Month: November 2013

Race constructed in the society

ImageImage

 

In a book I was reading I found these tow pictures above, both of them represent the imagine of Chinese in Western people’s mind. The picture on the left comes from the Jesuit publication Confucius Sinarum Philosophus (Paris, 1687). This picture, where Confucius depicted as a scholar-sage, was widely reproduced in Europe and epitomized the 17th and 18th century positive view of the Chinese. The picture on the right, “The Miracle Teapot”, is a Russian depiction of the Chinese around 1901. “Six soldiers in the teapot appear to represent the primary nations that contributed troops to the international force sent in 1900 to lift the Boxer siege of the foreign legations in Beijing”. (Mungello, 13) Obviously, this picture on the right show how negative the Western view of the Chinese had become in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The article of López, The Social Construction of Race, reminded me of these pictures. As he argues in the essay, “Race must be understood as a sui generis social phenomenon in which contested systems of meaning serve as the connections between physical features, faces and personal characteristics. In other words, social meanings connect our faces to our souls. Race is neither an essence nor an illusion, but rather an ongoing, contradictory, self-reinforcing, plastic process subject to the macro forces of social and political struggle and the micro effects of daily decisions.” (966) Back to those two pictures, why is the differences of western views of the Chinese? The Chinese still have the same hair, the same eyes, the same language, but opinions changed from the positive to the negative. All the same, during China’s early history, geographical separation had fostered the Sinocentrism. At that time the ancient Chinese regarded the country as the center of the world and the non-Chinese world referred to three zones and one of these three zones, was Waiyi, an outer zone that consisted of “outer barbarians”, which included Southeast Asia, South Asia and Europe. The world pattern is changing with the time, these judgments about races go with the world pattern. Biological racial differences possibly make no sense without the social context and its relationship to the others.  Again, as López says, “races are categories of difference which exist only in society: they are produced by myriad conflicting social forces; they overlap and inform other social categories; they are fluid rather than static and fixed; and they make sense only in relationship to other racial categories, having no meaning or independent existence.” (971)

 

Language and Identity

Gloria Anzaldua’s “Borderlands/La Frontera” really made me think of the inseparable bond between language and identity. Perhaps this is not surprising as it is one of the main topics of the excerpt – and it is even reflected at the linguistic level of the text itself; English is interspersed with Spanish and concrete examples flood the pages (“The first time I heard two women, a Puerto Rican and a Cuban, say the word ‘nosotras,’ I was shocked. I had not known the word existed. Chicanas use ‘nosotros’ whether we’re male or female. We are robbed of our female being by the masculine plural” 1023).

I really think that Anzaldua’s argument about language as a foundational tenet of identity is spot-on; and her discussion of the colonial past in North and Latin America immediately made me think of Orwell’s famous point that if one really wants to oppress a people, then you oppress their language. There are many examples of this in history, in all parts of the world – although obviously no two situations are the same and cannot be compared at face value, but some of the ones that immediately come to my mind is the censure of euskera under the Franco dictatorship in Spain, (1939 to 1965) the banning (and subsequent corporal punishment if it was spoken) of First Nations languages in the Canadian Residential System, the prohibition of speaking the Welsh language in schools in Wales, etc. To this end, the portion of Anzaldua’s text that most stands out to me as I’m thinking about the intrinsic connection between language and identity is the following:

Chicanos did not know we were a people until 1965 when Ceasar Chavez and the farmworkers united and I Am Joaquin was published and la Raza Unida party was formed in Texas. With that recognition, we became a distinct people. Something happened to the Chicano soul – we became aware of our reality and acquired a name and a language (Chicano Spanish) that reflected that reality. (1029)

I find this section of the essay to be very important because it nicely sums up the connection between a lot of the cultural elements that Anzaldua discusses at other points in her essay, namely literature and music and the way that language is such an integral part of identity; following Anzaldua’s writing in this section, it can be inferred that once this consciousness of the distinct Chicano identity developed, what was crucial in cementing it was to acquire a name and a language that reflected the reality of the people (and the concept of a name is, of course, inherently dependent on the concept of language, underscoring the significance of language once again).

Maybe I still have last week on my mind, but as I was reading this article, I kept thinking back to one of the best movies that I have seen recently on the question of Latino identities in the United States; in this case the movie touches on the specific issues of immigration. Rather than give the plotline away, I instead leave you with the trailer and highly recommend that you watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaLSBdL-zCY

Language and Identity

Gloria Anzaldua’s “Borderlands/La Frontera” really made me think of the inseparable bond between language and identity. Perhaps this is not surprising as it is one of the main topics of the excerpt – and it is even reflected at the linguistic level of the text itself; English is interspersed with Spanish and concrete examples flood the pages (“The first time I heard two women, a Puerto Rican and a Cuban, say the word ‘nosotras,’ I was shocked. I had not known the word existed. Chicanas use ‘nosotros’ whether we’re male or female. We are robbed of our female being by the masculine plural” 1023).

I really think that Anzaldua’s argument about language as a foundational tenet of identity is spot-on; and her discussion of the colonial past in North and Latin America immediately made me think of Orwell’s famous point that if one really wants to oppress a people, then you oppress their language. There are many examples of this in history, in all parts of the world – although obviously no two situations are the same and cannot be compared at face value, but some of the ones that immediately come to my mind is the censure of euskera under the Franco dictatorship in Spain, (1939 to 1965) the banning (and subsequent corporal punishment if it was spoken) of First Nations languages in the Canadian Residential System, the prohibition of speaking the Welsh language in schools in Wales, etc. To this end, the portion of Anzaldua’s text that most stands out to me as I’m thinking about the intrinsic connection between language and identity is the following:

Chicanos did not know we were a people until 1965 when Ceasar Chavez and the farmworkers united and I Am Joaquin was published and la Raza Unida party was formed in Texas. With that recognition, we became a distinct people. Something happened to the Chicano soul – we became aware of our reality and acquired a name and a language (Chicano Spanish) that reflected that reality. (1029)

I find this section of the essay to be very important because it nicely sums up the connection between a lot of the cultural elements that Anzaldua discusses at other points in her essay, namely literature and music and the way that language is such an integral part of identity; following Anzaldua’s writing in this section, it can be inferred that once this consciousness of the distinct Chicano identity developed, what was crucial in cementing it was to acquire a name and a language that reflected the reality of the people (and the concept of a name is, of course, inherently dependent on the concept of language, underscoring the significance of language once again).

Maybe I still have last week on my mind, but as I was reading this article, I kept thinking back to one of the best movies that I have seen recently on the question of Latino identities in the United States; in this case the movie touches on the specific issues of immigration. Rather than give the plotline away, I instead leave you with the trailer and highly recommend that you watch it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaLSBdL-zCY

La Frontera


Being form Texas, I found Arizaldva’s text very interesting. Although I may not be Mexican, I did find some similarities in what she was saying to what I have experienced myself growing up within a Hispanic household in the big ole state of Texas.

There definitely were some cultural norms in my household which my parents learned form their parents and so forth. I wouldn’t go as far to say that culture was made by men like she does. Maybe at first, when men were seen as the dominant, things were set in place but that has changed. In my home, my mother cooks because she enjoys it. If she didn’t my dad would which he does from time to time. In addition, the chores in our home are split up, not one of them bear the bigger load. And, both of them work. Of course, I have seen the instance where this is not so. Whenever I visit my relatives in Puerto Rico. It is usually the woman who cooks, cleans, makes the house neat and tidy, and works. So, women tend to have the heavier load. Perhaps it is a cultural thing and that my parents became “americanized” to so say…I’m not sure.

In How to Tame a Wild Tongue section, I do agree that there are many people, even now, in the states that try to get rid of their accents. I remember in high school speaking to a friend whose parents were Hispanic but who refused to teach her Spanish because they thought an accent would be picked up and lessen her chances of success. When she told me this, I was in shock. I had never heard of this before. I am grateful I was raised in a Spanish speaking household, and I encouraged my parents to speak to my in Spanish and I in turn spoke to them in Spanish. It did not affect my accent in any way. In fact, having learned Spanish opened doors for me allowing me to pick up French. Although some people may feel that this is a burden, I believe we are advancing and the importance of language is becoming more and more apparent. Of course, not only language but culture.


A lot of the Spanish quotes she used were actually sayings I grew up with and still hear around the house. And I am very proud to be Puerto Rican and identify myself in that way. When people ask me where I am from, I tell them “I am from Texas and my parents are Puerto Rican” or I tell them “I am Puerto Rican”. For me both are the same and the only times I actually use the latter is when I know people are asking me where I am from because they know on some level that I am Hispanic. How would they know? From the way I speak Spanish, from the way I look, the color of my skin….but then again what is color? Eeeek.

La Frontera


Being form Texas, I found Arizaldva’s text very interesting. Although I may not be Mexican, I did find some similarities in what she was saying to what I have experienced myself growing up within a Hispanic household in the big ole state of Texas.

There definitely were some cultural norms in my household which my parents learned form their parents and so forth. I wouldn’t go as far to say that culture was made by men like she does. Maybe at first, when men were seen as the dominant, things were set in place but that has changed. In my home, my mother cooks because she enjoys it. If she didn’t my dad would which he does from time to time. In addition, the chores in our home are split up, not one of them bear the bigger load. And, both of them work. Of course, I have seen the instance where this is not so. Whenever I visit my relatives in Puerto Rico. It is usually the woman who cooks, cleans, makes the house neat and tidy, and works. So, women tend to have the heavier load. Perhaps it is a cultural thing and that my parents became “americanized” to so say…I’m not sure.

In How to Tame a Wild Tongue section, I do agree that there are many people, even now, in the states that try to get rid of their accents. I remember in high school speaking to a friend whose parents were Hispanic but who refused to teach her Spanish because they thought an accent would be picked up and lessen her chances of success. When she told me this, I was in shock. I had never heard of this before. I am grateful I was raised in a Spanish speaking household, and I encouraged my parents to speak to my in Spanish and I in turn spoke to them in Spanish. It did not affect my accent in any way. In fact, having learned Spanish opened doors for me allowing me to pick up French. Although some people may feel that this is a burden, I believe we are advancing and the importance of language is becoming more and more apparent. Of course, not only language but culture.


A lot of the Spanish quotes she used were actually sayings I grew up with and still hear around the house. And I am very proud to be Puerto Rican and identify myself in that way. When people ask me where I am from, I tell them “I am from Texas and my parents are Puerto Rican” or I tell them “I am Puerto Rican”. For me both are the same and the only times I actually use the latter is when I know people are asking me where I am from because they know on some level that I am Hispanic. How would they know? From the way I speak Spanish, from the way I look, the color of my skin….but then again what is color? Eeeek.
Categories
Fanon Fishkin

Books as one of the Ideological apparatus in constructing Race

In most of this week’s reading I found a strong connection with literature and its various genres. In Frantz Fanon’s article “The Negro and Psychopathology” he mentions how an image is constructed by a child in Africa about ‘Negroes’ and he in school identifies himself/herself with the ‘explorer’ or with the ‘white’. Therefore, we see that the construction of the image starts from the childhood in school with readings; it develops and strengthens till the child grows. Fanon states “…..there is a constellation of postulates, a series of proposition that slowly and subtly – with the help of books, newspapers, schools and their texts, advertisements, films, radio – work their way into one’s mind and shape one’s view of the world of the group to which one belongs.”   In other words they are the ‘Ideological State apparatus’ as stated by Louis Althusser which constructs images, desires, wishes etc in our mind.

In Shelley Fisher Fishkin’s reading ‘Interrogating “whiteness”’ the above argument can very well be observed. There is a discussion on American literature in America as ‘white’ and an African – American literature as ‘black’ where the American literature or the ‘white’ literature is taught by white persons and Afro – American literature by persons of color. One can see not only the authors probably but even teachers are segregated by the color of the skin and I wonder whether students are also segregated. For instance white student will choose to study American literature and a non white student will choose Afro –American literature. However, we see in this article the important role of one of the ‘Ideological State Apparatus’ i.e. books or literature. Fishkin mentions how Dana Nelson examines ‘the ways in which seventeenth – , eighteenth – and early nineteenth – century white writers constructed versions of their own identity (and of American identity) by defining themselves as unlike various racial and ethnic “others”’.  Hence, Fanon says that the root of this problem is books – the magazines, adventures of Mickey Mouse, Tarzan stories – which the Antillean child reads are written by white men for white kids so the devil or the demon is always associated either with ‘Negroes’ or ‘Indians’ which distances the African kid from her/his culture and brings her/him closer to the ‘white’ culture which is after all an illusion especially when he grows up and develops a contact with Europe. The only solution to this problem as suggested by Fanon is creation of books and magazines for the African kids and until then this problem would exist.

It is also very interesting to note that in India people are obsessed with the skin color as white. The color white is also associated with beauty. There are various creams for both men and women to become fairer and it is further interesting to see that these companies are growing faster in the market which can be understood with the demand of these products in the country. Both men and women want to get married to a white skin person. While reading these articles I was wondering whether the connection with the white skin is actually deriving from the same root as the authors in this week’s reading are arguing about.

[ ]?

The excerpt from Fishkin’s book, Interrogating Whiteness was the text that really interested me this week, along with Toni Morrison’s. They actually respond to one another. In Fishkin’s text, I particularly appreciated the analysis of Segregation in Literature based on North’s quote. Isn’t it true that what we were taught at school in Literature in North America and Europe were mainly books written by white writers? (I don”t know about South America though) The situation is similar in France: the North African Francophone Literature is part of French Literature, in the sense that colonization is part of our national history, and shapes the face of immigration. The literary production of this history is part of our common culture. Ats chool now, amany kids will come from a North African background. Nevertheless, we barely study writers such as Tahar Ben Jelloun, Assia Djebar…and they barely appear in French Literary syllabus. It’s up to the teacher to be more innovative than or to go around the French Ministry of National Education guidelines.

The general question of the construction of the Classics can be asked: how does it happen? who decides of what are Classics? how does it shape our common culture? how does it reflect racism or segregation in our daily and scholar life? and how do the other works and authors are heard in the slits of Literary education and through their silence itself? I believe silence is a strong tool of the social construction of “whiteness”.

And to ask again a question asked by Jon at the beginning of the term: Is there an ethic when we read literature? and when we teach it? in  what way the selection amongst what we call “literature” has an impact on these ethics ? 

Categories
Anzaldua Haney López

A sad history of racism

In the text “The Social Construction of Race”, by Ian F. Haney López, I think there are some important statements that deconstruct the social (or hegemonic, in terms of Gramsci, we might say) common ideas about “race”. For instance, he says: “[T]he confounding problem of race is that few people seem to know what race is” (966). Of course, these few people aren’t owners of a truth. He also says this important statement: “Race is neither an essence nor an illusion, but rather an ongoing, contradictory, self-reinforcing, plastic process subject to the macro forces of social an political struggle and the micro effects of daily decisions” (966). Finally, in the section “Biological Race”, he puts over the table the most convincing argument against the believe of the existence of races: “Rather, the notion that humankind can be divided along White, Black, and Yellow lines reveals the social rather than the scientific origin of race” (967).

I’ve lived in a country (Perú) for 25 years where these ideas are very far for being part of the social and political discourse. The roots of racism in Perú could be traced since pre-Hispanic times. The last Empire before the arrive of the Spaniards, the Quechuas (miscalled Inkas; the Inka was the Emperor, only him has that title; the society were the Quechuas) subjected other cultures to theirs, forcing them to move from their territories, to change their language, religion, etc. Then, the Spaniards came and did the same and worst. They made a distinction from them and the “Indians”. But then, emerged the “criollos” (the descendants of Spaniards borned in Perú); the “mestizos” (descendants of Spaniards and “Indians”); etc, etc. In the XVIII century the mixture provoked, that the viceroy of that time, Manuel de Amat y Juniet (famous for his romance with the popular actress called the “Perricholi”) entrusted a “scientific” work to determine the “races” in Perú.

Unfortunately, in Perú the “racial” (and “classist”) discourse is still present. “Whites” (most of them in Lima) against “mestizos” (contemptuously called “cholos”) and “indios” (from the Andes and the Amazonia) and vice versa; “whites against “blacks” or “mulatos” and vice versa; “blacks and “mulatos” against “mestizos” and “indios” and vice versa; etc. That is why some people say that in Perú there is no nation, but a mixture of nations in constant conflict. A terrible example of this is the “rule” that some “exclusive” discos have in Lima: “Se reserva el derecho de admisión” [“The right of admission is reserved”]. It means, only “white” people could enter. If one is not white, then have to pay a huge amount of money or simply received a stupid excuse such as that there is a private party or something like that. Many of these cases have been denounced and the owners of the discos still doing the same (they pay the fine and they continue). Some comments are made, but in a few days everything continues to be the same.

The text of Gloria Anzaldua (I like it very much), also reminds me another type of discrimination in Perú: the linguistic. People who come from the Andes to the coast and whose native language is the Quechua or other than Spanish, are discriminated: “they don’t speak well, they are ignorant”. But also among native Spanish speakers exists discrimination. Some people, for instance, say “dijistes” (you said) instead of “dijiste”, which is the rule. Then, when someone says that word, is consider also an ignorant for not speak in an “adequate” Spanish.

So, with all these I want to emphasize that even it is already known that races a social construction, societies (or some of them) still practice racism. Why? Maybe because we still have some prehistoric elements or simply because we feel a terrible fear of the other.

Just to finish with an irony of a connoted Political Scientist in Perú: “I am privileged in this country [Perú]: I am white in a racist society; I am of the middle-class in a classist society; I am heterosexual in a homophobic society”.

Here a recent and very interesting documental about racism in Perú with English subtitles:

Negotiating with identities and race

When reading Lopez’ Social construction on race, I couldn’t resist thinking about Canada and multiculturalism. In my early years as an immigrant, I read Uzma Shakir’s essay, Demystifying transnationalism: Canadian immigration policy and the promise of nation building, and combined with my personal experience,  the whole positive and romantic image of Canada as a friendly, “neutral” society was permanently damaged.

Shakir revisited the history of Canadian immigration policy to argue that, agreeing with Lopez in many ways, marginalization and racialization are perpetuated through immigration policy and entrenched in Canadian society. The author proceeds to explain the early attempts to encourage immigration of Western European farmers (whites) to Canada as nation builders through the Sifton Plan while ensuring cheap labor and halting any attempts to settle down from non-white immigrants (i.e. Head tax). Even when the point system was introduced in 1966, social barriers still marginalize non-white groups from structures of power. This might be shifting a bit nowadays when the inclusion of one or two people of colour in high-ranked positions, but it’s definitely not a trend.

Credit: Mei-Po Kwan

Some of the questions that I usually ask to myself is that if we have to wait until the second generation can “get rid of the accent” (echoing Anzaldua) for them to get a job that matches his skills and education. But even studies from SFU show that labour racialization still persists for second and third-generation immigrants. Is total immersion a reality? I guess the immigrant will always have the advantage, for some, and burden, for others of that race plasticity that I called “identity negotiation”: you negotiate your identity according to your interest and the situation, as Anzaldua exemplifies with her own experience. In the labour market, competing forces of white and non-white might force us to always prove we can do the job and perform as any other white with the risk of being over qualified (we have to demonstrate we can speak English, follow the rules, etc.), but when the situation changes to our disadvantage, we can pretend not to be so qualified (I usually pretend not to speak English when a stranger talks to me on the bus or when I jump the queue).  Here I am a Latino; in South America, I’m a Colombian; in Colombia, I’m a person from the Caribbean, and so on.

I agree with Lopez on the majority of his arguments and the social formation and competing forces in this society. However, the fact that he, and other authors, tried to oppose only two groups (whites and non-whites) might be seem reductionist. The way I see it is not that all immigrants are united against or around whites or Caucasians, because we oppose to each other as well. We play with stereotypes as well: whenever there is a car accident, I have heard comments from people from other ethnicities, such as “For sure there was a Chinese behind the wheel”, or if there is a party with loud music, “it must be a Latino”.

Negotiating with identities and race

When reading Lopez’ Social construction on race, I couldn’t resist thinking about Canada and multiculturalism. In my early years as an immigrant, I read Uzma Shakir’s essay, Demystifying transnationalism: Canadian immigration policy and the promise of nation building, and combined with my personal experience,  the whole positive and romantic image of Canada as a friendly, “neutral” society was permanently damaged.

Shakir revisited the history of Canadian immigration policy to argue that, agreeing with Lopez in many ways, marginalization and racialization are perpetuated through immigration policy and entrenched in Canadian society. The author proceeds to explain the early attempts to encourage immigration of Western European farmers (whites) to Canada as nation builders through the Sifton Plan while ensuring cheap labor and halting any attempts to settle down from non-white immigrants (i.e. Head tax). Even when the point system was introduced in 1966, social barriers still marginalize non-white groups from structures of power. This might be shifting a bit nowadays when the inclusion of one or two people of colour in high-ranked positions, but it’s definitely not a trend.

Credit: Mei-Po Kwan

Some of the questions that I usually ask to myself is that if we have to wait until the second generation can “get rid of the accent” (echoing Anzaldua) for them to get a job that matches his skills and education. But even studies from SFU show that labour racialization still persists for second and third-generation immigrants. Is total immersion a reality? I guess the immigrant will always have the advantage, for some, and burden, for others of that race plasticity that I called “identity negotiation”: you negotiate your identity according to your interest and the situation, as Anzaldua exemplifies with her own experience. In the labour market, competing forces of white and non-white might force us to always prove we can do the job and perform as any other white with the risk of being over qualified (we have to demonstrate we can speak English, follow the rules, etc.), but when the situation changes to our disadvantage, we can pretend not to be so qualified (I usually pretend not to speak English when a stranger talks to me on the bus or when I jump the queue).  Here I am a Latino; in South America, I’m a Colombian; in Colombia, I’m a person from the Caribbean, and so on.

I agree with Lopez on the majority of his arguments and the social formation and competing forces in this society. However, the fact that he, and other authors, tried to oppose only two groups (whites and non-whites) might be seem reductionist. The way I see it is not that all immigrants are united against or around whites or Caucasians, because we oppose to each other as well. We play with stereotypes as well: whenever there is a car accident, I have heard comments from people from other ethnicities, such as “For sure there was a Chinese behind the wheel”, or if there is a party with loud music, “it must be a Latino”.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet