Taylor Swift's Revenge: Part II

Something real quick before we get to Taylor Swift. They are in the middle of picking a new Pope, and I just want to say that if they pick a Pope of color this time around, it will be further proof that they give a position of leadership to a black or brown person when everything has gone to crap/is about to go to crap. Exhibit A: Barack Obama.

I heard this on The Colbert Report a few nights ago, but you can ask my husband, and he will verify I said it to him well before we ever saw that show.

Just wanted to put that out there. Not really long enough for it's own blog post, but too long for a tweet on twitter.

My last post was about Taylor and one of her more popular songs, and how said song illustrated the idea that even when in a seemingly one-down position, people have a tendency to be cruel to those that have been cruel to them. If you need a refresher or didn't get a chance to read it, you can click here. And the photo above is what I found when I went on google images and typed Taylor Swift and Pope. I think it might be photoshopped. Okay, moving on.

I said I was going to tie her song back to race and inequality, and here goes...

I wonder if part of the hesitation for white people around making concrete steps towards reparations for black people, is this idea that if white people do that, the black people will get more power, and then try to exact some sort of revenge towards the white people. And I'm not just talking about writing mean songs.

If the conversation about reparations is never had, then there is never an acknowledgment that something despicable enough to warrant reparations was done, so we can just kind of avoid the whole topic.

Maybe at this point you are asking, What are reparations? I am not an expert on the subject, but the general idea is some sort of repayment or investment in the black community to apologize for/alleviate the effects of the damage done by slavery and Jim Crow.

Have you heard of 40 acres and a mule? When the slaves were freed after The Civil War, there was some talk of giving each adult male former slave some land and an animal help him farm it. That never happened, I guess they decided sharecropping and mass incarceration was a better plan. I have also heard free college education, massive government spending on social programs, and direct cash payments also mentioned. I have wondered before if some black people that receive welfare see it as a form of reparations that they they are entitled to. Is that my class bias showing, or just an astute observation? Who knows.

I had plans to talk about something else this blog post, so I don't want to stay on this reparations topic too long. For me, I think a legitimate claim can be made for receiving them. At the same time, I don't think the amount that I would consider fair if we're talking direct cash payments, would ever be considered by the federal government. Plus, when you look at the current state of the US economy and the reality that many white people are struggling as well, I really wonder how it would ever be adopted.

Look at how upset some white people get at affirmative action (an idea that may or may not help black people,) and tell me how we get from that, to those same white people being fine with hundreds of millions/billions of dollars actually being spent specifically to help black people.

Ok, let's move on to a less-sensitive topic: Black Power. My white, gay friend (we'll call him Neil,) asked on Facebook what book his friends were currently reading. I didn't answer. I saw Neil a few days later and told him that I didn't answer because I was reading this book:



If you can't see the picture, the book is Blueprint for Black Power by Amos Wilson. It's 900 pages long. I told Neil I didn't want to write that on his post, because I didn't want people to get "the wrong idea." I also asked him what he thought a 900- page book called Blueprint for Gay Power would be about.

I will say that I am on page 650-ish, and the author has not said Kill Whitey once. His main premise seems to be that in order for black people to move up in the world, it all comes down to economics. Black people should put their money in black-owned banks, and shop with black-owned businesses. They should also start their own businesses. He spends little to no time talking about gangs, out of wedlock births, or crime in the inner city. Wilson seems to believe that all of these social ills would be solved if the economics were taken care of and people had well-paying jobs.

He says at the beginning of the book that there have been a number of theories about why white people have been/are racist (cold climate of Northern Europe being one,) but that they can all be summed up by one explanation: because they can be. If black people get economic power, white racism becomes somewhat irrelevant to the whole conversation.

So here are my questions for you, dear readers:

What does Black Power mean to you?

Is a black person preferring to spend money at a black-owned business vs a white-owned business reverse racism ?
What about preferring to live around black people? Or date and marry black people?

I think it's interesting that in a lot of ways we've been supposedly moving towards this ideal of color-blindness, but the inequalities continue to exist along color lines. What are the reasons for that?

Would you be willing to go out of your way to support a black-owned business, in an conscious effort to remedy an injustice? Why or why not? Tell me if you're black or not when you answer this question too, please.

What are the reasons for there being such a focus on charity and welfare (things that do little to nothing to actually improve people's conditions,) and less of a focus on things that can actually help people be more self-reliant?

We've also got the topics of reparations and the new Pope to discuss. Oh, and if you're gay, what a Blueprint for Gay Power might look like.

Before I end, I want to address my statement above about people getting the wrong idea about my current reading selection. I have been writing this blog for a long time, and I know that it can be easier to read about things like me being followed around in stores or how the black model is often on the side, not the center. But topics like black power and reparations are important discussions to be had as well.

People may make judgments or assumptions about me because of my choice of reading material, and they are free to do that. What is most important to me, is that I am honest and true to myself. I think you should be honest and true to yourself too, because that is the only way that we as humans can evolve and grow, whether it is in our personal lives or as a larger human society.

You know I love your comments, so if you have some answers to my questions, or just some thoughts you want to share, lay 'em on me.

Taylor Swift's Revenge: Part I

Here's a Music Monday for you, even though it's Friday. It's Taylor Swift's Mean.

People who are IRL friends with me on Facebook may know that I am not what you might call a fan of Taylor Swift. Well, it's weird. I like many of her songs, but I don't like the that she is such a huge star because while she is a very talented songwriter, she is an average singer at best. So why is she making a living as a singer? I don't get it.

Well that's not true. I do get it--she has a very marketable image, she has some talent, she works hard, and she enjoys being famous--that's why she's making a living as a singer.

Yeah, that's probably mean and maybe I've been sippin' on too much haterade, and whatever else you might like to say. But it is my opinion, and I live in the great country that is the United States where I can say things like that, without fear of the Secret Police coming to get me.

Okay, you can listen to the song now. In case you are not familiar with it, you should know that she wrote this song in response to a critic who wrote a scathing review of her Grammy performance a few years ago.




When I first thought of writing this post, I was only going to focus on the part from 2:54 on. Where she starts to call the guy pathetic and a liar . But I had to listen to the song before I put it up, and realized there is more juicy stuff at the beginning. The very first verse, she talks about how words can be like swords and knives and then she says at 1:39 that the cycle ends right now, 'cause you can't lead me down that road

So...I guess he can't lead her down that road, after she calls him pathetic? But once she does that then she's going to be the bigger person? She's going to be big and important in a city, and he is going to be the loser that no one listens to.

Way to rise above it all, Tay tay.

I say all this not to pick on Taylor, but because this song helps to highlight the tendency we have as humans to lash out at people that hurt us, in an attempt to protect ourselves. Like, when I would get in fights in college with my boyfriend (now husband,) I would try to convince myself that he had all these bad qualities and I was better off without him, yada yada yada. But it never worked, because I knew that I really cared about him and that there was no one else in the whole wide world that I would rather hang out with. So it was really just a not-very-effective defense mechanism.

I said in the title that this post is Part I, because in Part II, I want to bring this all back around to race and inequality. Oh, and if you want to watch another Taylor Swift video that might make you cry (especially if you're a mom,) click here.

Happy Frida. Leave me a comment if you want.

ha ha, that was supposed to say Friday, but sometimes I like to leave my funny typos.

Bye!

Times they are changin'...

It's commerical Thursday! Watch this classic Diet Coke commericial:



That commercial came out 19 years ago. Yeah, you're old.

That guy is still hot too. I think muscular and hairy chest never goes out of style. Amirite, ladies and some gentleman?

Ok, now check out the updated 2013 version:




What is different about the two ads? Well, lots, but remember what this blog is about...

The second one has a black lady! It was only after seeing them back to back that I ever thought about the fact there were no people of color in the first one. In the mid-90's it probably wasn't so strange to have an office scene with all white workers.

But in 2013, it would be highly unusual to have a commercial with five women and one them wouldn't be black. In fact with five people, you'd probably have a black person and maybe even an Asian or Hispanic person. The old commercial had seven or eight women--all white.

Should we call that progress? I'm in a good mood today, so lets go ahead and call it progress.

That's all. Leave me a comment if you want.

Follow up Fridays

Hi all. So, if you're new around these parts, follow-up fridays is where I respond to some of the comments and questions that I have gotten on recent posts. It's a way to keep the conversation going, and sometimes leads to totally new conversations.

Let's start with a comment I got from chunk hatzumomo on this post, How to stop being racist (for reals this time.)

Chunk said:

In point #3, we are asked not to judge ourselves better than people who make more overtly racist comments. Are we not free to judge on the content of character? I obviously look like an A-hole trying to argue that I should be judged better than Johnny, but by lumping us all together in the same category of racist humans, you are removing the carrot that motivates one to stop posting racist comments. I think it would be better to say we can never achieve the elimination of racist ideas, but we can certainly do "better" than to post racist comments.

This comment raises a really good point; a concern that I think a lot of other people besides Chunk share. The popular narrative is that overt racists are bad, and everybody else is good. I think I can understand some of the unwillingness behind starting to lump yourself in with the already established bad people.

I agree with Chunk's last sentence that we should try to do "better" than to post racist comments. The difference is that I think that it should not be about being better than other people, it should be about being better than ourselves. Does that make sense?

Like, I don't see a lot of value in trying to get some feeling of moral superiority because you don't do things that other people do. We all do the things that seem to be the best for us to do at the time.

Another problem with comparing ourselves to others, is that if you look at someone who is doing worse than you, there is little motivation for you to improve yourself. It's like, Well I don't use slurs on twitter, so my not being racist journey is done.

To me, it makes a lot more sense to look at yourself, and ask if your behavior is in line with your own values. Is the no slurs on twitter standard the standard you want to hold yourself to? Or do you want to go further than that? I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer, you're the only one that knows.

But Chunk, even if you can't buy into the argument that you are not better than Johnny--there is still something really important for you to think about.

The way that white privilege works, even if you think you are better than that troglodyte johnny--you both get the same privileges from our society, because you are both white.

Now, you might think you are entitled to those privileges for some reason (because you're nice and smart and work hard or something,) but you can't possibly think that he deserves them, can you? That sounds like a pretty good reason to dismantle white privilege to me.

Ok, moving on to my most recent post, Why school funding will always be unequal.

First, let me say that I really appreciated you all sharing your personal experiences and opinions on that post--I enjoy reading what you have to say, and I know that it is easy to just read a blog post and keep it moving...so thanks for not doing that.

Paula said:

music, art, etc., are still an advantage even if everyone has access to them. That earlier statement that it was no longer an advantage if everyone had it bothered me. Learning is an advantage to the person because it enriches their life, not just if it allows them to be one up on others.

I have to say after reading this, I have to agree. I didn't mean to imply that having a well-rounded life doesn't have inherent advantages, but I can see how what I wrote made it seem that way. Reading a great book or looking at a beautiful piece of art can change someone's life in a positive way, regardless of how many other people have done the same thing.

I was thinking more about it in the way that anonymous started to describe:

Music classes and computer labs can have advantages even if every school has one. The better teachers tend to teach at the better schools. The instruments can be better if they cost more. The computers can be upgraded and have specialized software, etc.

On some level I disagree with the first sentence, because I agree with the sentences that follow.

Let's just talk about the computers. If there is a federal law that says, Every school must have x computers per y numbers of students. Every computer must be in working order, and must have Microsoft Word and Excel.

So now the poor schools get computer labs. I am pretty convinced that in a few years time, we would start to see something like virtual reality labs in the fancy schools.

Because it's not really about yeah we have a computer lab and hey it's no problem if other schools have them too if they can scrape the money together.

It's about being better. It's about being the best.

And if you can be the best now with just a computer lab, then great. But if all of a sudden you have a bunch of other schools in the running that were never competition before, it becomes What do we have to do to stay on top? That's our society, that's capitalism. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just calling it like I see it.

Harvard is a big deal because it is very hard to get in. 1+s (or 1-s, thank you Chunk,) are a big deal because every choir doesn't get them. If you put the word private in front of a word (like park, school, garden, bus, etc.) 9 times out of 10 it is going to be nicer and/or higher quality than the same thing that has the word public in front of it. The exclusivity itself brings something.

Trying to legislate our way to equality is not going to work. Some people don't want things to be equal, because equal means more competition. And if you're not confident you can beat all that new competition, it's better to just keep them out of the game from the jump. Or if that doesn't work, to constantly raise the bar or change the rules so that you're the one that is most likely to make it to the end.

Virtual reality lab experience will become the thing that gives someone an edge in college admissions. Foreign language classes in all high schools? Well, now the people that have been studying them since elementary school are the ones that will get the job. Are you picking up what I'm laying down?

I know some people might say that I am cynical. But I tend to see myself as being honest, and looking around the corner at what is coming ahead. If we really want things to be better (whatever that may mean,) we need to get real about what is going on, and try to find solutions that don't just give us the same problems presented in different packaging.


But enough about what I think--what do you think? Leave me a comment.

Why school funding will always be unequal.

Today, I am going to share three somewhat related anecdotes from my life, a sudden realization that came to me while I was contemplating writing this post, and then give the reason behind the title above.

Anecdote #1)

In Juvenile Delinquency class my senior year of college, I read this book:

If you can't see the picture, it's Savage Inequalities, by Johnathan Kozol. This is one of those great books that makes you look at the world differently after you finish it. I don't remember a lot of the specifics of the book, but I do remember walking out of class one day and thinking,

After I graduate, I want to work on legislation that changes the way that schools are funded.

Anecdote #2)

Fast forward several years later. After becoming an adult,I realized that getting a BA in Sociology and Political Science from a state school doesn't typically put you on the fast track to a job crafting education policy in Washington D.C. ;)

I was talking to my friend (I'll call him Thomas,) who was a high school Science teacher. I say was because like many smart, capable young people who become teachers, he decided a few years in that teaching was not for him. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the reasons why, but I don't want to speak for him. So if you see him, just ask him yourself.

So anwyay, Thomas worked at a school in a district that had a reputation of being a very high-quality one, with schools in it that had a lot of money. However, the school that Thomas worked in had a lot of middle and low-income students, and had little in common with another well-regarded high school in the district. Since by law, both schools got the same amount of funding from the government, I was curious to know why there was a discrepancy in the facilities, resources, etc. of the two schools. His answer? Fundraising.

Anecdote #3)

At some point down the road, I started thinking about my own high school, and how we got a lot of the things that we wanted. The answer? Fundraising.

For example, when I went there, my high school auditorium had these really ugly, florescent orange, plastic seats. There were no seats broken or missing, (because we had an adequate maintenance budget,) they were just ugly.

At some point after I graduated, someone(s) decided that those seats had to go. Now there are these really nice blue velvet seats in the auditorium.

How were they paid for?

Parents and other members of the community pledged money for a seat, in return for having a little plaque on the arm that they could use to recognize someone, like their kids or themselves or a deceased loved one. I don't remember exactly how much the plaques cost, I just know they weren't cheap. And now my fellow Eagles (not my school's real mascot,) get to watch performances in style.

I was also in a singing group at that school, and we got new formal gowns to perform in each year.

I know what you're thinking, Singing and blogging?!? Yes it's true--I am a woman of many talents ;)

How did we pay for these? Parents could just cut a check, or students could sell stuff to cover/defray the cost. I remember one year we were selling holiday cards, and the woman who did my mom's nails bought three boxes. I remember being amazed, because like most school fundraiser stuff, these things were ridiculously overpriced.

It was only looking back that I figured out that she was also probably trying to make a positive impression on a customer, in order to bring more business back to herself.

So each year we would have these snazzy new dresses to wear and the male members would have equally snazzy tuxedos. When we went to concerts and whatnot across the state, it became clear that many other schools (with all-white choirs,) had robes or dresses that were passed down year to year.

On a semi-related note, the choir that I was in was very good. I'm not just saying that, we would win competitions and have people go to all-state and stuff.

There was one competition that we went to where we got a 1+. The lower the number the better, so a 1+ was like, the best you could get. Actually 1+ wasn't even a real score, 1 was the score that was on the form to give to people that were the best.

Okay, anecdote #3 is over.

And this is the part that I've been thinking about recently: how much of our 1+ was due to the fact that we were (to use the parlance of child beauty pageants,) the total package ?

Yes, we were very good singers, but would we have been as pleasing to the judge if we had come in wearing ill-fitting robes? Would we have felt as comfortable and confident if we weren't in clothing we had specifically chosen? Could that have made the difference between the 1 and the 1+?

Which leads me to my final point: the reason that school funding will never be equal is because even if there is Federal legislation that decrees every school in the land will get x amount per student, fundraising will always be there for certain schools to pick up the slack.

Why certain schools? Because in order for fundraising to be effective, you have to have a group of adults willing and able to buy overpriced products. They have to have the disposable income to buy things that they don't need, and the desire to use that income to put towards the extras that are nice for schools to have.

And I don't see anyway that you could eliminate fundraising, because like the Citizens United case has ruled, money is speech. And is it even possible or reasonable to try to infringe on a parent's right to give money to their child's school?

One final thought before I ask y'all some questions: As I have a two-year-old that I have started researching preschools for (a year in advance,) I am struck by something. Parents often talk about wanting their kid to have advantages. But an advantage is not an advantage unless, by definition, some other kid is deprived of that same opportunity. Music classes are not an advantage if everyone takes them. A computer lab doesn't give students an advantage if every school has one.

So when we talk about advantages (that seem ingrained into the very fabric of our school system,) advantages over whom? What is it that we want our kid to get that these other kids aren't? What do we think these early experiences will bring to them later in life?

Oops, I already started with the questions. Here's some more...

Did you go to public or private school? Or maybe you were homeschooled.
What was your school like in terms of facilities, extra-curriculars, resources, etc?
How did students get money for things they needed and/or wanted?
Is there a way to make school funding more fair? If so, how?
Is fairness even a goal that we should be pursuing in education? Why or why not?

Feel free to answer any or all of these questions, or to leave your thoughts about whatever strikes your fancy in the comment section below.