Wednesday, July 16, 2008
This Blog
In reading Watson's post below I think he raises some very important points about our privliage that must be discussed right away. Currently, there are only four members of this blog, who are all white (Half for Watson), wealthy, males. One of the goals of this blog is to put together 100 authors who are economically, socially and racial diverse. That needs to be a cetnral goal of this blog if we are going to get an honest and powerful dialouge started. Some might say that because of the issues we want to discuss and the priviliaged possition of our lives, that the blog will never be able to diverge from the heternormative and ethnocentric roots at which it began. While I try to pride myself on being open minded, I have experienced my life in a certain way that always effects the way I look at any situation or issue. I would love for this to be a running issue in the posts. Who is allowed to speak? Why? What can I speak about as a white male, what can't I speak about? Does the fact that I created this blog only renforce the power structure that currently exists in our society? I will respond more specifically to the Nas issue in a comment, but I thought all the new members should read this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
In regards to comment Fam, I believe that this blog should have no restrictions. It should be a completely open forum where everyone should feel free to share any and all of their thoughts regardless of their social or racial status. I agree that the members should be as ethnically and racially diverse as possible but I think the comments of the people should not be hindered by the lack of diversity they may bring to the table. I also really like the idea of the forum. Good work fam.
I agree with you Arlein. People should absolutely be able to share all of their thoughts. All I meant to say is that I think people should consider their own perspective and background when posting. As Watson brought up with the example of the n-word, depending on ones race, gender and/or class, there are certain ways of speaking about issues that can be seen as insensitive. It would have probably been ignorant for Watson to discuss what the n-word means for the black community because he has no way of really understanding that. Marcus decided to reflect how he thought the white community may respond to the cd, which I thought was very appropriate. What I was really getting at is that ones race, class and gender can drastically effect presumptions about things like equality and justice. For example, your early views on affirmative action (which I think have changed at least a bit since college) were largely a product of your enviornment and being a white male. When were writing on this blog I think it would be great for us to reflect on why we think what we think. Overall, if it sounded like I wanted restrictions, I take that back, but people should think very carefully about what they are talking about and why they have the beliefs they do.
In Murphy's comment to Watson's post, he supports my point. Even though it may seem like he is restricting the use of the n-word, he is doing this for a certain group of people who because of their race and privilege (of course these go hand in hand) perhaps have no business using the word.
I also think there should be a reach for people who have a differing political alignment and a reach for geographical diversity. Right now we have people from the East Coast of the country and the West Coast of the country. It is also everybody that would consider themselves a liberal, a democrat or "progressive".
How are we going to do what Tyler proposes?
Post a Comment