpetuity, Your Boy stumbled pawn a revelation.

Celestial orbs all aligned (plus being all mean-like to my vitals, disabusin myself of the necessity to sleep and eat, in pursuit of my best iteration) scribbling the whole thang down was borderline an immaculate birth. (This call to mind a one Hova’s mama’s intro off dat Black Album, when she said, saying, “Weighing at 10lbs, 8oz, he was the last of my four children, the only one who didn’t give me any pain when I gave birth to him, and that’s how I knew that he was a special chile.” And that not to say I’s proprietor of some nextlevel topline stuff–just justifyin my thug, you feel me.)

So. A one Walter Ong, he once said that the audience always a fiction

–Check it: Ong, he say that being that writing basically neé rhetoric, the game been done changed since cats started putting utensils to wood pulp and ceased droppin science via they emceeing.

Because, see, for the writer, information sent in time pods on some cryogenic stuff: it’s static, and stagnant, till it dredge up and get all oxidized. If they wanna appeal to the sensibilities of an audience, or non-audience, whether invoked or addressed, living Now Now or Tomorrow, they then gonna have to make them up, i.e., the audience.

So: writing is makebelieve, yes? Not like fugazi, but it’s imaginative like that.

Writing, the efficacy thereof then be pendent on the efficacy of the imagination a one author done imbued the composition with. Then: The tighter yo imagination of your reader the better you cast your reader into whateva role they meant to play and the better the setup gone be for them to follow yo rhetoric. This, he say, is “ficitonalization,” and it’s a twoway street, for just as author fictionalize so do reader.

The reader embodies the role said author casts them in. Say you an actor, right. You get a script. Script basically directions for you in order to get the point of your role in relation to others’ as they all pertain to the umbriferous storyline across to a live audience, right, if it’s a play. Same thing with writing.

Except wit writing: reader both actor and audience. So: if you can’t imagine yo reader like that, yo writin gone be funky, bcuz it intrinsically hidebound by the identity of yo reader. Which is why it hard (or at least for me) to write a paper on the subject: “What I Want To Be When I Grow Up”. Because who in the hell am I even talking-wriitng to, because no ever asked or asks, or is even really asking me that, really. Consideration thereof never crossed Your Boy’s Third Eye. And even if it did, the audience is who, my teacher, because I would never speak to my teacher bout no C-4 classified material such as how I wanna be a rapper that.

Wha i wanna be when I grow up? I mean, with the presence of mind at the time I was 7, maybe, maybe I could’ve went:

“Hi, Batman. When I grow up, I wanna be just like you. Because you fite badguys and i want to fite badguys, too. I know cops fite badguys but they sometimes mean to people. Cops scare me, too. You not mean, though. You don’t scare me. I’m not a badguy, though. And you not a cop, neither. You Batman!”

And this precisely what Ong gettin at: audience is always reduced to one monolithic person, fictionalized, invoked or addressed, though some may argue “addressed,” especially when you consider “jargon” and “nomenclatures” and the one about ‘talking the talk,’ which implies that an audience already DO exist, the sensibilities thereof always given primacy by the author for the sake of being received. (And, duly noted.)

But that is what I feel like my beef is exactly with the whole writer-reader infrastructure. Because Ong fail to communicate who actually our imaginative audience are–or “is” rather. Think–Demographics.

He say that this fictionalization process done moved downstream, essentially framing all our expressions. We take point from what others have done and has been known to work, or at least get dollars thrown at it, i.e., sell. In which case then: we have to consider the makeups of The Runners: you know, white guys.

And so it safe to assume, I feel like–that everything done and STILL being done is to appeal to the cultural sensibilities of the dominant culture, or so I do speculate. Hence: “a speculation,” the encomium of the eponymy of this expression.

So “multiculturalism” ain no more multicultural as postracial America is postracial; that it not really multiculturalism, at least not beyond the epidermis.

And when you consider the prolific number of scholarship out there on comics as multimodal technology in the teaching of writing and reading literacy–Yo, ain nuffin gonna change then. Because we still maintaining that same tip when it come to that communication, at least in public. And we can’t ignore the deleterious effects of such cerebral cleansing: the idea that one language trumps another, especially if that language (the one being faded) your primary language, or dialect. Cajoling like that not fair–Can I get a witness??

We teach folks to code switch as if this something to be proud of–and while I get that some folks proud thereof, how do we then explain telling minorities to carry themselves a certain way in public so not to be perceived a certain way by the police; meanwhile: everyone else (White) not; so: Why? (And just think of being lefthanded in this righthanded world. I’m left-handed, for one. I STAY having to deal with technology and just things favoring righthanded folk. No amount of switching training or attempts as disabusin me of the use of my lefthand gonna change that–I’s gone be a southpaw till I DIE, a physiological minority dealin with righthandedness the same way racial minorities deal with disparities in how they can or can’t carry themselves in public; and that not fair. And like homegirl Smitherman done noted of a one Nikki Giovanni: “that’s why we always lose, not only cause we don’t know the rules, but it ain’t even our game” (“White English”).)