What Good Is Anger?

Students, especially privileged white students, get angry or personally offended (thus becoming defensive) when race and/or racism is discussed. This anger, as demonstrated in Prof. Dukes CLST 201 class in my freshman year, can cause students to reject statements of white privilege and ideas that challenge their views and their beliefs. Here, we see an emotion that can cause an irrational "lockdown" in which students become so angry that they refuse to accept outside ideas while also sheltering their ideas and beliefs thus restrengthening and insulating ignorance. On the other hand, anger also has the potential to create an internal discussion within the angered individual in which they are more open about outside ideas. My assumption here is that anger can be unconsciously used as a way to rethink and challenge childhood upbringings. (Reminder: There are degrees of anger and other factors to consider so all this is very general.) Imagine a white student who has just been told that they are a racist. Instinctively this student will become upset since he/she has been identified in a negative light that contradicts what he/she has been taught all his/her life. This student becomes so angry that it consumes his/her daily life. The more anger that is produced could a stream of questions like, "Why was I called a racist?", "I'm not a racist, because...", "Did I do anything wrong?", or "What is a racist?". Regardless of whether these are statements that will actually cross the angered individual's mind, I believe anger can be a source for reconsideration and a source from which people take a step back to think rationally.

So the question that arises is whether or not anger can be utilized to allow someone to understand opposing perspectives on race in America. In other words, if I intentionally create a film that largely produces anger, will the audience be more likely to accept opposing ideologies.

Elitist Writing & Frustrated Reading - A Brief Rant

I've always found big words and the idea of expanding one's vocabulary to its highest level fascinating. I would often find synonyms in Microsoft Word to replace "simple/easy" words with terms that were twice as long and sounded intelligent. Over the years, my lexicon became quite expansive, I was able to indulge in conversations and readings on a scholarly level, and I was able to condense a few sentences into a few words. I especially remember grinning ear to ear when my Dad could no longer read any of the material I would write in college essays (This also probably had something to do with the foreign nature of the topic). However, once I got further into my major I began to become more and more frustrated by unexplained terms in anthropology literature. Works by Stuart Hall, Michel Foucault, Paul Stoller, and countless others forced me to reread passages over and over again without gaining much ground. Many of my colleagues felt the same way and resorted to simply listening to the professor's explanation of the text.

I understand anthropology and any other respective discipline has specific terminology that one simply can not and should not have to simply every time. For example, words like 'cultural capital' or 'deterritorialization' must be learned by young scholars as they encompass specific notions, activities, histories, contexts, and so forth. These words, however, become problematic when the reader is not aware of their meanings, how and when they are to be used, and especially if they are used in conjunction with other challenging words.

Steps need to be taken to explore ways in reducing elitist writing methods performed by scholars (who may either be conscious or unconscious of this habit). Hopefully I didn't contradict myself by using any terms that are beyond my audience...

This guy knows what I'm talking about - http://www.nerdtoenglish.com/2009/08/big-words/

Baltimore & I

This is a divergence from my usual method of posting anthropological-related material. After diving more into cultural studies and applied anthropology within the past weeks, I realized I needed to change the orientation of this site. It is impossible for me to maintain the objective authorship I initially set out to do. My goal was to post chiefly academic critiques of scholarly work and analyze media sources that I found interesting and influential in the anthropology or cultural studies field. Now, my involvement in the Racial Dynamics Project (which STILL desperately needs a new name); my interest in joining LBS to practice fieldwork and cultural studies methodology; and my emotionally charged beliefs as a black teen have stopped me from calling this an objective blog. I do not expect to write rants, but as I begin posting material about inequality, racism, hegemony, White supremacy, and several other cultural studies keywords, there is no doubt that they will be full with emotion and biased influences.

I wanted to specifically write a post regarding my recent feelings towards Baltimore City which experiences almost every problem that applied anthropology and cultural studies attempts to correct. Recently, the professor in my "Ethnographic Field Methods" class addressed the students about whether or not the ethnographer has an obligation to fix societal problems that is apparent in her or his own work (at the basic level). I answered yes. While there is merit in cataloging information and publishing data about the correlation between juvenile crimes and deteriorating school systems, for example, this work largely remains in academia. The same disconnect that occurs between wealthy, greedy CEOs and bottom-level employees is similar to the disparity between academia and "street life," or "the real world." However, a CEO who has the ability to relate to the "little people" of the company will enact policies that will provide more benefits and a better work environment, thus creating a better company. The same goes for applied anthropology and cultural studies methods that aim to obligatorily address and correct for the many defects in society. Maybe (most likely) it is my experience as a black teenager who has experienced these social inequalities that makes me predisposed to make such a claim. My question to the cultural studies or anthropology student is that, "If you have the ability to challenge and correct racist, sexist, xenophobic, and other hegemonic factors of society, why wouldn't you?"

Until a few months ago, I was completely ignorant and unwilling to learn about the other side of Baltimore. This is the side that has been systematically ignored by great landmarks, big business, and gentrification. This is the side of blue lights, loads of black people, boarded up homes, homeless men and women, and vandalism. The side that upper class folk will never venture to. The side that looks like a zoo of chaos to the suburban college student. I traveled through these parts of Baltimore on a regular basis (my Dad owns and manages a small piece of property), I made assumptions, created and reinforced stereotypes, and presented a particular amount of arrogance as we rode through in a Lexus ES 300. I saw a down-to-earth connection with these people because I was black (my skin color would somehow allow me to understand the black, urban poor); the property that we managed was far from extraordinary (an excuse not to accept my somewhat elite status and lifestyle); and my mother was raised in similar, unfortunate conditions (the relationship between my mother and I, in congruence with her experiences, allowed me access into this imaginary space). At the same time, I would make jokes about the "blue light district", the crime rate, crazy homeless people, and other problems that weren't frequent in places I grew up. I didn't take Baltimore's urban problems seriously until getting deeply involved with my Racial Dynamics Project. Long story short: at this time I was also taking an African-American literature class and let's just say several other factors in my life came together at the right time to guide my focus into wanting to fix societal problems in Baltimore. First, I had to realize that although several features could allow me to "pass" as a black kid who grew up in the city, my economic and social identity is a large barrier in truly relating to these people. Additionally, the goal is not to create a way (in the current hegemonic paradigm) to relate to these people, but to understand the social inequalities that prevented me from being able to relate to them. Once these are understood then they need to be deconstructed and abolished. Utopian work? No, it's a deeply embedded White supremacist structure that will take immense effort to tear down.

'Making Scary Kids' & 'Stupid Policy Tricks' in "The Culture of Fear"

In pages sixty-eight to seventy-four of The Culture of Fear, Glassner sheds light on how the media has altered society’s perspective on childhood violence. Highly covered media stories in the 1980’s and 90’s become markers in American history that suggest the beginning of these so-called epidemics. Thus linking ideas that rising and gruesome violence committed by preteens and teenagers has led to a new age of degeneracy and lawlessness. After these markers, the public becomes oversaturated with a redundant amount violence that is happening everywhere (even in the suburbs)! When one looks at 1950 advertisements and solicitations of the suburban lifestyle with the cliché “white-picket fence,” there is an absence of crime. It appears to be a safe-haven from booming, industrial cities where one can safely raise a family of two and a dog. There is still evidence of this suburban dream as reporters summarize the recent event. Glassner quotes the New York Times description of the area as, “a quiet neighborhood of neatly tended bungalows” (1999:69). Another paraphrased description states, “journalists stress that violent kids live not just in the South Bronx or South Central L.A. but in safe-seeming suburbs and small towns” (1999:68). From the perspective of an American who has freedoms and rights, one will most likely feel that his or her life and property is in immediate or possible danger. However, as Glassner states, if one closely analyzes the way the media tells (or chooses to tell) these stories, that particular American would realize there fears are dramatically exaggerated.

The constant and vivid retelling of teenagers and their crimes, the dedication of reporting on the anniversary of these crimes, and the so-called evidence that shows increases in violence are all methods of deception. Glassner notes two elements of journalism that are always present when referring to crimes and children. This being, “vivid depictions of the young criminals and their crimes, and numbers showing dramatic increases on some dimension or other” (1999:70). This can be seen in photographs, surveillance tapes, 911 dispatches, courtroom sketches, screenshots of MySpace pages, photocopied letters, and an entire slew of material that will intensify the audience’s experience and the magnitude of the crime. This bombardment of images and sounds, one might argue, is sensationalistic nonetheless, but still tells the story in a truthful manner (depending on the story). It becomes largely problematic when deceiving percentages of increases of crime are attached to sensationalist stories. Thus, leading to excessive fear mongering and an inaccurate response by local authorities, parents, teachers, and children themselves. Glassner identifies this as society’s unacknowledged guilt and inability to face the reality of societal and individual problems. For example, instead of funding programs and creating pathways for educating youth in Baltimore, officials have plans to build a $100 million (roughly) juvenile center for the city’s deviants. Not only does this overlook deeper problems, it doesn’t take into account that prison (or any anti-rehabilitative model) fosters crime rather than purging it. Additionally, going back to the actions of the media, it is important to look at what the media does not cover. At the time that correspondents were reporting on the anniversary of the teens who were shot while trick-or-treating, the city had a successful outdoor carnival without violence and violence in Pasadena had dropped 20 percent. However, that won’t get the New York Times higher ratings...

"Nigger" as a social condition

This video touches on a bit of what I speak about as far as "nigger" being a word that can be changed and transformed as people see fit. This particular scene doesn't focus on "nigger" as condition (although Adam does talk about that too).

The idea of nigger-as-condition never really occurred to me until I read a paper by Emily Yeh entitled, "Hip-hop gangsta or most deserving of victims? Transnational migrant identities and the paradox of Tibetan racialization in the USA." In this paper she speaks about the racialization, a way of designating generalized characteristics and attributing these behaviors to another ethnic group or race, of Tibetan-Americans. When young Tibetans embrace aspects/subcultures of black culture, they become (often negatively) associated with low class black Americans who listen to and create "gangsta rap." The appeal of gangsta rap comes from transnationalistic feelings of Chinese oppression and displacement from the Tibetan homeland. Although many black Americans would most likely disagree with Tibetan-Americans using the n-word, one should acknowledge the similar relationship of feelings of historical oppression and inequalities. This explains why "nigger" and all of its variations are used by a wide array of people from different backgrounds, but who share the same social status. This is also seen among Middle Easterns who may be called, or refer themselves as, "sand niggers". Also when speaking on social constraints, it is understandable why John Lennon referred to women as niggers of the world since they were oppressed by patriarchal systems of domination. Even racialized Tibetan-Americans may call each other "tiggas." In recognizing the word "nigger" as a condition, one can begin to see how "nigger" is perceived by other minority cultures and how they have dubbed this word into something they can relate to through lived experience. For the sake of addressing those who wish to argue that "nigger" is not just an explanation of a social conditon, I will say the following. "Nigger" has many other meanings and forms of expression, for example, the n-word can be used as an insult, it can be spoken in ignorance without knowing the implications, and a may be utilized without the attachment of low-class statuses (upper-class blacks saying "nigger"). However, I wish to concentrate on the idea that "nigger" relates to condition.

Gil Scott Heron & the Flobots

When I first starting writing about the relationship between these two pieces I didn't think I would be posting it on the blog. However, I saw ideas of anthropological theory, globalization, and themes relevant to culture studies that prompted me to post my analysis. Expect more analyses on culture and literature!

“The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal/ The revolution will not get rid of the nubs/ The revolution will not make you look five pounds thinner/ The revolution will not be televised, brother/…The revolution will be LIVE.”

“There is a war going on for your mind/ Media mavens mount surgical strikes from trapper keeper collages and online magazine racks/ CoverGirl cutouts throw up pop-up ads infecting victims with silicone shrapnel/ Worldwide passenger pigeons deploy paratroopers/ Now it's raining pornography, lovers take shelter/…We are the insurgents.”

The latter quote is the intro song to the Flobots’ debut album “Fight With Tools,” a highly charged political album that confronts issues of government power and the “nightmarish side of globalization” (Appadurai 2006). I present this song in analyzing Gil Scott Heron’s poem since the song resonates with a modern-day audience in relationship to themes of revolution in the 1970’s. The bombardment of media montages is viewed as an oversaturation of popular culture that is corrupting the minds of individuals. In Heron’s poem, he provides an overemphasis of this collage of popular images. In doing so, the reader becomes conscious of the mass production and advertisement of American culture that so many Americans ingest in everyday life. One might be motivated to believe that this is actually a revolution against “white culture” when Heron speaks about police brutality, soap operas, and Rare Earth. However, he also mentions several popular representations of African-American images like Julia, Willie Mae, and Watts. The revolution is not a revolution for the black man or woman—it is a revolution to regain consciousness from media montages. This revolution, however, is designed to systematically overthrow and undermine images of popular culture, thus reclaiming power over one’s own mind. The relationship between the two pieces is reinforced by the last phrase in each piece. In Heron’s poem, the phrase, “The revolution will be LIVE,” indicates the rejection of televised images and the reality of live actions that will take the media by storm. In an identical manner, the Flobots fight against this attack on the mind by proclaiming to be the insurgents. Insurgency and revolution go hand in hand in this context of destruction of media influence and the rebirth of psychological self-efficacy and individuality.