Iowa teacher's aide fired for calling 'Huckleberry Finn' racist
I feel sorry for the woman in question, actually - she sounds a lot like Kevin Vaughn, someone ill-prepared for the pressure of being a visible minority in a place that is generally unaccustomed to them. I could also be making huge assumptions, that's absolutely possible.
Article courtesy of Fark.com; written by Clark Kaufmann of the Des Moines Daily Register.
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
16 July 2012
Oh, Tourists. Yes, That Includes You.
Oh, tourists. Was walking around the Old Town today, and I came across a couple of large groups of British tourists. I'm rather happy that, due to the huge proliferation of British tourists in Europe during the last decade (thanks, RyanAir!), most people here and elsewhere have forgotten that Americans used to hold a monopoly on the "loud, obnoxious drunkards" crown. Makes going around Europe a bit easier for me. Of course, we're still the Imperialist Pigs With No Culture, but being from NYC somewhat cancels that out - except in Toronto, naturally. Envy and jealousy makes 'em meaner.
I saw the first group while at the Subway on ul. Bracka. They were talking really loudly about how difficult it was to be tourists in Krakow, and Scottish tourists in particular - here are some gems:
"The girls never paid attention to us!" Gee, I wonder why?
"That fuckin' Polish guy, he didn't know the difference between Scottish and British" You know, I could actually see that as a compliment. Though I imagine Manchester would punch me for saying that.
"And that French guy, he just dropped off the hash [we paid for] and didn't want to smoke with us, how fuckin' rude of him! Only because we're from Scotland" I had (and still have) no response to that, except to laugh hysterically. Thankfully, they didn't notice the tears running from my eyes while I tried to hold it in.
All the while two guys in their group are taking pictures constantly, especially of the ice machine, which had the trademark 'Scotsman'. Seriously, they took 5 pictures of it.
This was quite amusing to listen to, but seeing these packs of British men reminded me of conversations I had with Malgosia K. and others on the subject of tourist behavior. Specifically, why travel and eat and the same damn place you could eat at while at home?! It used to be McDonalds (and it still is), now it's Subway. I never understood that - if you're going to take the time and money to travel somewhere, why not eat the local food? Or at least try eating something that you can't get as often at home? Or just try something different? It's not like you're living there - if you live in a place, I completely understand eating at places which remind you of home. But after just a weekend away? No sense whatsoever, talk about a waste.
I saw the first group while at the Subway on ul. Bracka. They were talking really loudly about how difficult it was to be tourists in Krakow, and Scottish tourists in particular - here are some gems:
"The girls never paid attention to us!" Gee, I wonder why?
"That fuckin' Polish guy, he didn't know the difference between Scottish and British" You know, I could actually see that as a compliment. Though I imagine Manchester would punch me for saying that.
"And that French guy, he just dropped off the hash [we paid for] and didn't want to smoke with us, how fuckin' rude of him! Only because we're from Scotland" I had (and still have) no response to that, except to laugh hysterically. Thankfully, they didn't notice the tears running from my eyes while I tried to hold it in.
All the while two guys in their group are taking pictures constantly, especially of the ice machine, which had the trademark 'Scotsman'. Seriously, they took 5 pictures of it.
This was quite amusing to listen to, but seeing these packs of British men reminded me of conversations I had with Malgosia K. and others on the subject of tourist behavior. Specifically, why travel and eat and the same damn place you could eat at while at home?! It used to be McDonalds (and it still is), now it's Subway. I never understood that - if you're going to take the time and money to travel somewhere, why not eat the local food? Or at least try eating something that you can't get as often at home? Or just try something different? It's not like you're living there - if you live in a place, I completely understand eating at places which remind you of home. But after just a weekend away? No sense whatsoever, talk about a waste.
The other group I came across was at ul. Gołębia
3; as opposed to the first group, which was probably Scottish teenagers, this group was almost exclusively English professionals, and they were complaining that Poland didn't have more beers like their favorite bitters from back home. Another major point of contention for me - why go to another country if you're going to expect the same stuff that you got at home?! As Henio was saying yesterday, it's like going abroad and complaining that the toilet paper doesn't have as many different colors as your home version. That man explains these things far better than I ever will.
The Difficulties of Making Friends
Why Is it Hard to Make Friends Over 30
While a lot of this article was clearly not meant for me, nevertheless I found it illuminating, as well as enjoyable. Much of the article revolve around marriage and children - two aspects of life which don't apply to me, naturally, but given that many of my friends are either married or in relationships akin to marriage, it did help to explain some of their behavior. Specifically, the concept of having to find friends "as couples" - probably showing off some of my own ignorance, but that part made no sense to me. Why can't you find (or make) friends on your own? That said, given how often I move around, the article appealed to me personally in many ways, though I did have a number of criticisms.
What the article said about careers being all-consuming was fascinating to me, especially since I have met so many people over the years who fall into that category; I certainly don't. I suppose because of my own approach to my career, I have found it difficult to relate to people who cannot make friends due to their own careers. Ditto on people who have "set" social groups - why eschew making new friends just because you seem like you have enough? In any case, it was good to see a different perspective, and to try to understand that aspect a bit more.
The part that really appealed to me was simply the challenge of making new friends when everyone around you already seems like they're set for friends. This was the experience I had in Toronto when I first moved there, and to say that I didn't like it would be an understatement. It was a similar experience for me in college also; it was difficult to make new friends (outside of the Polish Club) after the first year because everyone had their friends already made. My first year in college was a catastrophe in many ways, and I was keen to move on from it. Since I was walking around with not nearly as many friends, however, I stood out, or at least felt that I did. I also haven't held on to most of the friends I made in college; sure, I'm in contact with many of them, but they were definitely what the article called "situational friendships". Going away for a year from Toronto also revealed some of my close friends as instead being somewhat situational, but after Rochester I expected that.
This brings me to a major criticism I had of the article; it does not dwell nearly enough on how people make it hard for themselves to make new friends. In my experience, making friendships is a conscious choice, and what the article does is create excuse after excuse. Only once does it address the issue of people changing as they get older, and becoming less patient with people who are very different. For me, that is the key barrier to friendship - people are often lazy when it comes to making friends, or simply unwilling. That is the key problem in Toronto, and NYC also - people become so set in their ways that they are unwilling to change. Their lifestyles, whether unconsciously or by design, become so crowded that they cannot fit anyone new in. That sort of static lifestyle is dangerous, in my opinion - we need to be able to change. You never know when the life you've carefully crafted for yourself will come crashing down. The article addresses that, but only through divorce, and even then doesn't offer many alternatives.
My friends and friendships are really important to me, and from the article, it sounds like marriage makes it truly difficult to make new friends. I wonder if all marriages are so hostile to making new friends as the ones described in the article - if so, count me out! To be fair, I don't think marriage as a concept is to blame for this - I think how people approach their marriage and how it should impact their social life is the culprit. For me, a successful marriage is between two people with (close to) independent social spheres, in addition to the one they share together.
The article is courtesy of Rabbi Tyson's facebook feed. It was originally written by Alex Williams and published in the New York Times.
While a lot of this article was clearly not meant for me, nevertheless I found it illuminating, as well as enjoyable. Much of the article revolve around marriage and children - two aspects of life which don't apply to me, naturally, but given that many of my friends are either married or in relationships akin to marriage, it did help to explain some of their behavior. Specifically, the concept of having to find friends "as couples" - probably showing off some of my own ignorance, but that part made no sense to me. Why can't you find (or make) friends on your own? That said, given how often I move around, the article appealed to me personally in many ways, though I did have a number of criticisms.
What the article said about careers being all-consuming was fascinating to me, especially since I have met so many people over the years who fall into that category; I certainly don't. I suppose because of my own approach to my career, I have found it difficult to relate to people who cannot make friends due to their own careers. Ditto on people who have "set" social groups - why eschew making new friends just because you seem like you have enough? In any case, it was good to see a different perspective, and to try to understand that aspect a bit more.
The part that really appealed to me was simply the challenge of making new friends when everyone around you already seems like they're set for friends. This was the experience I had in Toronto when I first moved there, and to say that I didn't like it would be an understatement. It was a similar experience for me in college also; it was difficult to make new friends (outside of the Polish Club) after the first year because everyone had their friends already made. My first year in college was a catastrophe in many ways, and I was keen to move on from it. Since I was walking around with not nearly as many friends, however, I stood out, or at least felt that I did. I also haven't held on to most of the friends I made in college; sure, I'm in contact with many of them, but they were definitely what the article called "situational friendships". Going away for a year from Toronto also revealed some of my close friends as instead being somewhat situational, but after Rochester I expected that.
This brings me to a major criticism I had of the article; it does not dwell nearly enough on how people make it hard for themselves to make new friends. In my experience, making friendships is a conscious choice, and what the article does is create excuse after excuse. Only once does it address the issue of people changing as they get older, and becoming less patient with people who are very different. For me, that is the key barrier to friendship - people are often lazy when it comes to making friends, or simply unwilling. That is the key problem in Toronto, and NYC also - people become so set in their ways that they are unwilling to change. Their lifestyles, whether unconsciously or by design, become so crowded that they cannot fit anyone new in. That sort of static lifestyle is dangerous, in my opinion - we need to be able to change. You never know when the life you've carefully crafted for yourself will come crashing down. The article addresses that, but only through divorce, and even then doesn't offer many alternatives.
My friends and friendships are really important to me, and from the article, it sounds like marriage makes it truly difficult to make new friends. I wonder if all marriages are so hostile to making new friends as the ones described in the article - if so, count me out! To be fair, I don't think marriage as a concept is to blame for this - I think how people approach their marriage and how it should impact their social life is the culprit. For me, a successful marriage is between two people with (close to) independent social spheres, in addition to the one they share together.
The article is courtesy of Rabbi Tyson's facebook feed. It was originally written by Alex Williams and published in the New York Times.
13 July 2012
On Being Offended
Jim Norton On Offending People, Apologizing To Steve Martin & Why He Likes Westboro Baptist Church
I hate the culture of being offended that is developing in the States, and exists full-blown in Canada. It's stifling our discussions and our creativity. Which is why I love quotes like this:
"Here’s what being offended is, it’s a phony sense of empowerment. People have lost this ability to go, “Wow, I didn’t like that, that bothered me. I won’t watch that again.” People have lost the ability to just not like something and walk away. People now feel that if they object to something, nobody else should enjoy it either. It’s because we’ve seen enough people say they’re sorry, we’ve seen enough people fired where people now feel that, “if I’m offended, I voice my offense, people have to listen to me.”
It’s a really weird self-centered attention-seeking device people use. So I never buy the offense. … I think 90% of it is a lie. People say, “I don’t like stereotypes.” Bullshit. You don’t like negative stereotypes. People don’t mind positive stereotypes. People don’t mind positive assumptions. It’s only negative assumptions about them. So their outrage is so arbitrary. And I’m embarrassed for us as a free society that we actually want people punished for saying things we don’t like. The liberals are bad and the conservatives are bad. The liberals say things like “Well, that’s homophobic, that’s racist.” And the conservatives say things like, “You’re attacking our religion. You’re attacking family values.” Both sides are equally fraudulent when it comes to supporting unpopular speech. It’s easy to support popular speech. We’re supposed to stick up for things that do bother people. The rest of us are supposed to rally around and defend people’s rights to say what they want to say. That’s why I like the Westboro Baptist Church. I think they’re repulsive people. I think their message is repulsive. But I think they are good for society because it shows exactly what we will tolerate in a free-thinking society. Even pigs like that, and they are pigs."
Walking Away is a concept which is rapidly disappearing, as is supporting free speech in all its forms, even when you don't like it; especially when you don't like it. Hence why Canada and the UK don't have free speech, and the US is losing it, if it hasn't lost it already.
Article courtesy of Fark.com; Interview was between Jim Norton and Carol Hartsell, and published by the Huffington Post.
I hate the culture of being offended that is developing in the States, and exists full-blown in Canada. It's stifling our discussions and our creativity. Which is why I love quotes like this:
"Here’s what being offended is, it’s a phony sense of empowerment. People have lost this ability to go, “Wow, I didn’t like that, that bothered me. I won’t watch that again.” People have lost the ability to just not like something and walk away. People now feel that if they object to something, nobody else should enjoy it either. It’s because we’ve seen enough people say they’re sorry, we’ve seen enough people fired where people now feel that, “if I’m offended, I voice my offense, people have to listen to me.”
It’s a really weird self-centered attention-seeking device people use. So I never buy the offense. … I think 90% of it is a lie. People say, “I don’t like stereotypes.” Bullshit. You don’t like negative stereotypes. People don’t mind positive stereotypes. People don’t mind positive assumptions. It’s only negative assumptions about them. So their outrage is so arbitrary. And I’m embarrassed for us as a free society that we actually want people punished for saying things we don’t like. The liberals are bad and the conservatives are bad. The liberals say things like “Well, that’s homophobic, that’s racist.” And the conservatives say things like, “You’re attacking our religion. You’re attacking family values.” Both sides are equally fraudulent when it comes to supporting unpopular speech. It’s easy to support popular speech. We’re supposed to stick up for things that do bother people. The rest of us are supposed to rally around and defend people’s rights to say what they want to say. That’s why I like the Westboro Baptist Church. I think they’re repulsive people. I think their message is repulsive. But I think they are good for society because it shows exactly what we will tolerate in a free-thinking society. Even pigs like that, and they are pigs."
Walking Away is a concept which is rapidly disappearing, as is supporting free speech in all its forms, even when you don't like it; especially when you don't like it. Hence why Canada and the UK don't have free speech, and the US is losing it, if it hasn't lost it already.
Article courtesy of Fark.com; Interview was between Jim Norton and Carol Hartsell, and published by the Huffington Post.
Can Hybrid Identities Work in Israel?
Service to Israel Tugs at Identity of Arab Citizens
The concept of a hybrid identity is a great idea, in my mind; why shouldn't we create new identities to simultaneously fit into the greater society while preserving our sense of self? One of the main reasons why I like living in the US or Canada; two countries where this is most possible. I've been curious regarding the possibility of similar hybrid identities existing in Israel; given that it is first and foremost a Jewish state, how do Arab Israelis exist there, except as second-class citizens?
While visiting Israel last month, and reading this NYT article today, I remember a great paper presented on the concept of hybridity and hybrid identities in Israel at the Hybridity Conference I helped organize 2 years ago, entitled "A State Without Identity: How and Why Israel Represses the Emergence of an Israeli identity". The paper's author, Dubi Kanengisser, a Ph.D. Candidate over at Political Science, gave a compelling thesis about why the Israeli government will never allow the genesis of an "Israeli" identity which exists in a hybrid state - even though doing so would be truly advantageous for the state of Israel. Mr. Kanengisser used the public service and military service programs as examples of means by which Israel could integrate Arab Israelis, but at the price of making these programs more acceptable to these citizens by dropping a lot of the references to a Jewish state.
The question regards a problem of identity, for both many Israeli Jews and the Israeli state; do they want a Jewish state, or do they want a modern state designed to protect Jews? I don't think these two concepts are incompatible, but it certainly is now, as the culture has been designed by the state thus far. "Israeli Culture" is very much a Jewish culture, with Judaism an inexorable part of that identity; it is similar, in many ways to how American culture was strongly identified with Protestant (and White) Christianity before WWII. While that aspect is still a part of American culture (Christmas trees are a great example), its significance has much less meaning today as American culture continues to become secularized and allowed for hybrid identities. I think Israel would be a much safer and longer-lasting haven for Jews if the state was allowed to truly modernize and secularize in a similar fashion - but doing so would mean downplaying the significance of Judaism, and allowing for a culture war similar to the one happening in the U.S. now.
Given the siege mentality of Israel, I don't see this happening anytime soon; cultural problems like this will be shunted aside quite easily in the name of military expediency. It is much easier to maintain cultural cohesion for the majority by appealing to the idea of resisting a war against a Jewish state. Integrating Arab Israelis could conceivably damage this notion quite severely, and I think it should; I strongly approved of the comparison made in the article between Blacks serving in the American military contributing to the Civil Rights movement, and Arab Israelis serving in the Israeli military. I think Arab Israelis are going to have to fight for their desire to have a hybrid identity, and prove it, through military service.
If the Israeli government allows for that service at all, of course.
Article written by Jodi Rudoren and published in the New York Times.
The concept of a hybrid identity is a great idea, in my mind; why shouldn't we create new identities to simultaneously fit into the greater society while preserving our sense of self? One of the main reasons why I like living in the US or Canada; two countries where this is most possible. I've been curious regarding the possibility of similar hybrid identities existing in Israel; given that it is first and foremost a Jewish state, how do Arab Israelis exist there, except as second-class citizens?
While visiting Israel last month, and reading this NYT article today, I remember a great paper presented on the concept of hybridity and hybrid identities in Israel at the Hybridity Conference I helped organize 2 years ago, entitled "A State Without Identity: How and Why Israel Represses the Emergence of an Israeli identity". The paper's author, Dubi Kanengisser, a Ph.D. Candidate over at Political Science, gave a compelling thesis about why the Israeli government will never allow the genesis of an "Israeli" identity which exists in a hybrid state - even though doing so would be truly advantageous for the state of Israel. Mr. Kanengisser used the public service and military service programs as examples of means by which Israel could integrate Arab Israelis, but at the price of making these programs more acceptable to these citizens by dropping a lot of the references to a Jewish state.
The question regards a problem of identity, for both many Israeli Jews and the Israeli state; do they want a Jewish state, or do they want a modern state designed to protect Jews? I don't think these two concepts are incompatible, but it certainly is now, as the culture has been designed by the state thus far. "Israeli Culture" is very much a Jewish culture, with Judaism an inexorable part of that identity; it is similar, in many ways to how American culture was strongly identified with Protestant (and White) Christianity before WWII. While that aspect is still a part of American culture (Christmas trees are a great example), its significance has much less meaning today as American culture continues to become secularized and allowed for hybrid identities. I think Israel would be a much safer and longer-lasting haven for Jews if the state was allowed to truly modernize and secularize in a similar fashion - but doing so would mean downplaying the significance of Judaism, and allowing for a culture war similar to the one happening in the U.S. now.
Given the siege mentality of Israel, I don't see this happening anytime soon; cultural problems like this will be shunted aside quite easily in the name of military expediency. It is much easier to maintain cultural cohesion for the majority by appealing to the idea of resisting a war against a Jewish state. Integrating Arab Israelis could conceivably damage this notion quite severely, and I think it should; I strongly approved of the comparison made in the article between Blacks serving in the American military contributing to the Civil Rights movement, and Arab Israelis serving in the Israeli military. I think Arab Israelis are going to have to fight for their desire to have a hybrid identity, and prove it, through military service.
If the Israeli government allows for that service at all, of course.
Article written by Jodi Rudoren and published in the New York Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)