#i think its important to remind people in certain privileged demographics that like | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

listoriented · 4 years

Text

Cities in Motion

: metaphorical gridlock

Cities in Motion is a game about public transport, and so I wanted to write about public transport. I wanted to write about why (better) public transport is important for social equality and important for transitioning into a future where we use less, rely less on, oil, by which I mean a future of reduced private car use and ownership. I wanted to fit in my positive experience of now living in a city with (relatively) decent public transport and how that affects the feeling and makeup and structure of a place compared to a city I came from, a city where the public transport is (relatively) patchy, where cars more overtly dominate the planning decisions and the politics and the social fabric and entire lives, really. I wanted to tie these things into how Cities in Motion represents public transport as artificial and overly malleable but ultimately interesting systems, and how the movement and optimisation of movement of people across a space modelled in some way on these real, existing spaces, could be usefully figured to think about the underlying structures of cities and individual resource consumption and infrastructure and ideology.

These were ideas for the piece I was going to write, a piece which never happened, a not-happening which lead to another awkward silence between playing the last of my ten hours with Cities in Motion [sometime in February] and finally following up on many weeks worth of the same note in my to-do list, a reminder to write the damn piece so I could move on and write something else, a note which itself was then ignored and eventually forgotten until today when, deep in the midst of procrastination, I returned to the document.

The first reason, backed up by the dates suggested above, is that in March the novel coronavirus made a real splash over here in Australia, as it seems to have done pretty much everywhere, being, well, y’know, a pandemic. The dampening effect on this piece in particular was twofold: this made it hard to write generally - an apparent contradiction because there was suddenly seemingly so much more time to write in, thanks to the sudden removal of almost all reasons to leave the house, but time which, thanks to the surging background anxiety of finding ourselves in a pandemic and everything that came with that, couldn't actually be used for much more than panic-refreshing twitter and staring glumly at a netflix home screen. The second reason was specific to the project: how to write a game-review-cum-personal-essay about public transport at the very time when public transport everywhere was becoming an enclosed nightmare of disease? An imagined conduit of DEFINITELY GETTING SICK OH GOD. I suddenly found that, for the first time since I was a teen still overcoming residual fears of trains and strangers instilled by repeated warnings from my parents throughout childhood, I didn’t want to get PT at all, anymore, ever – that I was going to choose to walk and bike and drive places wherever possible, probably for the next long while, and that I counted my blessings and privilege that I could continue to live my life while ceasing to take the tram or bus.

But this surprising if paradigm-shifting situation was arguably still just a distraction from my real problem, which is that the more I played Cities in Motion, the less sure I became that I wanted to keep playing Cities in Motion, or that I was really enjoying Cities in Motion at all, or that this game about public transport systems really aligned with my hope to discuss public transport systems as an interesting and necessary social good, rather than it was interested in presenting them as a nostalgic relic. The game works like this: you’re put over a muted-colour map of various European cities in various times past (imagine a run-of-the-mill city builder except all the buildings and roads and people are already in place for you), beginning inauspiciously with Berlin in the 1920s. You're asked to connect up the tendrils of the city with buses and trams and, eventually, train lines, generally in the sense that an invisible population haunts the map and all of them are keen to get somewhere, and specifically in that to finish the level you need to complete a string of objectives which ask you to connect certain landmarks together using certain transport systems. My problem, the first several times I tried it, was that I only thought about the specifically asked objectives, not realising that all of these were loss-leaders, and so repeatedly I kept going bankrupt and having to restart the mission, wondering what was wrong with the way I'd laid out the lines, why everyone in Berlin hated me, why my trams were full no matter how many I put down, why the lines were all unprofitable if every carriage on it seemed constantly at capacity, and why the traffic was always banked up. It took a bunch of googling and reading different threads and multiple walkthroughs to realise that the scenario’s specific objectives, presented in the form of requests from Berlin's mayor, were always going to lose money, and that the way to make money was not to prioritise these but instead set up a bunch of more profitable lines of your own accord.

In short, it's one of those games that hides most of its important information and doesn't care to nudge you, so to speak, back on track. One might begrudgingly argue well, that's what it'd be like, planning public transport; you don't really know where people want to go and have to dig through complex population demographic statistical information in order to plan accordingly. But it’s just…wilfully obtuse? And not fun? It puts its eggs into the realism basket but even there comes up with some wonky results, the counterargument being that like all sim games it is just that – a game, a toy, a thing to play with and absorb a sense of broader systems at work, not actually learn what it is like to try and be a uh, in this case, public transport tycoon.

But then this obtuseness itself was distracting me from a more fundamental problem about how the game views the role of PT, or more specifically how success in Cities in Motion – as with most sim-like games, it should be said - is centred around being able to get back more money than you spend. You try and make easy profits on some busy lines in order to build and maintain other lines. But I don’t think public transport should be about turning a profit or making money; arguably, such an insistence is what historically killed (nay, continues to kill) public transport systems in many places around the world, with flow on effects always including widening inequality and increased reliance on car ownership. And that’s kind of the rub here – your goal isn’t to make the city more accessible for everyone, or to connect disparate areas up in the most efficient way possible, but to make enough money to complete a few select objectives, even though that probably means building a transport system to cater to just a few of your virtual citizens.

It’s an unfair comparison to make, maybe, but I can’t help but hold it up against Mini Metro, the one public transporty game that I’ve ever really loved. Sure, the practicalities slash “realities” of having to fund transport lines and place them within a city that already exists in concrete and limiting ways are entirely absent from that minimalist puzzler, which instead is based on the abstraction of transport system maps over the vaguest ideas of cities existing only in relation to their scant topographical waterfeatures. Still, Mini Metro never asks you to make money - all it wants is for you to get the people where they want to go. As soon as someone appears on the map, it’s your job to connect them up with PT, and if you can’t do it in time, you’ve failed. Leave nobody behind, it suggests. This is more the kind of transport game design I can get behind, have gotten behind. As for Cities in Motion’s insistence that we must become the devil in order to beat the devil, to that I say phooey.

up next is Cities in Motion 2

#game91 #cities in motion #colossal order #games of 2011 #public transport games #city planing games

1 note · View note

yesteachersblog · 4 years

Text

The Importance of Discourse Communities

Bernadine Cotton, Teacher Leader with Mathematically Connected Communities (MC²) and 2014 winner of the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST) illustrates student-to-student discourse through the implementation of a math activity known as SPLAT! in her classroom. Following the lesson is an interview with Ms. Cotton.As an educator ask yourself this; how often are you communicating with others on a daily basis, and does the way in which you communicate ever change? For example, consider the language you use to address your students or even your class, is it the same as how you would address your principal or coworkers?

As teachers we are members of many different discourse communities, whether you realize it or not.

So, What is Discourse?

In “Discourses and Social Languages” Paul James Gee defines discourses as

“the different ways in which we humans integrate language with non-language “stuff,” such as different ways of thinking, acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, believing, and using symbols, tools, and objects in the right places and at the right times so as to enact and recognize different identities and activities, give the material world certain meanings, distribute social goods in a certain way, make certain sorts of meaningful connections in our experience, and privilege certain symbol systems and ways of knowing over others.” (13)

Language has the power to create or fit certain situations depending on how we use it. A discourse community then is a group of people that you find yourself amongst in which you all share similar goals, ideas, purposes, values, and discourses or language use.

Discourse Communities in Education

Thinking again in the educational context, some common discourse communities you might find yourself a part of are:

Professional learning communities (PLC) Meetings – In PLC meetings you are joined by other educators, advisors, and mentors sharing the same goal, which is to work together to discuss how you can better improve your teaching skills and the overall academic performances of students. Now consider the language used in this setting, depending on who is present, the environment of your school setting, and who runs the meetings you might use language that is “academic” and professional such as when you are using terms to describe the progress of your classroom. Ex: “I saw a high increase in students’ performance after taking the ELA assessment and their scores reflect positively on my teaching abilities.” However, if you are sitting amongst your close coworkers, you might use a more “relaxed” social language which would not be considered appropriate to share with others in the meeting. Ex “Those kids totally bombed that test and made me look like a clown!” Both types of language use communicate a point that reflects on the setting in which the teacher finds themselves in.

Teacher and students in the classroom – When you are teaching in your classroom that is a discourse community that you have built around you own beliefs and values, but the students also have their own perception of the classroom being a discourse community. For example, if you teach in a low-income public school where the population is 95% Hispanic/Latino and you are not a part of this background and culture, you might have different ideas of what the discourse community looks like in your classroom. The reason for this, is that language, discourses, helps build us and our “situated identities” which refer to our different identities or social positions we enact and recognize depending on our settings. (Gee 12) For you, your classroom might be a place where students are expected to practice academic language and terminology that relates to your lessons and teaching objectives, and the way you teach displays these language expectations.

However, no matter how much you may try to encourage this type of academic discourse, students have their established social identities that can be difficult to switch between or can “conflict with one another.” (Gee 16) That is not to say that you should not encourage them to learn academic English, since it is something they will have to continue to use throughout their educational careers, but you also should not punish them for using their social language. Rather, students should be encouraged to write in their social discourse languages in order to help relate to their experiences and encourage connection between lessons.

Encouraging Social Discourses in The Writing Classroom

In an Educational Leadership article (http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/114010/chapters/Why-Pair-Discourse-with-Writing¢.aspx) titled "Thinking Is Literacy, Literacy Thinking," it was argued that

“To teach thinking consistently … we should treat it as a fundamental literacy skill, whether the language in question is algebra or English. There is no question that reading, writing, speaking, and listening are interconnected skills that develop synergistically. They are also the key to teaching thinking. The more fluent students become as readers, writers, speakers, and listeners, the clearer, more coherent, and more flexible their thinking will become. (Roberts & Billings, 2008, p. 33)

Literacy and language are interconnected and one’s social identity helps shape one’s literacy practices. If teach students to write in a language that they feel comfortable using, then not only will their writing skills improve over time, but so will their speaking, and reading abilities. The tricky thing is knowing how to find the right balance between allowing social languages and academic languages, since we do work in the academic setting.

Here is what I propose: First, it is important to establish and teach “intertextuality” in the writing classroom. Intertextuality as defined by Vincent Leitch is when

“a text is not an autonomous or unified object, but a set of relations with other texts. Its system of language, its grammar, its lexicon, drag along numerous bits and pieces— traces—of history so that the text resembles a Cultural Salvation Army Outlet with unaccountable collections of incompatible ideas, beliefs, and sources" (59)

It is important to teach students that no matter what they write, they will always be influenced by something other than themselves, or, as James Porter describes it in “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community”

“By identifying and stressing the intertextual nature of discourse, however, we shift our attention away from the writer as individual and focus more on the sources and social contexts from which the writers discourse arises. According to this view, authorial intention is less significant than social context; the writer is simply a part of a discourse tradition, a member of a team, and a participant in a community of discourse that creates its own collective meaning.” (225)

Teaching in this mindset can help students better connected to their discourse communities and write for a larger purpose, for some sort of cause that holds true to them. If we wish for our students to write with meaning and to write for change, then they must first be able to reflect on what matters to them.

As someone who grew up in a primarily Hispanic/Latino discourse community one thing that I valued the most from my education was my teachers’ understanding of their places within this community. My school was a low-class public school with a bad reputation that not a lot of teachers wanted to work at. However, the brave few who decided to venture into our world did so in a way that respected our culture and beliefs and encouraged us to use them in our learning environments. In return, we respected our teachers and saw them as members of our discourse communities even if they were not necessarily from the same backgrounds as us. Which leads me to my second suggestion: If we want students to be successful writers, we should allow some room for them to write in their social languages.

In the writing classroom this can look like various different assignments starting small:

· Personal Journals

· Blog posts

· Free Writes

· Occasional Mini Papers

Looking at bigger projects that can help connect their writing to issues within their communities could be:

· Research papers on issues within their community

· Collaborative writing projects

· Narrative essays

· Class presentations

· Letter writing to professionals in their communities

All of these writing assignments can help practice both academic languages, as well as social language, it is a fine mixture and balance between the two and can serve for a bigger purpose than just to receive a letter grade.

It is important for teachers to be able to recognize the discourse communities of their students and of the school in which they work if they want to establish meaningful connections with their students and also, with the surrounding communities. As a teacher one of your biggest roles is contacting parents, whether this be for positive or negative reasons, it is still something that comes with the job. Using my example from earlier, if you work in a school with a 95% Hispanic/Latino demographic, then you need to consider how you would write home to this audience and to student’s parents using this information.

Communicating with Parents of Different Discourse Communities

Just because parents do not speak English, does not mean that it has to be difficult to communicate with them. One ELL and English immersion teacher writes in her article “Engaging Parents Who Don’t Speak English” (http://www.nea.org/tools/tips/engaging-parents-who-dont-speak-english.html) some easy tips and methods to breach this language barrier gap and reach out to parents.

1. Use online platforms such as Facebook (with your school’s permission) to send written messages and reminders. This can be helpful for parents because they can easily translate written text to their native language online, however not everyone has access to the internet.

2. Send letters home in both English and Spanish

3. If you don’t speak the parents’ first language, then find someone who does and enlist their help. Some schools have “room parents” who are bilingual parents willing to contact parents who speak their same language and share teacher information.

4. If there isn’t a parent or person at your school, try your district—almost every district has outreach workers who speak the languages spoken by the families in their district. This can help to clear up any misunderstandings and lets parents know that you want to talk to them and took the time to seek out help! (NEA)

Just by making it clear that you still want to talk to them even if there is that language barrier can make all the difference in parent-teacher relationships.

The main thing I wish for teachers to take away from this post is that if you do not understand the discourse community in which you work, you will have a hard time connecting with students, parents, faculty, and overall have a difficult time establishing the importance of writing in the classroom. By being aware, and an active participant of these communities, you can make a world of difference as a teacher.

youtube

0 notes

phoenixfire-thewizardgoddess · 7 years

Text

Interesting message to wake up to:

“ I have a bit of a random question. I am not trying to be rude or accusing, just genuinely curious.

Why are you so vocal about US politics? I understand what happens over here effects everyone (though largely I think it's because we can't keep our hands to ourselves or shut up), but a lot of the people I follow who aren't american have added tags associated with our politics to their blacklist (can't say I blame them, I'm sick of hearing about it and I live here).

You are easily one of the most vocal and prolific bloggers on my dash when comes to US politics (Mark Ruffalo outranks you in that regard, unsurprisingly). You could easily get annoyed and leave it be; you can't vote or influence our government directly beyond assisting awareness.

So I can't help but wonder, why?”

- - - -

If you have to ask that question, then I do not think you understand the gravity of the situation.

Every country has political concerns, ours is a Prime Minister that keeps lying and keeps money in off-shore bank accounts so he doesn’t have to pay tax on it. Still, a slight step up from budgie-smuggler boy and his incredible feats of racism, misogyny, and onion-eating.

But the US tends to set a benchmark. America had Obama, during a time when the rest of the world was in chaos. Australia’s PM position was reduced to a game of musical chairs, the UK had the whole Brexit thing, human rights were being violated in other countries every second of every day and you don’ want to know what was happening to animals.

Obama, despite the blatantly racist haters, did a lot for that country; a lot that Trunk is now undoing, like a spiteful child that just moved into their cool older sibling’s room and immediately trashing anything that reminds them it was not theirs to begin with. Healthcare, human rights protections, unemployment decreasing, etc. And the man basically took over the presidency while everything was on fire; you know, like that one COMMUNITY gif, where the dude turned up with pizza for a party.

He, and his family, were always under attack; but he still did his best to protect the citizens of the country. Overturning quite a few fucked up laws, and those are just the ones the rest of the world knew about. I have no doubt he got a few bills across his desk that he laughed at as he set them on fire; or the political equivalent.

Fast-forwards to now.

Apart from the fact the US has the weirdest fucking voting system ever, where the person with the most votes can still lose; and no one is legally required to vote, but has to register every election, which means that their votes can be discounted with ‘computing errors’. The country made a mistake.

The hypocrisy of not wanting a Jewish man with heaps of political experience, or a woman with years of political experience, for President... is telling; considering what you elected anyway. I was very loud then, too. Why? Because it was blatantly obvious to everyone from the outside how dangerous the Repubic-lican candidate(s) were and are. Think of it like standing on the beach, noticing a shark heading towards the surfers; you are calling out, “Look, there’s a fucking shark, move your ass mate!”, and only a few of them decide to swim in. The rest tell you that the shark has the right to be there, and that the shore’s emails are probably more of a problem.

It was seriously concerning how many people were pro-Repub, pro-trunk. How they could not hear what he was saying; not understand that the rest of the world saw him as one hell of a dangerous practical joke being played on you all. And he was a joke, right up until he was elected and people realised, ‘Well fuck, he’s a problem now that he’s infringing on our white rights?’.

Which the POC, LGBPTA+, disabled, and other communities could have told you from the start. (Which is why it’s so confusing to see people still at his rallies with ‘Women for Trunk’ and ‘Blacks for Trunk!’ signs... do you not know what he’s doing or are you getting paid?)

And the worst part is that if you remove this man, it’s like a matroyshka doll of bad decisions, trying to replace him. You have the ‘let’s electrocute the gays straight’ Pence, next in line... and he’s the tip of the racist/misogynistic/homophobic conservative iceburg, right? Everyone else after that is equally problematic.

He bragged on live tv that he doesn’t pay taxes... like, at what point does your privilege run out?

Average peopl would fail to file taxes one year and lose everything. But not Trunk, oh no.

The man in charge of everything, not only has no actual understanding of what he’s doing or basic legislative powers... but he’s a god-damned pedophile, racist, rapist, scam/conartist, and probably a dozen other things we don’t know about because he’s papered over it with money nd fancy lawyers.

His 13yr old victim had to give up prosecuting the injustice done against her, bc people were sending her death threats on his behalf. The man openly says on multiple occasions, he’d like to fuck his daughter (including sexualising his newborn in an interview about her birth, which was downright creepy, and more recently saying that what he has in common with his daughter is ‘Hopefully sex!’). The man bought beauty pageants to perv on the women involved; and has groped people inappropriately, then joked about it on stage.

What he did to his former wives is horrific; and he used gag orders to keep them quiet.

The fact he, not only mocked a disabled reporter so disrespectfully to the sound of Repubic-lican applause... but ALSO bragged he could kill someone in the middle of a public street and get away with it??? to further applause??? That has so many red flags, it’s hard to understand why people still supported him?

The amount of lawsuits against him, for his various scams and cons, was ridiculously high. There are multiple stories (with evidence) of this man taking advantage of businesses and ruining them.

‘A businessman is exactly what america needs!’ THE MAN BANKRUPTED A CASINO. How do you do that? Also, he was given a million dollars and the business to start with; like, he’s pretty much done nothing except open a string of failed side businesses, and fucked them up.

And he believes ‘hard work will get you places’ ironically.

He doesn’t like poor people, and yet a lot of his constituents make up the demographic of people living near or below minimum wage. He doesn’t believe in universal healthcare; Obamacare/ACA is close enough to our Medicare system, and it keeps us alive. It’s imperative to the functioning of such a large country? but he doesn’t like the idea of it taking money from the government.

Not to mention, the man flat-out stated he would refuse to use existing services (white house, security), meaning that he’d found a loophole wherein he could pay himself millions of dollars a fucking day in order to be President. The security, trunk tower, etc.

And he claims his business has an impartial trust board in place, to make certain he can’t be accused of financial interests contrary to those of the american people... but, whoops, that’s not happening. Not to mention he came right out and was using his presidential platform to bitch about Nordstrom dropping his daughter’s brand. Commercial interest, much?

What did he have on Hillary? Emails. She and her staff used private emails to send a few political memos, some fucking lolcat memes, and more than one altruistic email about rendering aid to someone. And apparently that made her shadier than him??? Since he was elected, the presidonk went out of his way to tweet from his private account, his entire staff (and wasn’t hiring a debacle?) uses private emails to send important messages, and he has a very strong online presence which seems counter-intuitive to retaining some degree of secrecy. (E.g. as seen by the man taking a classified briefing at a dinner party, wherein people had the opportunity to freaking get photos of the secret service members and documents).

The WALL. He said he was going to build a big wall, and make the people he was keeping out, pay for it. And people felt that was a stroke of genius. ???????????????

Claiming he would ‘ban all Muslims’. By which he clearly meant, ‘anyone who is any shade of brown or black, because I don’t know what a Muslim is, but I sure don’t like them’. People during segregation would probably side-eye this man for his odd views; also probs bc he’s perpetually orange.

The russia affair. Everyone with two brain cells to rub together can see something shady af is happening there. There’s a connection, there were long-standing deals, and suddenly russia hacks election results? Like... it makes total sense. Trunk is like a parody or himself, a big old puppet that any world leader could manipulate with the right words. And what an opportunity, for whomsoever got their words in his ear first.

Not to mention the whole #AlternativeFacts bullshit. Dude can’t lie well; small children are more plausible.

‘But her emails’.

You ever noticed that almost every single world leader appears physically repulsed when meeting him? That kind of person you get that, ‘be ready to run or fight at any second’ feeling from? Its on their faces, and yet they have to play nice.

It was just interesting.

Especially when you add in the look on his current wife’s face whenever he’s not looking directly at her. Fear, or something more complex.

Trunk is infringing on basic human rights. Like Hitler.

He singled out a specific race/ethnic or religious group/minority to target in his campaign speeches. Like Hitler.

He’s calling the media false, and telling people to only listen to him. Like Hitler.

He was a joke to start with. So was Hitler, right before he killed several million people.

People are going to die, if they have not already. He doesn’t like free healthcare/the Obamacare system because why should he pay for poor people to keep living?

We’ve established he’s very... racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, etc. These are known facts. Not #alternativefacts, these can be proven.

He’s dangerous, like a toddler in a tantrum with their hand on the nuclear launch button. There is no one in his staff to tell him ‘No’, or ‘That’s fucking stupid, try again, you great big orange wanker’. He’s surrounded by yesmen with even more dangerous/radical conservative belief systems. A good leader must have someone who will challenge them on their edicts and ideas; e.g. the way our PM can say, ‘I want unicorns for everyone’, but it has to go through the Parliament, who can then say, ‘Fuck you, how will you fund it you ludicrous bogan bastard?’ and it becomes a conversation-slash-argument. At the moment, the Repubic-licans own the President, and the Senate; which means that bad ideas are just going to become reality and a lot of people are placed in danger.

Just, you know, not anyone Trunk cares about.

He didn’t even have a staff when he goddamn came into power. Like he didn’t want the win, just the notoriety of running and suddenly he had to do Things and Stuff, with all those icky Responsibilities, he’d been using money to keep away for years.

And now? He’s chosen a series of terrible people for the most inappropriate positions possible. The Education Minister believes kids should work instead, and has no idea how the education system works at all. The head of security fucked up so bad he had to resign within a fortnight of employment.

He fired the Attorney General for DOING HER JOB.

The CIA don’t want to tell Trunk anything, bc they know he’ll have a long dreamy phonecall with his russian bff.

He’s got a defence minister out there threatening to leave NATO, unless other countries put more effort into a war no one wants.

He’s antagonised hostile countries.

He actually tried to build the fucking wall.

He literally instigated a Muslim ban, and threw a tantrum when the court said, “Bruh, the fuck? Did you even read the constitution? Or do we need to hire someone to read it to you???”

He’s just done so much shit in under a month, it’s obscene, and there’s u to four years left of this. And people still support it?

His fanbase are largely: > rich and relying on his affinity for affluence to keep them safe, >obscenely conservative, and want him to enforce their ideologies (including removing bodily autonomy from predominantly ciswomen & transmen in relation to pregnancy/birthcontrol/abortion access, etc.) >uneducated people from low socioeconomic backgrounds who believe in the promises he makes about mproving things >neo-n*zi/racists who would love nothing more than to have free reign to remove anyone not ‘white enough’ for their liking (inclu. POC, jews, gay people, etc.) >Misogynists, Rapists, Pedophiles who see him as president and think, ‘If he can get away with it to the point he’s elected head of country... then who is to stop me?’ >And various other problematic groups.

Why should people who are not american care?

It does affect us to a certain degree, but the reality is... this is a thing that’s happening right now, to people, and none of them can leave. It’s called empathy, it’s called keeping a spotlight on him, and exposing the shady shit he’s up to.

Hitler was a joke, until things got real.

The difference was that social media and the internet didn’t exist. People got their information from specific hitler-approved media (you know, how trunk wants everyone to get news from him and fox alone?), but today... there are hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses to everything. They can reach out and share it with the rest of the world, who are paying attention. He can’t make shit up without a thousand voices + downcrying it as the falsehood it was. There is global opposition to his nonsense, and it sends a message.

He’s not getting away with what he wants to do. He can try. But history has its eyes on him; and so does the world.

It is important to be vocal about it, to never let him forget that he can buy people to shout at his rallies, but people around the world and in his country, KNOW the shit he’s up to. Know what he is.

Right down to the second he makes a bad decision, the world will know. Because social media exists, because vigilant people exist and can mobilise. Did you see the Women’s March? That was the power of being loud, being organised, being ready to respond. That’s a good example of why it matters.

As long as people are suffering, someone should be paying attention, drawing attention, and seeking ways to help. In the US, in other countries that have far worse happening; and many do. But for now, the reality is that a world powerhouse has a foolish, dangerous man at the helm; who is making everyone nervous as to what ridiculous thing he will do next.

To answer your question: No, I cannot vote in a US election, but I sure as hell can try to influence the perceptions of those who live there and follow me, provide resources to help them cope when some ridiculous edict he makes stresses them out, and remind the rest of the world what is going on.

What is happening is not normal, and sometimes you need an external contrast to perceive that. E.g. when you work with clients in DV situations, their perception of ‘normal’ is skewed to mean ‘whatever the abuser has normalised’... rather than what societal perceptions of normality entail.

What all dictators want is for complete control, taken through manipulation and people having their rebellious thoughts burned out into weary resignation.

TL;DR - History is watching us, waiting to see what happens, and every dissenting voice from any corner of the globe adds to the resistance. Especially if their goal is to support and empower the people directly facing the danger on a daily basis.

#long post #response #i didn't want to have to type it in the chat box in sixteen piees

15 notes · View notes

survivingart · 5 years

Text

PRICING YOUR ART THE RIGHT WAY Part II — Value and Worth

Oscar Wilde once wrote: “A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.”

A true artist therefore should be the exact opposite, but not due to ignorance towards the ever-present concept of money; the real truth of the matter is that putting a price tag on an embodiment of love, hate, reminiscence or longing (and all the other messages that art can communicate) just isn’t as easy as adding up ones material and overhead costs and slapping a 20% markup on the sum.

At least not to those that really understand the depths of their own work, because they know that while symbolism allows us to represent temptation by painting apples, temptation itself cannot be sold in the same way as apples.

Because unlike this common tree fruit, temptation cannot be grown, packaged and distributed (even though the media will tell you otherwise). True temptation, unlike her watered-down cousin, lack of self-control, does not come in chocolate or vanilla flavours, it does not make you giggle and say: “Oh, I’m bad, but I’ll have another piece.”

True temptation destroys kingdoms, not waistlines — something corporations still haven’t figured out how to manufacture on an assembly line (or perhaps just decided not to do). But it’s exactly what the best of us are doing, and people like us have been doing since before the Dutch invented oil paints.

We create altars to truth, to the essence of what makes us human, and just as there is no universal truth to speak of, there are no all-in-one solutions of valuing it. But there are intimate, personal ways with which verities are created and in today’s blunder I would like to explore them and try to shine a bit of light upon the convolution that is added value in art.

As its name implies, it is a form of worth that is added, not inherent to the object, and because our time is defined by value as no other time ever was, all of us know that added value is present in all human creation, not just in art.

From bread loaves to trousers; because of the abundance of stuff that is floating around us, the value proposition or the amount and type of added value that any one product has, has become the defining factor by which people decide to either spend their hard-earned money or keep it in the bank.

Back in the day — by which I mean mid nineteenth century Europe and before — this wasn’t the norm. When Zara and H&M didn’t exist and a clean pair of un-tattered cotton trousers was more of a luxury item than a commodity for many people, you could make trousers for everyone because added value hadn’t been invented yet.

Of course you had to measure your customers, so that they’d actually fit the person, but the question of: “Do you maybe have these in salmon red?” had absolutely no chance of existing. Not because the idea of red trousers was too abstract for people to get back then, but because the demand for “trousers” was far from being met.

There were no electric sewing machines and fabric was hard to come by. It was only after many technological advancements and the continued outsourcing of child labour into places, where labour laws could not reach, that the idea of “trousers” became a commodity. And by doing so, the ideas of “red trousers” and “blue trousers” and soon “light khaki skinny-fit jeans” replaced “trousers” as the only available option.

Every time a quicker, cheaper, or better way of producing something (the same goes for service) is invented, the thing being produced slips a bit more into the oblivion of commodities — making it possible for more and more people to be able to afford it and consequently producing a need for more sophisticated versions of that particular product for those who already had the means of buying it in the first place.

And while there are no real technological advances in painting (at least not compared to bio tech or computers) the basic ideas of supply and demand are the same.

Art in its core is the polar opposite of what the idea of commodification is to trousers — though print-on-demand services and the overflow of uneducated artists painting pretty flower pictures have taken their toll on the market.

Because, while any other form of creation is roughly limited by the means of production on one side and the specific tastes and capital of the consumers on the other, paintings don’t behave like trousers or laptops. Because no work of art is the same as the other, scarcity is next to infinite (well, it’s precisely one, if we’re not counting editions).

This is the first and most important added value that a work of art has — scarcity. While philosophically one could even argue that it might actually be the only human creation that has inherent added value (I’m not, because I don’t believe this to be true), scarcity defines art unlike any other trait it might possess.

In any art economics book (and there sadly still aren’t that many), you can find at least one long paragraph that glorifies art as the ultimate product; one can have a bunch of villas, a dozen yachts and hundreds of beautiful old cars, but lose all interest and excitement about them eventually, because it’s not that hard to add one more into the collection.

Vintage wine, like all the “good” things in the world, tastes the best when we first try it, then it slowly but surely slips into the oblivion of commodity. The only real thrill then is to own a Salvator Mundi, Picasso’s Boy with pipe or Pollock’s No. 5, because there exists (and ever will exist) only one of each in the world. The one we have. The one others cannot possess.

But scarcity has to arise from somewhere, because nobody just wakes up with a sudden urge to buy our art. Scarcity needs an ecosystem in which it can exist — it needs demand. But to really understand demand, we have to understand need first, and there’s no better place to go than the nineteen forties, 1943 to be exact, when most of the western world was at war and people’s demands for almost everything were far from being met.

While the zeitgeist of the fifties created many questionable things, it had also sown the seeds for one of the most important scientific papers of our times, titled: “A Theory of Human Motivation”.

Maslow’s paper would become the bedrock of the social sciences for many decades to come, because it stated something groundbreaking; namely that all people share a common hierarchy of needs that follow certain rules and influence our lives as never thought of before.

He found that people do not and cannot experience certain needs — located higher up in the hierarchy — without first satisfying the more basic ones, like hunger, sex and security. Thus he concluded, that without first giving priority to the basic securities of life, like food, water and shelter, we humans are unable to even feel the urge to want something more complex; the need to have a family or the need to be respected in the eyes of our peers for example.

The trick is that demand for art, unlike trousers or bread, isn’t as popular amongst the masses, and we can find a clue as to why in Maslow’s theory: unlike most of our physical needs, that could be described as being a reaction to a certain deficiency — needing sustenance, love, affection, camaraderie, etc. — the need for collecting art comes from abundance and the need to grow.

Be it as a person, a society, a business or a local community; art gives us the tools to express ourselves and to connect, create a common identity and express our power. And if we see it as such, it gives us a much easier time understanding why the majority of people don’t collect art or just don’t give art the same importance in their lives as we do.

They just don’t feel the need for it.

Imagine you’re working two jobs and supporting a family of four; the chaos of having to put food on the table, paying the electricity bill and god forbid a mortgage on the house with less than 100€ in the bank to last you for another two weeks of grocery shopping, while your child is telling you she will be needing a new textbook for next week’s class that costs 50€.

No sane person under such conditions will ever think about how the empty wall space in the kitchen could use a nice still-life with a bunch of flowers or maybe an impressionist seascape in the colours of the living room couch.

Ever.

But on the other side of this equation are the people who are privileged enough to live in abundance; those who strive for power, fame, beauty or morality. Here, in a place of abundance the demand for art has a chance to sprout, but because there’s millions of artists around the world (1,2 million just in the US), it takes a bit more than a vague demographic analysis to find ones fertile soil.

We need a niche. Without it, we’re no more valuable than a no-brand drill bit at the local hardware store; forgettable, replaceable and most likely dull.

Think about it. There are many different companies that sell drills and accessories, all competing for the same customers. Some differences do exist, of course; you have different sizes, varying quality of the bits, their intended purpose — to drill into wood or metal or stone etc. — but apart from the obvious, there is one that is equally important, but resides on the customer side and is quite often overlooked.

Perception.

What I mean by this is that when a person goes to their local hardware store and buys drill bits, do they really go there with the sole intention to own drill bits or do they buy them only because it lets them make a hole in their wall to hang a painting of their dad?

Even then; did they buy drill bits and the painting for the sole reason of owning it, or did they maybe see in the portrait of their father an object that would remind them of what a wonderful person he is? Maybe he recently passed away and the painting means a lot to them? As does the process of commissioning it, receiving it, unpacking, framing, … and especially hanging it.

And in a world full of drill bits, more or less similar in size, quality and defined usage, would a drill company that focuses on evoking a certain emotion in their customer like pride, or a feeling of usefulness or maybe even self-actualisation, not only have an edge over their competition, but provide a lot of value to anyone with such a need?

Imagine your dad was somebody that made you feel like you needed to be useful in your life, like it was your duty as a person to do good and create great things with your hands. To pride yourself on a simple job well done.

What if the company that makes drill bits tried to enhance this experience with their products? They could invent a great advertisement campaign to place their products in such a demand niche, reinvent the packaging so that is helps enforce this feeling, maybe as simple as a slogan that says: “Nothing like a job well done.”

Maybe they could put a small chip inside their drill bit boxes (and call them Drill Beats) and make them play Ain’t No Mountain High Enough by Tammi Terrell & Marvin Gaye every time you open them? The goal would be to help you actualise your wish for feeling proud, helpful, self-reliant and in charge when you are preparing the wall to hang your painting, and a good tune goes a long way for a lot of us.

Would you not buy these bits over the competition if this was this exact experience that you are searching for? You might just pay a bit more, maybe 10% or 20% because you would see the added value that they embody.

Or, you might laugh at the sight of them and take the cheapest ones — preferably returning them after you don’t need them anymore and persuade the cashier or manager that you never opened them and just bought the wrong kind.

The difference is, that there would be a lot less people willing to buy Drill Beats, of course, because they would only sell to those that identify with the added value that they provide. But at the same time such people would probably cherish the added value immensely and may even talk about their newly-found novelty drill bits with their friends. All in all, they would be deemed more valuable than the other, generic bits, if the right people got their hands on them.

The cheaper ones on the other hand would still be bought by folks that need a hole and don’t mind the quick and dirty way, if they can save a few cents because of it. The difference wouldn’t even be connected with the functionality of either drill bit — both make holes and nothing else.

All that would be different would be the customers perception of them, their ability to connect with the core need that made them go into the hardware store in the first place. And with drill bits, it’s usually never to buy drill bits.

People don’t buy drill bits, they buy the ability to create holes. But even then, they don’t need holes, they might need to hang a painting of a loved one, to pay respect, to remember, not to forget … to feel proud that they did it themselves.

The real question for us then, is what do people really need when they buy our art?

from Surviving Art https://ift.tt/2PfV259 via IFTTT

#artist life #contemporary art #surviving art #make art everyday #blog

0 notes

suzannemcappsca · 5 years

Text

Who gets to talk; who gets to be heard?

Ian Macduff

“Within a multicultural democracy, debate within our own groups and communities must always be balanced by constructive engagement with members of other groups and communities. Citizens of a multicultural democracy must learn how to speak and be heard across difference . . . “ Alison Jaggar, “Multicultural Democracy,” Jnl of Political Philosophy, 7, No. 3, 308, at 323, (1999)]

This blog arises from a recent news item, commenting on research showing that processes of public participation in local government (in New Zealand) tend to privilege older, rich, urban, European voices over minority, indigenous, youth and migrant voices. Auckland City Council sought public input into the long term vision and plan for the next 30 years of this sprawling, diverse, multicultural city, to seek input on housing, transport, environment and well-being. [As an aside, some of you might have heard comments at the World Economic Forum from the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, that her government has specifically instructed Treasury and other agencies to take account of well-being as one of the measures of policy success. Predictable snorts of indignation and derision have emanated from those who take more restricted view of what counts as having value in social and economic policy.]

While the plan for public input was well-intentioned, the subsequent research shows that, in a city where the median age is 35, where there is a huge and often visible income disparity, and with an demographic mix that ranges across Pacific, Asian, European, migrant, refugee, indigenous Maori, and long-term white settler populations, an evaluation of the actual participation shows predominance of white and wealthier voices.

On the one hand, this should hardly surprise us: if we think of the modes of participation (filling forms, attending and speaking at public meetings, responding to web-based questionnaires, even having the time to do any of this), the modes are likely to favour certain sectors. Some sectors of the population are simply likely to be better at accessing civic resources or shoulder tapping local body politicians. On the other, these results underscore the challenges of ensuring that participation and access really are as open and representative and we hope they might be.

In reading this report, I recall my involvement as co-facilitator in a 2-3 day workshop following revelations of medical practices that had increased risks for women with early stages or risk of cervical cancer (subsequently the subject of a damning report). As facilitators committed to the idea of keeping all participants engaged in all phases of the process, we were initially taken aback by the insistence by a group of Maori women that they would have their own caucus, without input from us or others in the working group, and would report back at a plenary session. After some conversation about the interaction of the whole group – and some resistance from some in the wider working group – that is what happened. At the end of the whole process, the Maori women’s group reported back and did so with a richer, more nuanced, more authentically “owned” contribution than might have been the case had we insisted on keeping the group together. The lessons taken from that included the recognition that Maori women’s experience of the medical system was not (and probably still is not) the same as for other sectors of the population; that their need to have their own conversation was vitally important, before rejoining the rest of the conversation; and that their strength in providing a voice to the overall conclusion came from being able to do so as a distinctive caucus rather than as individual participants in a wider group. And, of course, as facilitators we could not – should not – insist on the sanctity of our expectations of a process over the values of diverse needs of participants.

This last part was significant: if the assumptions of the facilitators was that all of those involved in the planned conversation would speak as individuals (or in some cases as organisational spokespeople), the Maori women’s concern and huge contribution was to speak from collective and shared experience.

In process terms, it was also important to understand – or to be reminded – that there will be those who, not for reasons of modesty or shyness, but rather of history and experience, don’t expect to be heard in the same way as others. This, of course, is not uniquely a cross-cultural experience: women will be well-aware of the historical struggles to be heard and taken seriously.

There’s a personal reminder in this too, for the mediator, teacher and trainer: am I, despite my best intentions and all the exposure I’ve had to diversity, the politics of culture and gender in communication and so on, more likely to hear and pay attention to people more like me than others? On the eve, more or less, of my departure for the ICC’s mediation competition in Paris, where there will be participants from around the globe, the lesson in civics can be brought home to a very tangible setting – and all the more so when many of the participants will come from more socially hierarchical societies where there is less willingness to challenge any perceived bias of an older mediator or to correct any misperceptions by the mediator.

Given the founding aspirations of participation, autonomy, access, engagement, capacity building and inclusion of the modern mediation “movement”, it remains important to ensure not just participation but also recognition of different values participation; to acknowledge potential biases at systemic and personal level that shape what gets heard, and who gets included; to recognise variations in articulation and language ability (all the more so when we’re working with second language users); and the need for diversity of strategies and processes.

“No multicultural society can be stable and vibrant unless it ensures that its constituent communities receive both just recognition and a just share of economic and political power. It requires a robust form of social, economic and political democracy to underpin its commitment to multiculturalism.”

B Parekh (2006) Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory, 2nd ed., New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; p.271

More from our authors:

EU Mediation Law Handbook: Regulatory Robustness Ratings for Mediation Regimes by Nadja Alexander, Sabine Walsh, Martin Svatos (eds.) € 195 Essays on Mediation: Dealing with Disputes in the 21st Century by Ian Macduff (ed.) € 160.00

from Updates By Suzanne http://mediationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/01/26/who-gets-to-talk-who-gets-to-be-heard/

0 notes

studentwhowantstopass-blog · 6 years

Text

Unpacking Invisible Knapsack

Although Huyser, Takei, and Sakamoto have found that Native Peoples make up the bottom of the racial hierarchy, yes we rank lower than African Americans, in terms of education, housing, abject poverty, and health disparities, I cannot deny that as a Dine woman I still have privileges.

I work with privilege by beginning with the definition that Peggy McIntosh defines white privilege: “white privilege [is] an invisible package of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day but about which I was “meant” to remain obvious [to].” (2008). But I do not think this definition of privilege is helpful.

In this privilege list, I use the definition outlined by MTV News: a special right or advantage available to a particular person or group of people” based on race gender, class, sexual orientation, and physical ability” (MTV News). With this definition I am able to list privileges that keep from experience certain difficulties.

youtube

Video: MTV News

So, why the hell do I want to list my privileges? I think its important to acknowledge your privileges as away of checking your behavior and attitude as a form of self-reflection that is a crucial component for Hozho: its about checking the elitism that can build within academia, its about battling depression that comes with the realization that comes from learning about Native issues, its about reminding me what I should be grateful for, and most importantly for me, its about recognizing how I can use my privileges to empower my community.

And the privilege I list are within the realm of gender, citizenship (American and being Dine), spirituality, education, class, family structure, and what access I have to resources (McIntosh 2008, Citizenship Privilege).

Privileges

1. I identify as cis-female and deal with transphobia.

2.I am able-bodied and do not need additional technology or aids to get around.

3. I am fluent in American English and do not speak with a reservation accent (hearing Dine letter pronunciations in my speaking patterns).

4. I have an A.A. degree in Psychology.

5. I will have a B.A. in Sociology/English. I am about to graduate from college therefore I have a higher chance of acquiring a job than someone without a B.A.

6. Because I am educated, I can write letters that can lead to scholarship funding for school.

7. My father and my mother were involved in my life and were able to afford shelter and food for my family.

8. My parents didn’t force me to follow a career path and encouraged me even after I changed my majors 4 times.

9. Because I am the youngest I didn’t have as much responsibility as my 2 older siblings and could develop my reading and comprehension skills.

10. As the youngest I didn’t have to babysit anyone so I could focus on cultivating my own interests.

11. My skin tone is the right amount of color (I am not too light to pass therefore i can claim Native-ness and I am not too dark that I subject to violence that could be targeted against me if I were darker.

12. I grew up on the reservation and therefore my status an an authentic native is not under review from non-natives.

13. If I wanted/could afford classes, I could learn my traditional language at a college institution.

14. I have access to people who can teach me my traditions if I cannot understand them or do not know them.

15. I know traditional practices that can help with my personal development: spiritually, emotionally, psychologically and physically.

16. I have a car of my own, that was paid for by my father, who I do not have to pay back.

17. Since I go to college 2 hours away from home, I can go home when I feel homesick or want to get away from the city.

18. I didn’t have to get a job during college so I could devote my time to my studies and down time.

19. My mental illnesses have been under control since Jan. 2016. I do not have to work around them unlike others who still work with their mental illnesses.

20. I have roommates who can help me split rent instead of paying for the dorms.

21. Since I live off campus, my University provides free bus stickers that allows me to ride the bus without payment.

22. Since my father is a retired marine and he works, if I don’t have funds, he usually helps me out.

23. Because I am able to concentrate on my work, I tend to achieve high grades that in turn positively influence my connections with my professors, making them more willing to help me academically.

24. If I were to commit a crime I would be granted more leniency than my male counterparts.

25. Since I understand racial hierarchy and its social, historical, and economical structures of the U.S. i have greater resiliency and information against internalizing oppression.

26. I have access to internet and wifi and can get information or entertainment when I have nothing to do.

27. Because I didn’t have to work during college I was able to take Shaolin classes for 4 days a week for 2-3 hours.

28. I do not have children to watch or care for.

29. I have support networks/safe spaces for times in which I face racism.

30. I can have conversations about equality and not be worried that my views will clash with someone who can throw me out of my living space.

31. My parents accept that I am pansexual so I didn’t experience homelessness.

32. When getting my A.A. degree I went to community college so I didn’t have to pay for room and board.

33. During my academic career, college was always the goal. I didn’t have to worry about how to get a job after high school.

34. I have access to medication I need for my health.

35. My roommates are understanding about keeping quiet for hours so I can study.

36. My roommates are understanding when I need quiet or space to do traditional ceremonies.

37. Since my father is traditional, I do not have to pay for traditional services when he can do them, saving me about $60 dollars minimum.

38. My roommates adhere to the no drinking in the apartment rule, I asked them to follow.

39. My parent didn’t drink when raising me nor did they do drugs, therefore ensuring I was taken care of.

40. Because both of my parents are Dine, I am considered a full blooded Dine and do not have to fight for Tribal membership.

41. In growing within American society, I understand the norms that the culture follows even if I do not follow them as opposed to those who are foreign born.

42. Deportation is not an issue I have to worry about.

43. I have documents that allow me to get licenses, a job, paid, bank accounts, and so forth.

44. I can vote in both Tribal elections and U.S. elections.

45. I do not have to cross dangerous environments to provide for my family who lives across a border.

46. Because I have people who understand my ways of living I do not need green woods nature to be in nature, I know I am connected despite concrete and steel buildings.

47. I have been taught critical thinking skills that I use for my own empowerment.

48. Being Indigenous I have claims to the land that anyone who isn’t Native cannot claim.

49. My tribe is one of the more well-know tribes within the 544 federally recognized tribes.

50. Within the Navajo Nation I can find my history represented, my people represented in film and newspapers, my language heard, our traditions practiced.

51. I can critique my government within Dinetah and I can critique the U.S. government without been seen as an outsider.

52. I have access to food and water.

53. I am kept warm in my apartment rather than living through the elements.

54. I am able to wash my body daily.

55. I am able to wash my clothes without people judging me for being dirty or homeless.

56. Because my tribe is involved in resource extraction, we do not have to consider housing toxic waste in exchange for money for my tribe’s survival.

Critiques

After reviewing my privileges, I saw items listed as a privilege that should not be considered privileges. Like access to food, water, education, health care, housing, and employment.

Not only this but I recognize that I got to where I am through social networks that have helped me. I have had supportive environments that allowed me to be protected and invest energy into my development.

I think that we have to separate White Privilege from the idea/concept of PoC privilege, because White privilege is upheld on PoC oppression whereas the idea of PoC “privileges” are framed in the context of doing better than your fellow PoC. In this frame can we still call them privileges? It is because of this view that I have problems with McIntosh’s idea of positive privileges and negative privileges (2008).

I want to caution people however, that although I have listed my privileges I still experience lack of privileges because of my race. And that the Native privileges written down should not be seen as privileges because they are the ways in which our tribe has been able to keep traditions in the face of state sponsored systematic genocide.

Works Cited

“Citizen privilege.” Coloradans for Immigrant Rights A Project of the American friends Service Committee. UNMLearn. Web. 8 December 2017.

Huyser, Kimberly, Takei, Isao, & Sakamoto, Arther. “Demographic Factors Associated with Poverty among American Indians and Alaska Natives.” Springer 6.2 (2014) pp. 120- 134. EBSCOHost. Web. 8 December 2017.

McIntosh, Peggy. “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” The Meaning of Difference. 2008, pp. 368-370. Web. 8 December 2017.

MTV News. "Why Does Privilege Make People So Angry? | Decoded | MTV News." YouTube. YouTube, 13 Jan. 2016. Web. 08 Dec. 2017.

0 notes

photogracyblog · 7 years

Text

A Space That Wasn’t Made for Me (My Op-Ed for the Tufts Observer)

I am solely speaking about my experience as a queer, Persian man. I do not claim to understand or hope to speak for anybody else but myself. My experiences have been socialized by the immediate environment in which I was raised, and I fully realize how I have historically been complicit and involved in some of the systems and organizations that I criticize in this piece. My effort to improve as a person and to hold myself accountable for my actions is one that is not devoid of mistakes.

During recess one day in middle school, one of the coolest kids in my class, an attractive White male, asked me who some of my favorite singers were. Anxious to make a good impression, I thought of the Whitest shit I could come up with to please him: Red Hot Chili Peppers, Kurt Cobain, and Dave Matthews Band. I think I threw in Lil Wayne as well, because I have found that many White boys love reaffirming their “hipness” by admiring and “identifying” with Black rappers.

I grew up in a predominantly White, affluent neighborhood and attended a “prestigious” prep school in the greater Boston area. I quickly learned to value White activities like theater and tennis, both of which I really enjoyed, but all the while felt excluded from socially. I began to consider White, muscular men with rigid jawlines and blue eyes to be the epitome of attraction and beauty, shaping the way I began to look at myself in the mirror, and later contributing to the ways that I would begin to modify my body.

At the same time, my experiences assimilating to various aspects of White culture seemed to juxtapose with my identity as an Iranian-American. My parents emigrated from Iran to France and finally settled in Brookline, MA. I grew up in a house with Persian art, poetry, and music. I ate home-cooked Persian food every night, spoke Farsi with my family, and celebrated being Iranian by attempting to recognize the social implications that I thought being Iranian would mean.

Growing up, I always imagined that I would experience a universal bond with other Persians. I believed that the experiences we seemed to face as a community would transcend our often divisive, intersectional identities; however, I didn’t recognize how difficult it would be to navigate my Persian-ness as a queer man. I didn’t want to acknowledge the deeply rooted masculinity and patriarchal structure embedded within Persian culture that doesn’t give space to those with divergent and non-normative identities—specifically, queerness.

Identifying as gay, then eventually developing my sexuality to fit my own definition of queer, became an aspect of my identity that began to deteriorate the bond that I had tried to sustain between the Iranian community and myself. Once I began to realize how difficult it would be to find any space where my queerness and race could interact, I began to feel a deep sense of resentment towards myself. Never feeling quite Persian enough became a recurring sentiment at events, vacations, and dinners with my extended family. I found that my queerness seemed to dissuade my desire to “feel” Iranian by participating in the hyper-masculine activities and homophobic discourse that is rampant within many Persian social contexts that I have experienced.

As I sought to develop my identity further in college, something about associating myself as brown and not specifically as Persian began to muddle my identity and prevent me from characterizing my experiences as separate or unique. I don’t know what it feels like to be Latino. I do not identify as South Asian, nor do I consider myself an Arab—and so to experience struggle through the lens of an identity that cannot be located has made me feel that my brownness will not, and cannot, find a space to exist freely. Whether it is being misidentified or having my racial identity questioned, I have developed an uncomfortable relationship with claiming, accepting, and embracing being Iranian.

Whenever people used to ask about my ethnicity, I always responded by saying, “I’m Iranian.” Recently, however, I have begun to use the ethnic origin of my identity as a signifier of the unique culture that I ascribe myself with. Identifying and introducing myself as Persian marks an important and unique ethnic exclamation that has reaffirmed my desire to separate myself from other Middle Eastern and Arab cultures. (Contrary to popular belief, Persians are not ethnically Arab.)

Growing up and hearing Iran described as a threatening or evil country also made me uncomfortable publically identifying as Iranian. The inability for people in this country to disassociate Iran’s government from its people created this self-destructive pattern for me to constantly prove myself as a good Iranian, or disassociate from my racial background altogether. Today, I still find it terribly difficult navigating being Iranian given the current immigration ban that Trump’s administration has brought forth. Beyond the fallacy that the nations listed in the ban have contributed to acts of terror in the US (not a single one has), I also find it disheartening to hear Iran constantly being referred to under a false pretense of danger, terror, and otherness.

Despite the many “diverse” spaces at Tufts that foster important discussions for people of color, queer and trans folk, and women of color, I have found that, in order to join or feel welcomed into these dialogues or spaces, I have had to compromise aspects of my Persian-ness or succumb to adopting a generalized Middle Eastern identity in order to engage in discussions. I think that the socially conscious and active community at Tufts, which claims to create an inclusive space for marginalized individuals, tends to fall short in understanding or acknowledging the nuances of certain intersectional identities that exist on this campus, mine being one of many.

I grew up speaking Farsi, and the food that I have always eaten at home is so specific to Iran that I’m disheartened when our culture is generalized and placed within the socio-cultural landscape of others within the Middle Eastern region. Obviously, I am not angry or even shocked that people don’t know much about Iranian culture. It is rather the disregard or almost a sense of entitlement that many people on this campus feel when trying to locate my identity that puts me off. Surprisingly, people who major in American Studies, Sociology, and Anthropology have been among those who have asked me things like how spicy I like my food or if I know how to make homemade hummus. Iranian food is not spicy at all, and we don’t make or eat hummus unless we go out to restaurants.

Many times when White social justice activists on this campus ask me how to create more inclusive spaces for POC, I find that I want to respond by saying, “Stop trying to speak on behalf of identities that you don’t understand. Stop trying to locate us to fit into your social justice narrative or use us as a token to investigate intersectionality when you’re blindly unaware of the fundamental differences among our cultures.” For example, not identifying as a Middle Eastern gay man but rather as a Persian queer man is often read as commendable or “interesting” by socially active folks at Tufts, but rarely incorporated into important discussions or dialogues about queer POC on campus.

The socially unaware, uninvolved, and generally conservative White population at Tufts is truly, however, the largest demographic of individuals who have contributed to my anxieties, anger, and frustration. Whether it’s the toxic White gays at previous Rainbow House parties who have commented on and fetishized my “exotic” appearance, or White girls who love to tokenize my foreign queerness, you have all failed to recognize your internalized racism and homophobia. From the one frat brother who spat on me and my friend outside of a frat house window next to Moe’s my freshman year, to the multiple athletes who have physically pushed and verbally assaulted me at campus events, you have reminded me that regardless of how hard I try to make myself palatable to you, I am still a Persian faggot.

Despite all of this, however, I am constantly reminded of how privileged and lucky I truly am. My parents worked hard to put me through private school and then a liberal arts education, and I am forever grateful to them for the sacrifices they have made for me. My family has given me the space to explore my identities and embrace me for wanting to hold onto or discard certain aspects of both. Many queer Persians, however, do not experience the same socio-economic security, access to education, and support that I have, and I recognize how fortunate I am to even be able to speak up and feel safe to talk about this on a platform where my thoughts can hopefully be validated.

Luckily, I have been able to surround myself by some incredible Persian individuals on this campus who strive to include the intersections of my queerness and Iranian identity into a dialogue, giving me a platform to exist comfortably. Given the current socio-political climate of this country, I have found an immense amount of strength and desire to make our identities as Persian known. My unequivocal love for Persians is the strongest it has ever been. No ban on earth could prevent us from succeeding wherever we go, and I hope that people at Tufts and those within my close circle of friends will seek to learn more about Iran’s immensely influential history, culture, and society before calling themselves allies.

For me to not speak up after three and a half years of having people speak for me would further detract from the importance of celebrating my overlapping, yet individually valid, identities. Tufts, especially in its attempts to create or foster a space for inclusiveness, does not incorporate the nuances of socio-cultural and ethnic identities into a space that unidentifiable individuals can claim.

To the handful of professors and sociology majors that see my identities as unique and different, I’m appreciative of you. To the greater socially “active” and “progressive” White activists, women, and queer folk on campus, practice what you preach. Don’t think that individuals like me are not constantly trying to make ourselves palatable to you either. And finally, to the ex-lovers, friends, and professors who have pushed me into a space where self-hatred and discomfort have permeated the past 15 years of my life, I look back on my experiences with you not as moments when I wasn’t strong enough to speak up against you, but rather as a time when I just didn’t know where to locate that strength.

0 notes