HEY all,
I have a few comments about some of our discussions on the issues of racial discrimination (racial hierchy being null and void) and in general how I see our groups desire to progress in terms of mutual understanding... I have attached a New York Times article about Obama and how Blacks in France percieve the Democratic nominee (sounds really similar to Raffi's project idea, my bad). Here is an extra link just so you guys get it. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/arts/17abroad.html?ex=1214366400&en=06a933c27dde18e4&ei=5070&emc=eta1
“…findings that the percentage of blacks in France who hold university degrees is 55, compared with 37 percent for the general population. But the number of blacks who get stuck in the working class is 45 percent, compared with 34 percent for the national average.” (New York Times article from today, the website is attached)
I don’t think I’m entirely convinced about France’s ability to be a colorblind state (which points to a fundamental flaw in the republican system… the ‘other’) and my biggest questions is, what is really at stake here? I have found this question to be one that I am struggling with the most over the past week, and I don’t know if I have got an answer yet. We have talked to certain speakers, read certain articles and even witnessed the certain ignorance to the issues of black disadvantage. I realize that much of this issue is related to the ‘problem’ or question of immigration, and I also realize that the question of race has a history much different than that of the US… but to what extent did this difference allow France to not recognize the obvious differences. With this in mind, where does history of racial oppression, whether it is connected to the problems of colonization or religious intolerance, enter into the contemporary discussion of the minority (if there is such a thing as racial a minority in France... lets be real with ourselves... there is)? I realize this involves much more discussion than a quick blog, but my point in writing this is not to prove either case, but merely to comment on our inability to discuss this issue in terms of either, the undeniable discrimination of a minority or the creation of an imagined minority issue.
I believe the lack of racial language is one reason for the fact that racial difference can not be explored, and therefore can not be addressed in any way to alleviate these experiences of the minority here. This in turn hinders the ability to gain any collective consciousness to the issue of racial minorities or any other minority for that fact. I find it evident that there are double standards that exist and label certian people (how those young men in the video from the first day talked was related to what they looked like), and these double standards are the avenues for discrimination.
There is a history of slavery in France, yet there seems to be a lack of consideration for the affect of such history or a consensus on its aftermath. No widespread notion, at least which is supported by the majority, of the existence of racial lines (dim or gray they may be). I find this to be unjust in that the majority seems to maintain an apathetic response, which in turn is minimizing the experience, and even sometimes the statistics, of a minority in France.
I have a few comments about some of our discussions on the issues of racial discrimination (racial hierchy being null and void) and in general how I see our groups desire to progress in terms of mutual understanding... I have attached a New York Times article about Obama and how Blacks in France percieve the Democratic nominee (sounds really similar to Raffi's project idea, my bad). Here is an extra link just so you guys get it. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/arts/17abroad.html?ex=1214366400&en=06a933c27dde18e4&ei=5070&emc=eta1
“…findings that the percentage of blacks in France who hold university degrees is 55, compared with 37 percent for the general population. But the number of blacks who get stuck in the working class is 45 percent, compared with 34 percent for the national average.” (New York Times article from today, the website is attached)
I don’t think I’m entirely convinced about France’s ability to be a colorblind state (which points to a fundamental flaw in the republican system… the ‘other’) and my biggest questions is, what is really at stake here? I have found this question to be one that I am struggling with the most over the past week, and I don’t know if I have got an answer yet. We have talked to certain speakers, read certain articles and even witnessed the certain ignorance to the issues of black disadvantage. I realize that much of this issue is related to the ‘problem’ or question of immigration, and I also realize that the question of race has a history much different than that of the US… but to what extent did this difference allow France to not recognize the obvious differences. With this in mind, where does history of racial oppression, whether it is connected to the problems of colonization or religious intolerance, enter into the contemporary discussion of the minority (if there is such a thing as racial a minority in France... lets be real with ourselves... there is)? I realize this involves much more discussion than a quick blog, but my point in writing this is not to prove either case, but merely to comment on our inability to discuss this issue in terms of either, the undeniable discrimination of a minority or the creation of an imagined minority issue.
I believe the lack of racial language is one reason for the fact that racial difference can not be explored, and therefore can not be addressed in any way to alleviate these experiences of the minority here. This in turn hinders the ability to gain any collective consciousness to the issue of racial minorities or any other minority for that fact. I find it evident that there are double standards that exist and label certian people (how those young men in the video from the first day talked was related to what they looked like), and these double standards are the avenues for discrimination.
There is a history of slavery in France, yet there seems to be a lack of consideration for the affect of such history or a consensus on its aftermath. No widespread notion, at least which is supported by the majority, of the existence of racial lines (dim or gray they may be). I find this to be unjust in that the majority seems to maintain an apathetic response, which in turn is minimizing the experience, and even sometimes the statistics, of a minority in France.
Back to the basic question, what is at stake?
From my American experience, I realize to some extent what is at stake when it comes to this question, and the affect is not exactly an ability to look with great pride to a red white and blue flag (with stars of course). Though racial intolerance plays a much larger role in US history, the neglect of a certain narrative or experience here can allow nostalgia to set in (actively existing nostalgia). Can any one answer this question of what is at stake with France pronouncing that it has some racial divison? Is the answer to the question in fact, that you are not so free, or equality is not so equal, when you born into a certain 'sub'-culture, or a certain side of what is perceived to be an indivisible society, that doesn’t allot you the same opportunities as other people born that same hour to families that define the illusionary terms such as ‘native’ (societal)? Is this the issue at stake?... The hurtful obligation to words that were written in ink more than a hundred years ago... a sense of self identity. The inability to label discrimination points to what is currently happening in the arguments concerning America’s race relations. Re-segregation of schools. School re-segregation (turning back the results of school integration in the 60’s) is defended by arguments that with the ability for parents to choose which school their children are placed in, it creates a marketplace of competition which spurs schools to innovate and improve in order to get and retain students and it allows students more choices for types of schools. These arguments are the typical American capitalist excuses for inequality (my opinion), but also define how the real issue at sake is ignored... diversity and equality. The ability to ignore the other importance of what is at stake is what I'd like to take out of this reference. The US has developed the ability of such neglect (not that the US hasn't always fostered it), but I’d be a lie to say that we are all a little self-interested, myself included.
This brings up the second issue that I wanted to address. I know that I am not the only person that notices how our group has fostered this trend of only questioning the presenters and the topics that us as individuals are interested in. I myself have failed to address certian aspects of the program which may not seem as relevant to my own understanding. However, I do hope that we can fight our tendency to do this in the future, and really find a way to apply all of these experiences to our own. Maybe a tad bit idealistic, but shoot for the moon and your amoungst those stars.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up." poem by Martin Niemöller.
Singing off,
From my American experience, I realize to some extent what is at stake when it comes to this question, and the affect is not exactly an ability to look with great pride to a red white and blue flag (with stars of course). Though racial intolerance plays a much larger role in US history, the neglect of a certain narrative or experience here can allow nostalgia to set in (actively existing nostalgia). Can any one answer this question of what is at stake with France pronouncing that it has some racial divison? Is the answer to the question in fact, that you are not so free, or equality is not so equal, when you born into a certain 'sub'-culture, or a certain side of what is perceived to be an indivisible society, that doesn’t allot you the same opportunities as other people born that same hour to families that define the illusionary terms such as ‘native’ (societal)? Is this the issue at stake?... The hurtful obligation to words that were written in ink more than a hundred years ago... a sense of self identity. The inability to label discrimination points to what is currently happening in the arguments concerning America’s race relations. Re-segregation of schools. School re-segregation (turning back the results of school integration in the 60’s) is defended by arguments that with the ability for parents to choose which school their children are placed in, it creates a marketplace of competition which spurs schools to innovate and improve in order to get and retain students and it allows students more choices for types of schools. These arguments are the typical American capitalist excuses for inequality (my opinion), but also define how the real issue at sake is ignored... diversity and equality. The ability to ignore the other importance of what is at stake is what I'd like to take out of this reference. The US has developed the ability of such neglect (not that the US hasn't always fostered it), but I’d be a lie to say that we are all a little self-interested, myself included.
This brings up the second issue that I wanted to address. I know that I am not the only person that notices how our group has fostered this trend of only questioning the presenters and the topics that us as individuals are interested in. I myself have failed to address certian aspects of the program which may not seem as relevant to my own understanding. However, I do hope that we can fight our tendency to do this in the future, and really find a way to apply all of these experiences to our own. Maybe a tad bit idealistic, but shoot for the moon and your amoungst those stars.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up." poem by Martin Niemöller.
Singing off,
C-Mac
No comments:
Post a Comment