2016-11-13

Nada's glasses

As many of you know, I'm a fairly conventional-looking white guy with southern accent that comes and goes, and over which I have very little control. I travel a lot, and I think perhaps that has something to do with my accent just changing however it wants, but at any rate I seem to have lost control of it about 15 years ago.

If you're like me, by not standing out a whole lot, and meeting a lot of new people on the road, this country’s bigotry is no surprise. People share views if they think you may agree with them. My voice, as it turns out, works like Nada’s sunglasses. I see bigots (especially racists) very quickly, because they tend to announce themselves. It's insulting to pretty much everyone I know that it's often assumed I'm a racist as soon as people learn where I grew up. That was shocking to me when I was younger. Now, it only makes me angry.

As a result of all this, I've learned that bigotry is sort of a default white position to expect in all regions of the country unless you hear otherwise, and that people are sadly comfortable sharing it with strangers. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve gotten bolder about speaking against that attitude. I know that my friends of color experience more micro-aggressions than I can even fathom, but I have wondered, before this week and this election, if they understood how casually racist most of us white people actually are.

Nada puts on the glasses (They Live, John Carpenter 1988)


I understand that people voted for Trump for their own varied reasons, and that he had gay and female voters, as well as brown and black voters among his supporters. But for people who find equality and non-discrimination remotely important, it's hard to understand how anyone could click that box for him, unless they either hate other groups, or simply don't think about their existence at all. In other words, unless they’re bigots. To hear his (and Pence's) comments about anyone other than straight white nominally-Christian males and still support their ticket requires a certain level of acceptance of those comments. Supporting him requires acceptance of his blatant racism. And that's heartbreaking to many people, including me.

Bigotry seldom wears a white hood. More often, it justifies a black boy’s death at the hands of the police, it tells gay teens that their suicide is preferable to their acceptance, it crosses the street when a black man is on the sidewalk, it fears Muslim neighbors, it compares poor communities to animals, it finds humor in jokes that humiliate and demean others, it ignores the feelings of friends and coworkers to honor a divisive flag, or it simply overlooks the terror being visited upon other people.

If that’s you, then own it. Don’t be defensive, but know yourself. Make note of your own bigotry when you feel it.

Perhaps then you can examine why you have it. We white Americans all have to do this. We have to constantly be on guard to understand when we might be too accepting of things we’ve often heard before, when we might be hurting our friends and neighbors, and how we can better ourselves. If you don’t want to work to improve yourself and the lives of others around you, then don’t pretend you’re not bigoted. If you can justify your racism, or your homophobia, your misogyny or your xenophobia, don’t use your logic to then turn around and pretend that it doesn’t exist. Instead, admit, at least to yourself if no one else, that you have it.

Just don’t share it with me. I’ve heard enough of it for too long, and I’m long past tired of being lumped in with you.

2014-06-29

planning out the speed force

So this year my daughter wanted a costume for DragonCon as well as my son, and after much thought we've all decided to go together as different members of the Flash family. Nora will be Impulse Irey West, Joe will be Kid Flash Wally West, and I'll go as the original old man Flash Jay Garrick (mainly because he doesn't wear tights, and I think I can actually make his costume look good without feeling ridiculous, which is likely, or becoming a bodybuilder in the next few months, which is unlikely).

Planning this out for the three of us is more fun that I ever imagined it would be. It takes a lot of thought to make these from scratch, so it's a summer-long project that we can all work on together here and there. I am having a blast with it. I never thought I'd dress up with them, but doing three similar costumes at once is making it even better, and this way we can join the parade if they want to.

That's Joe's Kid Flash at position #3, Nora's Impulse at #6,
and my original Flash on the far right at #7.
Yeah, we're not interested in those two guys in the middle right now.

One of the great things about comics characters is that there are so many variations of them that you can sort of pick and choose which parts of the costumes that you like. Nora wants hers to look pretty much just like the photo above, but Joe and I have been thinking more about the practical. I'm also trying to stay under about $150 total, which means we have to shop around a good bit.

2014-02-15

What are we really expected to learn from this?

I've been re-learning some history lately, and picking up some new things as well, from my son’s 4th grade homework and studies. Most of it is general information about the Indian tribes that once lived in Georgia, but I’m also taking another look at what he is (and I was) taught.

On around Columbus Day, when he was learning about the explorer, I taught him about the ruthless and murderous villain that Columbus was as well. The villain story is much more interesting and violent, so he shared it with his class. The only surprise for me about this was that no one seemed to believe him, and even his teacher said she wasn't familiar with that story.

In retrospect, it shouldn't have surprised me at all, because history lessons aren't designed for two important things that I've come to expect. They aren't intended to be interesting, or to be accurate.

I don’t mean that many teachers don’t work very hard at making history interesting and accurate. They do, but they do it on their own. As taught, that is not the point of the classes.

History classes are intended to give you the same basic information that a moderately educated person is expected to have. The point is to give a reference, or starting point, for a broader discussion. By its nature, that approach is shallow and boring, because it never takes you into the motivations of historical figures.

This may already be obvious to everyone else, but it’s a small revelation to me. We weren’t expected to learn anything to apply to life, but to simply be conversant in what others are also expected to know.

So we all learned that “Columbus sailed the ocean blue,” but must seek out at a later time that he and his men viciously murdered thousands of people. We learn about friendly Squanto meeting Pilgrims, but not the kidnapping, fascinating world travels and difficult journey home he had before that. Essentially, we are meant to learn about who existed and when, but not their motivations or the context of their actions, because that isn't a part of today’s common knowledge.

--

This isn’t much different from mainstream news, and I think our primary education sets us up to be uncritical consumers, and to expect (and even seek) the same sort of information as adults.

 I’ve always wondered why evening newscasts show almost exactly the same stories, only even varying the order on occasion if they have special insight or reporting. This ends up meaning that people choose channels based on which news anchor they like to watch, because substance has no bearing if it is mostly the same. Even CNN and other “news channels” bring us the same stories over and over that we will find elsewhere.

In a way, it’s a bandwagon that the outlets all must jump aboard. It has become a little dangerous for media companies to get out in front of everyone else with new stories and independent research, or producers and editors will risk resources having to defend their reporters against public outrage. Excellence is risky, so competence is the goal. This is similar to a school curriculum in a way, where new research or fascinating stories would likely be met with anger and skepticism by parents. In this light, great reporters are much like great teachers, going out of their way to tell important and critical stories within the system they occupy, but unable to get very much past their management.

When FOX News came along they brought something slightly different. They focus on different stories and narratives, ones that are important to Roger Ailes. But instead of staying off to the side, their new model changed the stories that viewers are “expected” to know. If network outlets ignore the FOX reports, then their viewers may not be aware on a basic level of the same stories as FOX watchers. As a result, FOX’s entry shifted the entire mainstream media to the right.

To be fair, FOX didn't do this alone. An entire nationwide network of radio hosts and columnists focus on these same items at the same time. Some appear to be fabricated out of whole cloth, and so they are reported in mainstream outlets as “some-say” stories without research or debunking. This keeps us all informed that a story is being reported, but tells us nothing about the truth of it. It also isn't particularly interesting when presented without the outrage. So viewers go back to the interesting channel, FOX.
As with primary school history lessons, part of the reason for this is time, but it also serves the same purpose as the history lessons. It is boring and inaccurate, but it provides what a moderately informed person is expected to know.

CNN, whether learning from FOX or not, now has personalities like Nancy Grace focusing on the legal problems of specific individuals for months at a time. As a result, we see her personal obsessions, as irrelevant as they are to most of the nation, seeping into other network news on the same nights, just as the FOX obsessions do.

--

What doesn't seem to be happening is any sort of deeper story making its way into the nightly news or national discussion, but not only because it simply isn't possible.

Because knowledge is not the purpose. The purpose is to provide us with just barely enough information to keep from looking clueless during conversations.

If the country's primary news sources (and my kids' history classes) share something different or deviate from outdated narratives, that model falls apart.