Nearly as disturbing as the basic facts of the Sean Bell trial is the publics seeming insistence on separating the outcome from the issue of racism in America. Because two of the police officers were black, people insist, it could not possibly have been a racially motivated killing.
This thought process is completely backwards and flat out wrong.
Being a minority does not exempt you from believing stereotypes. When racism is as pervasive as it is in our society, it permeates everyone's thinking. The simple reality is that tragedies like the one that happened to Sean Bell to not happen to white people. They just don't. The fact that some of the cops on duty that night happened to be black, does not mean that they did not go into the situation assuming that a young black man at a strip club MUST be a gun-waving criminal. The police had no actual evidence of this, but they believed it anyway, and acted accordingly. It was a racist killing.
These thought structures cannot ever change if they are not recognized and admitted and brought out into the open. As long as we keep insisting that racism ended with the Civil Rights Movement we will always be crippled by racism. It's a pretty simple idea that acknowledgment is the beginning of eradication. So I'll start.
I think the same way as the cops who were acquitted of Sean Bell's murder.
This seems like a strange thing to admit, but it is the truth. In a dark parking lot I would certainly be more afraid to be approached by a young African-American man than an older white man. I'm not sure why this is, if it is media saturation of the stereotype of the black criminal or simply an increased comfort with the familiar, but I guarantee that I would feel this way in the above situation. Recognizing these feelings in myself is a disturbing process. I would like nothing more than to declare my liberal, educated self far above these faults, but I can't. And so, in admitting the presence of these ideas I can also decide to change them. I can now recognize when I am feeling this way and then push myself to use reason, instead of stereotypes, as a guide in tough situations. I'll vow to stop sweeping my own racism under the rug and hope that other people will also begin to do the same.
Something good has to come out of this whole situation.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Living With...and Talking About...War Today
Neil Young says that "the time for music to change the world has passed." He told reporters at the Berlin film festival that "the world is a different place" and that it would be "naive" to think that music could make a difference. This seems like an odd statement from one of the most politically active artists of our time, from someone who has just released and anti-war album and created a documentary of his "Freedom of Speech Tour". In one sense he is right, though. Obviously none of this work has had the sort of singular impact that the song "Tin Soldiers" had nearly four decades ago. Music, nor anything else for that matter, is no longer a rallying cry for the nation, a signal to take to the streets. Young certainly understands the relative impotence of protest songs and outdoor festivals at this time.
Yet, in another sense he's completely full of shit. No one would put this much effort into a campaign that they did not believe would have some effect. Young says his goal was not to change the world but to "stimulate debate". Todays political discourse is no longer happening through protests and marches, but instead through the media. Now "the issues" are being worked out on blogs and news shows and in newspaper columns. In this sense, I disagree with Young. In this media-driven political climate, I think musicians can definitely make a difference and help to bring about change.
My complaint with political discourse in this country is not with the fact that it occurs within the media, but instead, with the general public's consumption of that media. We tend to absorb information like sponges, without filtering opinion from fact or exploring views that may differ from our own. We choose only to pay attention to the television channels, blogs and authors who will continue to affirm our own beliefs. In this sense, there is never any true discussion or debate. We all draw lines in the sand, signifying our party alignment or ideas about choice and marriage, and leave others to either agree or disagree.
Alternative media sources give us a place to break out of this system and begin analyzing information for ourselves. The History Channel website collects text blog and media posts from soldiers in Iraq. The information is more real and factual than anything found on news television; the opinions given are from the men and women who are most qualified to give opinions. People visiting the site are able to take information directly from the ground in Iraq without the filter of mainstream media. Neil Young has provided a similar service on his own website, Living With War Today. The site features poetry and writings from soldiers and an extensive database of user-submitted anti-war songs. Sites like these give us information in vastly different formats than the usual television and news media. We are forced to analyze the information on our own and come to our own conclusion. The sites encourage discussion, both on the internet and in our lives. It is this sort of personal analysis and discussion that can create real change in the political climate.
Yet, in another sense he's completely full of shit. No one would put this much effort into a campaign that they did not believe would have some effect. Young says his goal was not to change the world but to "stimulate debate". Todays political discourse is no longer happening through protests and marches, but instead through the media. Now "the issues" are being worked out on blogs and news shows and in newspaper columns. In this sense, I disagree with Young. In this media-driven political climate, I think musicians can definitely make a difference and help to bring about change.
My complaint with political discourse in this country is not with the fact that it occurs within the media, but instead, with the general public's consumption of that media. We tend to absorb information like sponges, without filtering opinion from fact or exploring views that may differ from our own. We choose only to pay attention to the television channels, blogs and authors who will continue to affirm our own beliefs. In this sense, there is never any true discussion or debate. We all draw lines in the sand, signifying our party alignment or ideas about choice and marriage, and leave others to either agree or disagree.
Alternative media sources give us a place to break out of this system and begin analyzing information for ourselves. The History Channel website collects text blog and media posts from soldiers in Iraq. The information is more real and factual than anything found on news television; the opinions given are from the men and women who are most qualified to give opinions. People visiting the site are able to take information directly from the ground in Iraq without the filter of mainstream media. Neil Young has provided a similar service on his own website, Living With War Today. The site features poetry and writings from soldiers and an extensive database of user-submitted anti-war songs. Sites like these give us information in vastly different formats than the usual television and news media. We are forced to analyze the information on our own and come to our own conclusion. The sites encourage discussion, both on the internet and in our lives. It is this sort of personal analysis and discussion that can create real change in the political climate.
The Terror Dream
Sometimes we come across books that are extremely difficult to read. I know I'll never be able to open my copy of Elie Weisel's Night again, but it was an incredibly important experience for me to have gone through. Susan Faludi's, The Terror Dream is one of those books. Her laundry list of facts and anecdotes about the historical rewrite and flat out censorship that occurred in this country post 9/11 was frustrating, enraging and at times painful, but it is important to know exactly what has happened to this country in the past 6 years.
Faludi's overriding point was that, after 9/11, instead of understanding and processing what had happened, as a country, we focused our energy on building a "national myth" surrounding the event. This was a myth, styled after John Wayne westerns, in which men were the heroes and women were the victims and anyone who refused to fall into traditional roles was chastised or silenced. She describes how female liberals were viciously attacked and how pieces by women, even in liberal media outlets like the New York Times, dropped by appalling percentages. She tells of how the media, when unable to find true stories of male heroism, would simply invent them. The chapter on Jessica Lynch was especially striking. The story told to the public of the girl soldier who faced unimaginable torture at the hands of the enemy before being heroically rescued by men was almost entirely untrue. Even though Private Lynch was little actual danger during her stay in an Iraqi hospital, stories of beatings and even rape were fabricated to make her seem less like a soldier and more like a victimized little girl.
For all of her excellent research, one question Faludi seems unable to answer is WHY this was such an automatic and resolute reaction in this country. It may be an unanswerable question, but why are we so obsessed with gender and puritanical values? Why do we retain this Adam and Eve complex of women being the downfall of society? What has to happen for us to move forward?
The sad realty is that everyone loses when the nation reacts to tragedy in this way. We are unable to prevent future attacks because more time was spent rewriting the reality of the events than was spent interpreting and understanding what happened. We are no safer than we were then, because energy was spent creating a culture of hero worship instead of ensuring that firefighters and police officers have adequate pay and working equipment. Most of all, people's actual voices and experiences were lost among all the censorship and storytelling. These voices were valid and important and have never been able to be shared. As I see it, the best way to combat this sort of cultural phenomenon is through education and expression. Susan Faludi's book may be a place to start.
Faludi's overriding point was that, after 9/11, instead of understanding and processing what had happened, as a country, we focused our energy on building a "national myth" surrounding the event. This was a myth, styled after John Wayne westerns, in which men were the heroes and women were the victims and anyone who refused to fall into traditional roles was chastised or silenced. She describes how female liberals were viciously attacked and how pieces by women, even in liberal media outlets like the New York Times, dropped by appalling percentages. She tells of how the media, when unable to find true stories of male heroism, would simply invent them. The chapter on Jessica Lynch was especially striking. The story told to the public of the girl soldier who faced unimaginable torture at the hands of the enemy before being heroically rescued by men was almost entirely untrue. Even though Private Lynch was little actual danger during her stay in an Iraqi hospital, stories of beatings and even rape were fabricated to make her seem less like a soldier and more like a victimized little girl.
For all of her excellent research, one question Faludi seems unable to answer is WHY this was such an automatic and resolute reaction in this country. It may be an unanswerable question, but why are we so obsessed with gender and puritanical values? Why do we retain this Adam and Eve complex of women being the downfall of society? What has to happen for us to move forward?
The sad realty is that everyone loses when the nation reacts to tragedy in this way. We are unable to prevent future attacks because more time was spent rewriting the reality of the events than was spent interpreting and understanding what happened. We are no safer than we were then, because energy was spent creating a culture of hero worship instead of ensuring that firefighters and police officers have adequate pay and working equipment. Most of all, people's actual voices and experiences were lost among all the censorship and storytelling. These voices were valid and important and have never been able to be shared. As I see it, the best way to combat this sort of cultural phenomenon is through education and expression. Susan Faludi's book may be a place to start.
On Some Symbols
Change doesn’t happen on its own. Without wind or rain, the footprints of astronauts will remain for an eternity on the surface of the moon; without outside force objects at rest will stay at rest. Our lives are subject to the same laws. We always seem to be making “progress”, but only because people apply force, because individuals open their eyes and decide to change. Even more stagnating than those who hate are those who deny that the hate exists.
In recent weeks small nooses have been hung around Columbia University and at other schools around the country. Some journalists and citizens of these communities have described the acts as “practical jokes” or “pranks”. The language is all wrong; these are not pranks. This is not the same as scribbling graffiti or egging someone’s house. After 50 years of “Civil Rights” and “Affirmative Action” and “Slavery Retributions” and whatever other buzzwords members of the left-leaning white middle-class use to convince ourselves that racism no longer exists in our communities, the noose is indicative of something entirely different. No liberal agenda or Ivy League backdrop can change the fact that the symbol of the noose is forever tied to hatred and violence and “strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees”.
I am fascinated by symbols and images. It amazes me that, because of the complexity of human culture and our incredible capacity for abstract thought, a single image can have the same meaning for an entire society. It is this ability that allows us to create art and music and poetry and everything else that makes us entirely human. While the meanings of these images may be fluid over time, they will always have a memory and a history that is carried with each use.
The passage of time and our own silence will never change the meaning of a noose hung from a tree or doorframe. Nazi iconography on Walmart t-shirts or swastikas on handbags are not harmless "accidents". Denying that these are express threats of hate and violence is also denying that something is seriously wrong in our schools, court system and culture. Police action and political change are needed to end the institutionalized racism that DOES still exist, but we can also progress simply by replacing the language and imagery we surround ourselves with.
Yesterday JJ took a square of silk from his pocket and said “I want to show you this beautiful image on this scarf I found”. It was an abstract geometric shape, depicting nothing, having no concrete meaning-but it was beautiful, and as we ran our fingers over the fabric we both felt the same thing.
In recent weeks small nooses have been hung around Columbia University and at other schools around the country. Some journalists and citizens of these communities have described the acts as “practical jokes” or “pranks”. The language is all wrong; these are not pranks. This is not the same as scribbling graffiti or egging someone’s house. After 50 years of “Civil Rights” and “Affirmative Action” and “Slavery Retributions” and whatever other buzzwords members of the left-leaning white middle-class use to convince ourselves that racism no longer exists in our communities, the noose is indicative of something entirely different. No liberal agenda or Ivy League backdrop can change the fact that the symbol of the noose is forever tied to hatred and violence and “strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees”.
I am fascinated by symbols and images. It amazes me that, because of the complexity of human culture and our incredible capacity for abstract thought, a single image can have the same meaning for an entire society. It is this ability that allows us to create art and music and poetry and everything else that makes us entirely human. While the meanings of these images may be fluid over time, they will always have a memory and a history that is carried with each use.
The passage of time and our own silence will never change the meaning of a noose hung from a tree or doorframe. Nazi iconography on Walmart t-shirts or swastikas on handbags are not harmless "accidents". Denying that these are express threats of hate and violence is also denying that something is seriously wrong in our schools, court system and culture. Police action and political change are needed to end the institutionalized racism that DOES still exist, but we can also progress simply by replacing the language and imagery we surround ourselves with.
Yesterday JJ took a square of silk from his pocket and said “I want to show you this beautiful image on this scarf I found”. It was an abstract geometric shape, depicting nothing, having no concrete meaning-but it was beautiful, and as we ran our fingers over the fabric we both felt the same thing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)