The abbreviation PC stands for politically correct. As time goes on, however, and we get ten new phrases a year per minority group, PC begins to stand for problematic and confusing.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for being politically correct. In fact, I'm usually the annoying one going around correcting everyone who calls everyone who looks moderately Asian 'Chinese.' I think that not speaking politically correctly makes one sound uneducated and closed-minded. What do we do, though, when the terms continuously change? It can be difficult to keep up. I honestly have no idea what the PC term for people under a certain height is, or what the correct terms for people with physical or mental disabilities are. As was pointed out in class today, there are preferences for terms among individuals within the groups. There is no clear-cut way to know which terms to use.
The main argument behind creating new terms for minority groups is that the old terms hold negative connotations because they were used in a derogatory manner. In response to this, new terms are created. And guess what happens to that new term--it is used negatively and gains the same negative connotation that the old term had. So we create a new term. And then the same thing happens to that term, so we have to create a new term. It's like dirtying napkins and then getting a new pile, and then another pile, and then another pile. Your hands will always be dirty no matter how many napkins you use, just as people in society will always be prejudiced no matter how many terms are used. The problem is not the term, it's the attitudes toward the people the term is used to describe.
We need to start changing our attitudes, not our terms. The fact of the matter is, there are always going to be people prejudiced against those with mental disabilities, regardless of what they're called. There are always going to be people who hate African-Americans, whether they call them Blacks, colored people, or something worse. Awareness does not come through more complicated terminology, it comes from movements and spreading truth. In my opinion, our best bet it to use race or ability or any other minority trait as a descriptor as little as possible. Most of the time, we don't need to use those kinds of descriptors anyway. But if you do have to, my advice is to just do your best with the term that seems best or to be the most current. Don't make assumptions (assuming an Asian person is from China, for example, or assuming that an Indian person practices Hinduism), and, obviously, don't use a term that is blatantly derogatory. Hopefully, we can at least avoid some awkward situations by following guidelines such as these.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Rhetorical Sovereignty, the Majority, and the Minority
Rhetorical sovereignty seems simple, and, in many senses, it is simple--it's the right of a culture to have control over their own identities and to tell their own stories. The actual achievement of this idea, however, is far more complicated, most severely for Native Americans. Native Americans have been unrelentingly silenced, ignored, and pushed out of the conversation by majority groups in the US. Trying to control their stories against all these negative forces is like trying to control one's hair in a windstorm; no matter how hard you try, it's most likely still going to get messed up.
However, they have been trying, sometimes to some avail, but most of the time to none--most of us know the stories we know, and those are the ones we're going to choose to believe about Natives.
But what about those of us in the majority who are listening? Should we have the right to spread Native stories and experiences that are not ours? Should we have the right to study them and their stories, or should we just leave them alone? This is one of the challenges in caring for and being interested in Native peoples, and certainly is the subject of many a debate. How are we to deal with these issues?
As someone who is presently studying Native Americans, I feel torn about this issue as I'm sure White Native scholars do. There are emotions involved in both sides of the debate. Some will argue that the majority group have an obligation to Native peoples to share and study Native stories and experiences in order to spread awareness. On the other hand, many Native people don't want to be categorized or studied and just want to be left alone. Paul Chaat Smith, in Everything You Know About Indians is Wrong, claimed that the dumbest people are those who are interested in Native Americans and want to study them. Accurate information about Natives is just not out in the mainstream.
While I still maintain a strong interest in the Native experience and now very much enjoy reading Native stories and experiences from Natives, I completely understand where the Natives who want exclusive rhetorical sovereignty are coming from. I know from studying gender studies that the best people to speak out for a minority group are people in that group. This is true for a few reasons. Of course it's true because people in a group care more about that group than people outside of the group do, but also because people in a minority group impart their own experiences far more effectively than people outside the group do. Perhaps one of Native peoples' reasons for wanting exclusive rhetorical sovereignty is that they know they can tell their own stories better than anyone outside the group. For the most effective social movement, accurate information is essential. Maybe that's what they're going for. Maybe I'm just saying that to make myself feel better. Regardless, our care for Native Americans shouldn't be based on caring for the sake and show of caring. It should be based on what is best for them, and what will have the move society the most toward seeing Native Americans as real people instead of ideas. And if we as the majority can't contribute to that effectively, maybe we should just leave them alone.
However, they have been trying, sometimes to some avail, but most of the time to none--most of us know the stories we know, and those are the ones we're going to choose to believe about Natives.
But what about those of us in the majority who are listening? Should we have the right to spread Native stories and experiences that are not ours? Should we have the right to study them and their stories, or should we just leave them alone? This is one of the challenges in caring for and being interested in Native peoples, and certainly is the subject of many a debate. How are we to deal with these issues?
As someone who is presently studying Native Americans, I feel torn about this issue as I'm sure White Native scholars do. There are emotions involved in both sides of the debate. Some will argue that the majority group have an obligation to Native peoples to share and study Native stories and experiences in order to spread awareness. On the other hand, many Native people don't want to be categorized or studied and just want to be left alone. Paul Chaat Smith, in Everything You Know About Indians is Wrong, claimed that the dumbest people are those who are interested in Native Americans and want to study them. Accurate information about Natives is just not out in the mainstream.
While I still maintain a strong interest in the Native experience and now very much enjoy reading Native stories and experiences from Natives, I completely understand where the Natives who want exclusive rhetorical sovereignty are coming from. I know from studying gender studies that the best people to speak out for a minority group are people in that group. This is true for a few reasons. Of course it's true because people in a group care more about that group than people outside of the group do, but also because people in a minority group impart their own experiences far more effectively than people outside the group do. Perhaps one of Native peoples' reasons for wanting exclusive rhetorical sovereignty is that they know they can tell their own stories better than anyone outside the group. For the most effective social movement, accurate information is essential. Maybe that's what they're going for. Maybe I'm just saying that to make myself feel better. Regardless, our care for Native Americans shouldn't be based on caring for the sake and show of caring. It should be based on what is best for them, and what will have the move society the most toward seeing Native Americans as real people instead of ideas. And if we as the majority can't contribute to that effectively, maybe we should just leave them alone.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Truth About Creation Stories
Creation stories: the world's cultures provide many, and the importance of these stories varies between cultures. But how do these stories impact the general attitudes of a culture? In The Truth About Stories, Tom King compares and contrasts a Native American creation story with the Judeo-Christian creation story, and examines what effects these stories may have on our respective cultures.
The main differences between the stories are how the world is created. In the Native story, animals, a woman, and two children work together equally to create the world. No man is present, interestingly enough. Conversely, in the Judeo-Christian story, one male creator (God) makes the entire Earth and puts man in charge of women, children, animals, and the environment.
King argues that these stories have major impacts on the relationships our cultures have with the earth, animals, and other humans. Most Americans would affiliate themselves with the Judeo-Christian creation story, and our culture is strictly patriarchal and patrilineal and tends to treat animals, the environment, and even other people, often, as objects and as merely means to an end. On the other hand, Native Americans tend to have great respect for the environment, animals, and fellow humans. The Judeo-Christian creation story encourages domination over others through the presence of God and binary of good and evil. It encourages the idea that some groups are better than others and that "good" must reign over "evil." This doctrine was used to justify the overtaking of cultures like various Native American tribes, based upon the idea that their differences from Americans made them the "evil."
Can we then make the claim that the Judeo-Christian creation story has negative effects on American society--that it causes violence, imperialism, cruelty to animals, and environmental destruction? It makes Americans feel as though we have the right to do what we like to other living things without consequence. I would say this is a fairly negative attitude to have, especially taking into account how much damage has been inflicted upon humans, animals, and the environment due to this attitude. What should we for future generations, then? If our stories all that we are, we should strive to make those stories, and, consequently, ourselves, the best we can. If this Native creation story has the positive effects on society that I mentioned, perhaps it makes sense to at least mix the Native stories in with the Judeo-Christian stories we tell our children. Our society just may be better for it.
The main differences between the stories are how the world is created. In the Native story, animals, a woman, and two children work together equally to create the world. No man is present, interestingly enough. Conversely, in the Judeo-Christian story, one male creator (God) makes the entire Earth and puts man in charge of women, children, animals, and the environment.
King argues that these stories have major impacts on the relationships our cultures have with the earth, animals, and other humans. Most Americans would affiliate themselves with the Judeo-Christian creation story, and our culture is strictly patriarchal and patrilineal and tends to treat animals, the environment, and even other people, often, as objects and as merely means to an end. On the other hand, Native Americans tend to have great respect for the environment, animals, and fellow humans. The Judeo-Christian creation story encourages domination over others through the presence of God and binary of good and evil. It encourages the idea that some groups are better than others and that "good" must reign over "evil." This doctrine was used to justify the overtaking of cultures like various Native American tribes, based upon the idea that their differences from Americans made them the "evil."
Can we then make the claim that the Judeo-Christian creation story has negative effects on American society--that it causes violence, imperialism, cruelty to animals, and environmental destruction? It makes Americans feel as though we have the right to do what we like to other living things without consequence. I would say this is a fairly negative attitude to have, especially taking into account how much damage has been inflicted upon humans, animals, and the environment due to this attitude. What should we for future generations, then? If our stories all that we are, we should strive to make those stories, and, consequently, ourselves, the best we can. If this Native creation story has the positive effects on society that I mentioned, perhaps it makes sense to at least mix the Native stories in with the Judeo-Christian stories we tell our children. Our society just may be better for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)