i am fully aware i haven't blogged in well over two months. maybe i'm getting better at managing my anger, and have less of a need to blog? heh. well anyways, yesterday i hit the motherlode, if you will, as far as things that make me angry enough to rant about for pages. its called the motherlode blog on the new york times. or more specifically, this post by guess blogger "nicole sprinkle" (more on ludicrous last names in a bit).
so to summarize as briefly as possible. this is an "essay" (scare quotes to indicate that its neither well-written nor well-argued) by a white woman who married a colombian man, had a child, and began to systematically destroy her child's life by filling her with self-loathing. or, to put it in the words of so many of the commenters on the blog, it is a "brave and courageous" essay which takes an "honest" look at race, and should be applauded. apparently now the standard for decency when it comes to race relations is something along the lines of "i'm a huge fucking racist, but as long as i admit it, i'm being progressive." die.
ok i digress. so i was originally planning on just pointing out some of the horrifyingly racist things the author throws out in this essay as though they're no big deal (hoping her child will be just hispanic enough to get a scholarship, exoticizing her american-raised husband by expecting him to speak to their child in only spanish, worrying about the negative effects dominican nannies might have on her child's upper-class development, etc etc etc barf). As i went through the blog listing "things i found terribly offensive," though, the list grew so long i began to suspect i might be there forever. so i'm scratching that, and i'm just going to try to make a very broad point about this essay, and the incredible sadness i feel for this poor, poor child.
the main point of this essay, and the crux of my anger, is the idea that as a wealthy, white, straight parent, you are within your rights to try to mold your child's life to look more like your own to 'protect them' from adversity. Parents want their children to be happy, and for some reason they think the only road to happiness is the one lined with silver spoons which they themselves traveled. I doubt there are any such parents reading this right now, but i'll throw out some advice anyways: your child will never be happy if she knows her parents only love the white part of her, the straight part of her, or whatever other part they might most identify with. This "Sprinkle" woman (henceforth known as Cupcake McWhitey) seems to think that if she micromanages every aspect of her child's development, teaching just enough spanish to be charming and exotic, but not enough that anyone would question her whiteness, not enough that anyone might EVER discriminate against her, her child will have a great life. this is incorrect. if no one ever discriminates against her, that child will have a terrible life because she will grow up to be a person of color who is completely unaware of the racism that permeates the society in which she lives. this is tragic, because it means she won't CARE, and won't contribute to changing society in a positive way. it is also dangerous, because it means she won't be aware of the potential that someone WILL eventually discriminate against her. since of course, despite her mother's best efforts, she will still NOT BE WHITE.
i don't know that many new mothers, but i have known one too many gay friend whose parents rejected their gayness because they don't want their child to have any more hardship in life. parenting fail. in a big way. the moral of the story is, you can't change who your child is, but as a parent it is your responsibility to raise that child not to be the person you wish they were, but to be healthy and happy being the person they are. obviously raising a healthy and happy child is hard work, but if you can't even attempt to do that, you really should not have had children.
Showing posts with label rage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rage. Show all posts
Friday, April 10, 2009
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
How am I supposed to feel?
So, if you pay any attention at all to what Kaya and I say, you'll have noticed that we both live in New York City and, as people not from the East Coast (Midwest, what-what!) we sometimes have an interesting, or at least different perspective on things that seem to be just the norm around here.
One of those things is the very visible presence of the impoverished and the homeless in the city. Sitting on corners, shaking cups or performing for bits of money, it's easy to see that not only are this city's apartment buildings and projects overflooded, but also the homeless shelters and mental illness facilities. Those of us living and working in the city are all too familiar with the occasional (and on some lines regular) subway begger or performer, coming through the crowded aisles and telling their story, singing a song, doing a dance or in some cases just flat out crying in order to get a bit of change or the grand prize of some actual paper money. And let's be real, I bet on more than one occasion you've stifled a laugh during a particularly crazy/funny/strange performance or tried not to be too obvious while rolling your eyes during a repeat performance of your local train woman's story (I swear this one girl had her speech down pact, word for word weekdays on the downtown 2 train).
So yeah, we all have our thoughts, jokes, annoyances, whatever with these situations, but now someone has actually created a video as a reaction. Take a look below.
So when I first saw this I'll be plainly honest, I thought it was kind of funny. No, more like pretty hilarious. I mean come on, satire is always good fun- and if you get into the layered nature of this joke you could make all sorts of comments on those in power taking money from the middle class workers, the suffocatingly crowded yet simultaneously painfully isolating nature of the subway and the at times ludicrous accounts given by people in order to shame tourists into pulling their quarters and dollars out of their pockets/purses. But, like all good things, this enjoyment of mine while watching this video abruptly came to an end about 10 or 15 seconds into it, turning into a strong annoyance, then a quiet, bubbling rage and finally solidifying into a sinking pit of shame in my stomach when the actual homeless man comes into the cab singing a song and the actor claims that he "can sing better than him."
So when I first saw this I'll be plainly honest, I thought it was kind of funny. No, more like pretty hilarious. I mean come on, satire is always good fun- and if you get into the layered nature of this joke you could make all sorts of comments on those in power taking money from the middle class workers, the suffocatingly crowded yet simultaneously painfully isolating nature of the subway and the at times ludicrous accounts given by people in order to shame tourists into pulling their quarters and dollars out of their pockets/purses. But, like all good things, this enjoyment of mine while watching this video abruptly came to an end about 10 or 15 seconds into it, turning into a strong annoyance, then a quiet, bubbling rage and finally solidifying into a sinking pit of shame in my stomach when the actual homeless man comes into the cab singing a song and the actor claims that he "can sing better than him."
I'm all for conversations on these sort of awkard and depressing social phenomena, but jokes like this, while generally amusing, don't seem to do much more than providing a cathartic release- not for the people suffering from poverty but for those "suffering" from having to look at them.
And that, my friends, is pretty problematic. :/
Sunday, October 7, 2007
"my grandfather's son" or "how i sold my soul for a chance at the big time"
i don't even know where to begin. but it just really seemed like time i stepped up and let the world know how much hatred i have for clarence thomas. i mean seriously. compared to this guy, condi seems like kind of a sweet, pretty girl with normal teeth.
so you've probably heard he has this new book out, and maybe if you have a tv, you've even seen some of his interviews or something. just in case you haven't, this'll get you started...
ok so seriously though. i watched the whole interview, and i know 60 minutes thought that it would prove clarence thomas is "not the man i thought he was," or at least it kept saying that, but i'm confused about where they got that idea from. what did they think people thought of him? that he was some kind of raving lunatic or neo-nazi? obviously he has to have some semblance of sanity to be on the supreme court. but nothing he said in that interview gained him the slightest bit of respect in my eyes. if anything, i think less of him than i did before. and let's face it: i didn't really think that was even possible. here are just a couple of my responses to some of the ridiculous shit that came out of that man's mouth:
1) when asked how much of his life was determined by being black, he responded, "how much of your life is determined by being a man?" - um, try a lot, idiot. he then compares that to being 5' 8'' as if there is no difference in this society between the importance of someone's height and the importance of their gender or race. and you expect me to believe that he's NOT enough of a sexist to have done those things anita hill said? please.
2) when asked, "so you think of yourself as a black man?" he replied, "i'm a man." i'm sorry, but that sounds a lot to me like you DO have some issues with your own race. its hard for me to believe all this shit about "i'm not an uncle tom" and "i do care about black people" when you can't even force yourself on television to utter the words "i am a black man." and they claim he read james baldwin in college? must not have understood it.
3) he claims that his yale degree was worth 15 cents because he couldnt get a job. how poetic. except for the part where he got a job working for a yale grad. whoops. i guess what he meant was "i'm a huge fat liar in more ways than one."
4) when george bush interviewed him about his nomination, he looked him "dead in the eye" and told him "i will never criticize any decision you make?!?" i mean i believe it, but i fail to see where that's a good thing. pretty much every decision he's made has been horrible. so criticizing horrible decisions is a bad thing why? oh right. neo-conservative politics feeds on solidarity, lies, and the exploitation of those less fortunate than uncle thomas.
5) did anyone else notice that he mentioned that the whole anita hill thing set a precedent for "things like this" harming president clinton in the future? ok now i'm no genius, but president clinton DID have sexual relations with that woman, right? now i'm not saying i approve of how much of a deal the media made of the whole clinton-lewinsky fiasco, but the reason clinton got in trouble is he eventually admitted he was lying. i guess clarence thomas is a little smarter than bill clinton after all. america doesn't care what you did, it only cares that you continue to deny it for as long as you're a part of the government.
6) and this will be my last point, i swear, but how much did he pay them to do this 60 minutes special? he basically calls anita hill a lying bitch on television and they don't even give her a chance to respond. in fact the only negative portrayal of justice thomas in the entire piece is an old CLIP of jessie jackson, who i'm sure also wasn't contacted. like seriously? fair and balanced press? no? ok just checking.
ugh. i'm just...ugh. i know i just wrote a whole lot (what can i say, i ramble when i'm angry) but if you have it in you, i'd really recommend that you read frank rich's op-ed in the new york times. i think he brings up a lot of the points i failed to make.
oh, and just a side note, am i supposed to find it ENDEARING that he sometimes parks his gigantic gas-guzzling mobile home in the walmart parking lot? that sounds like something satan himself would find fun if he ever took a vacation here on earth. wal mart? seriously?
when thomas's grandfather said "don't shame me, don't shame the race," i can't help but think that this wasn't exactly what he had in mind.
so you've probably heard he has this new book out, and maybe if you have a tv, you've even seen some of his interviews or something. just in case you haven't, this'll get you started...
ok so seriously though. i watched the whole interview, and i know 60 minutes thought that it would prove clarence thomas is "not the man i thought he was," or at least it kept saying that, but i'm confused about where they got that idea from. what did they think people thought of him? that he was some kind of raving lunatic or neo-nazi? obviously he has to have some semblance of sanity to be on the supreme court. but nothing he said in that interview gained him the slightest bit of respect in my eyes. if anything, i think less of him than i did before. and let's face it: i didn't really think that was even possible. here are just a couple of my responses to some of the ridiculous shit that came out of that man's mouth:
1) when asked how much of his life was determined by being black, he responded, "how much of your life is determined by being a man?" - um, try a lot, idiot. he then compares that to being 5' 8'' as if there is no difference in this society between the importance of someone's height and the importance of their gender or race. and you expect me to believe that he's NOT enough of a sexist to have done those things anita hill said? please.
2) when asked, "so you think of yourself as a black man?" he replied, "i'm a man." i'm sorry, but that sounds a lot to me like you DO have some issues with your own race. its hard for me to believe all this shit about "i'm not an uncle tom" and "i do care about black people" when you can't even force yourself on television to utter the words "i am a black man." and they claim he read james baldwin in college? must not have understood it.
3) he claims that his yale degree was worth 15 cents because he couldnt get a job. how poetic. except for the part where he got a job working for a yale grad. whoops. i guess what he meant was "i'm a huge fat liar in more ways than one."
4) when george bush interviewed him about his nomination, he looked him "dead in the eye" and told him "i will never criticize any decision you make?!?" i mean i believe it, but i fail to see where that's a good thing. pretty much every decision he's made has been horrible. so criticizing horrible decisions is a bad thing why? oh right. neo-conservative politics feeds on solidarity, lies, and the exploitation of those less fortunate than uncle thomas.
5) did anyone else notice that he mentioned that the whole anita hill thing set a precedent for "things like this" harming president clinton in the future? ok now i'm no genius, but president clinton DID have sexual relations with that woman, right? now i'm not saying i approve of how much of a deal the media made of the whole clinton-lewinsky fiasco, but the reason clinton got in trouble is he eventually admitted he was lying. i guess clarence thomas is a little smarter than bill clinton after all. america doesn't care what you did, it only cares that you continue to deny it for as long as you're a part of the government.
6) and this will be my last point, i swear, but how much did he pay them to do this 60 minutes special? he basically calls anita hill a lying bitch on television and they don't even give her a chance to respond. in fact the only negative portrayal of justice thomas in the entire piece is an old CLIP of jessie jackson, who i'm sure also wasn't contacted. like seriously? fair and balanced press? no? ok just checking.
ugh. i'm just...ugh. i know i just wrote a whole lot (what can i say, i ramble when i'm angry) but if you have it in you, i'd really recommend that you read frank rich's op-ed in the new york times. i think he brings up a lot of the points i failed to make.
oh, and just a side note, am i supposed to find it ENDEARING that he sometimes parks his gigantic gas-guzzling mobile home in the walmart parking lot? that sounds like something satan himself would find fun if he ever took a vacation here on earth. wal mart? seriously?
when thomas's grandfather said "don't shame me, don't shame the race," i can't help but think that this wasn't exactly what he had in mind.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
customer "service" and the year of the octopus
so i don't know if you've also noticed this, but there are two disturbing trends sweeping the nation and i can't help but feel like just maybe they're related.
trend one: monopolies are back in style. we all learned in US history in high school that back in the day, like maybe around the turn of the century or something, the government started making lots of anti-trust laws to control the rampant monopolization of big business. ok so maybe we didn't all learn that in school, but we would have if our public education system was on a level somewhere higher than absolute shit. point being, what most of us don't know, although i'm sure we've started to suspect, is that most of those laws no longer exist. here are a couple of fun facts for you:
Time Warner: I called some company called cablevision (i think) to try and order cable and internet for my apartment in brooklyn. the representative did something on the computer and then told me in a terrified voice that "oh no no no" she couldn't possibly provide me with cable. i live in time warner's zone. then she fled. upon further investigation, not only is time warner my one solitary option for cable and internet, but Time Warner also owns quite a few things, including AOL, Moviefone, mapquest, netscape, HBO, Cinemax, E!, Cartoon Network, TBS, TNT, CNN, New Line Cinema, Warner Bros., Entertainment Weekly, Sports Illustrated, and Time magazine. and those were just the ones i felt like writing down because I thought you'd recognize them. there are hundreds more. Additionally, Time Warner is currently involved in some kind of fun deal with comcast, where they jointly own some shit in texas so they can help each other acquire smaller companies. think about what that means. time warner basically owns you, and you didnt even know it.
i'm not even going to list the things coca-cola owns, because you'd have to stop reading this, it's so long.
i could go on for days. we'll just move on to trend 2:
trend two: customer service has been flushed straight down the toilet.
now call me paranoid, but i can't help but think that the fact that time warner is not jumping to hook up my cable might just have something to do with the fact that I have no choice but to wait however long they might decide they want to take. what am i going to do? get my cable from time warner instead? oh wait.
let me share a couple of stories with you about how much fun my move to new york has been.
story one: "luggage is for the weak"
scene 1: O'Hare airport, Chicago, IL
the protagonist, kaya, is waiting for her bags in the baggage claim area. as everyone around her receives their bags and departs, she starts to worry and approaches the desk.
kaya: um, I think my bags might not be coming.
dude (scanning bag claim tickets): oh yeah. they never left washington dulles. we can have those delivered to you.
kaya (fooled by the apparent consideration): that would be great!
(kaya gives dude her address and phone number)
scene 2: evanston, IL. 9:00pm (2 hours after the 'latest' the bags were scheduled to be delivered)
phone rings
kaya: hello?
delivery man: hello, is this kaya, united, red bags?
kaya: i guess...
delivery man: will you be home for the next 3 hours?
kaya: well in 3 hours it will be midnight. my family will be asleep.
delivery man: so yes?
kaya: i'm really going to need my bags before midnight.
delivery man: don't worry.
scene 3: evanston, IL. 1:00am. kaya has just given up on her bags.
phone rings. bags are arriving. they are covered in filth. kaya is excited to see them. what she has yet to realize is that this exact scene is going to repeat itself a mere four days later when she flies from chicago to new york on delta airlines. except that next time, when the delivery man arrives, he won't even have her bags. he'll be just as confused as she is, but that will be no comfort at all.
Story two: "bedding is for the weak"
scene 1: brooklyn, NY. kaya's new apartment. she's psyched because the fedex man has arrived with her bedding two days before she expected! she's puzzled that the package is so small. how could a comfoter fit into such a small package? she opens it to discover that it can't. there is no comforter. puzzled, she tracks the package online and discovers that while the sheets were picked up on the 4th for delivery, the comforter has not had any activity since it was acknowledged on the 3rd that the comforter exists. she picks up the phone to call fed ex.
kaya: hello?
automated system: please listen to the following 46 options, none of which apply to you, and speak your answer clearly into the phone. if you ask to speak to a representative, i will get an attitude with you even though i am a machine, because i'm positive that you are calling about something you could easily have just looked up online, and that you do not have a real problem.
kaya: begins to scream "representative" over and over again into the phone
automated system (pissed): fine, i will transfer you to the next available representative.
rep: hello, fed ex. this is someone speaking.
kaya: hi, i just got a package but i was supposed to get two, and i was hoping you could tell me what happened.
(some information is exchanged)
rep: oh ok. yeah, we never picked that up. i can't tell you what happened, but we don't have it. if you want to call and find out, you probably should.
kaya: great, what's the number?
rep: i don't know.
kaya: um...
rep: you could probably also just call linens 'n' things.
kaya: ok...thanks?
rep: hangs up.
kaya dials the number for linens and things, and struggles with a new automated woman, who is even more pissed about having to relenquish control of the conversation.
rep: hello linens 'n' things, i sound like i'm having a bad day and that is not a good sign for you.
kaya: hi, i ordered a comforter a few days ago, and i just talked to fed ex and they never got it.
rep: i'm going to pretend like i understand and talk to you for five minutes about some pillows. eventually i'll realize you want a comforter and we'll start this process over.
kaya: fine, i guess.
rep: oh ok, it shows that the package was entered into the fed ex system on the 4th.
kaya: yeah, i can see that online. you're just looking at the same-ass "track package" screen on the fed ex website that i clearly checked before calling you.
rep: right. well so it was shipped on the 4th then.
kaya: no that's the whole point. it wasn't.
rep: oh ok. well it'll take 5-6 business days, so it should come tomorrow or monday.
kaya: well no, because the other things that it was shipped with arrived today. also because i talked to fed ex and they are not planning on delivering it. in fact, they don't even have it.
rep: i see. well it should probably show up in a few days.
kaya: no no, i won't.
rep: i understand your frustration. why don't you call back on monday if you still haven't gotten it.
kaya: hangs up in fury, and then immediately regrets hanging up, as her problem is nowhere near solved.
...well, this was a long post. i guess i should get offline and go call linens 'n' things back.
trend one: monopolies are back in style. we all learned in US history in high school that back in the day, like maybe around the turn of the century or something, the government started making lots of anti-trust laws to control the rampant monopolization of big business. ok so maybe we didn't all learn that in school, but we would have if our public education system was on a level somewhere higher than absolute shit. point being, what most of us don't know, although i'm sure we've started to suspect, is that most of those laws no longer exist. here are a couple of fun facts for you:
Time Warner: I called some company called cablevision (i think) to try and order cable and internet for my apartment in brooklyn. the representative did something on the computer and then told me in a terrified voice that "oh no no no" she couldn't possibly provide me with cable. i live in time warner's zone. then she fled. upon further investigation, not only is time warner my one solitary option for cable and internet, but Time Warner also owns quite a few things, including AOL, Moviefone, mapquest, netscape, HBO, Cinemax, E!, Cartoon Network, TBS, TNT, CNN, New Line Cinema, Warner Bros., Entertainment Weekly, Sports Illustrated, and Time magazine. and those were just the ones i felt like writing down because I thought you'd recognize them. there are hundreds more. Additionally, Time Warner is currently involved in some kind of fun deal with comcast, where they jointly own some shit in texas so they can help each other acquire smaller companies. think about what that means. time warner basically owns you, and you didnt even know it.
i'm not even going to list the things coca-cola owns, because you'd have to stop reading this, it's so long.
i could go on for days. we'll just move on to trend 2:
trend two: customer service has been flushed straight down the toilet.
now call me paranoid, but i can't help but think that the fact that time warner is not jumping to hook up my cable might just have something to do with the fact that I have no choice but to wait however long they might decide they want to take. what am i going to do? get my cable from time warner instead? oh wait.
let me share a couple of stories with you about how much fun my move to new york has been.
story one: "luggage is for the weak"
scene 1: O'Hare airport, Chicago, IL
the protagonist, kaya, is waiting for her bags in the baggage claim area. as everyone around her receives their bags and departs, she starts to worry and approaches the desk.
kaya: um, I think my bags might not be coming.
dude (scanning bag claim tickets): oh yeah. they never left washington dulles. we can have those delivered to you.
kaya (fooled by the apparent consideration): that would be great!
(kaya gives dude her address and phone number)
scene 2: evanston, IL. 9:00pm (2 hours after the 'latest' the bags were scheduled to be delivered)
phone rings
kaya: hello?
delivery man: hello, is this kaya, united, red bags?
kaya: i guess...
delivery man: will you be home for the next 3 hours?
kaya: well in 3 hours it will be midnight. my family will be asleep.
delivery man: so yes?
kaya: i'm really going to need my bags before midnight.
delivery man: don't worry.
scene 3: evanston, IL. 1:00am. kaya has just given up on her bags.
phone rings. bags are arriving. they are covered in filth. kaya is excited to see them. what she has yet to realize is that this exact scene is going to repeat itself a mere four days later when she flies from chicago to new york on delta airlines. except that next time, when the delivery man arrives, he won't even have her bags. he'll be just as confused as she is, but that will be no comfort at all.
Story two: "bedding is for the weak"
scene 1: brooklyn, NY. kaya's new apartment. she's psyched because the fedex man has arrived with her bedding two days before she expected! she's puzzled that the package is so small. how could a comfoter fit into such a small package? she opens it to discover that it can't. there is no comforter. puzzled, she tracks the package online and discovers that while the sheets were picked up on the 4th for delivery, the comforter has not had any activity since it was acknowledged on the 3rd that the comforter exists. she picks up the phone to call fed ex.
kaya: hello?
automated system: please listen to the following 46 options, none of which apply to you, and speak your answer clearly into the phone. if you ask to speak to a representative, i will get an attitude with you even though i am a machine, because i'm positive that you are calling about something you could easily have just looked up online, and that you do not have a real problem.
kaya: begins to scream "representative" over and over again into the phone
automated system (pissed): fine, i will transfer you to the next available representative.
rep: hello, fed ex. this is someone speaking.
kaya: hi, i just got a package but i was supposed to get two, and i was hoping you could tell me what happened.
(some information is exchanged)
rep: oh ok. yeah, we never picked that up. i can't tell you what happened, but we don't have it. if you want to call and find out, you probably should.
kaya: great, what's the number?
rep: i don't know.
kaya: um...
rep: you could probably also just call linens 'n' things.
kaya: ok...thanks?
rep: hangs up.
kaya dials the number for linens and things, and struggles with a new automated woman, who is even more pissed about having to relenquish control of the conversation.
rep: hello linens 'n' things, i sound like i'm having a bad day and that is not a good sign for you.
kaya: hi, i ordered a comforter a few days ago, and i just talked to fed ex and they never got it.
rep: i'm going to pretend like i understand and talk to you for five minutes about some pillows. eventually i'll realize you want a comforter and we'll start this process over.
kaya: fine, i guess.
rep: oh ok, it shows that the package was entered into the fed ex system on the 4th.
kaya: yeah, i can see that online. you're just looking at the same-ass "track package" screen on the fed ex website that i clearly checked before calling you.
rep: right. well so it was shipped on the 4th then.
kaya: no that's the whole point. it wasn't.
rep: oh ok. well it'll take 5-6 business days, so it should come tomorrow or monday.
kaya: well no, because the other things that it was shipped with arrived today. also because i talked to fed ex and they are not planning on delivering it. in fact, they don't even have it.
rep: i see. well it should probably show up in a few days.
kaya: no no, i won't.
rep: i understand your frustration. why don't you call back on monday if you still haven't gotten it.
kaya: hangs up in fury, and then immediately regrets hanging up, as her problem is nowhere near solved.
...well, this was a long post. i guess i should get offline and go call linens 'n' things back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
