Godheval.com

As children, we believe mostly whatever we are told – by parents, family, teachers, and even friends. We hear a story and we do not know – until it is clarified by another – whether or not the story is real or make-believe.

Then as teenagers it is common for us to go through a rebellious phase – not necessarily acting outside of any established moral or ethical framework, but daring to venture out on our own, to establish our identities as individuals, and to explore for ourselves what constitutes “truth”. Sometimes we act like raving lunatics just to be contrary.

Then we enter adulthood, and invariably become more “grounded”, learning to temper our youthful passions, to focus that energy towards more “practical” pursuits.  We learn balance, objectivity, humility.  We are able – in most cases – to reconcile our personal views with the fact that others have different views.

We grow up.

It occurred to me recently that there may be a parallel between this maturation from childhood to adulthood, and people’s progression through different phases of belief and disbelief.  Of course not everyone has the journey through belief and/or disbelief, just as we don’t all mature at the same pace or experience the same things at any given point in our lives.  So the parallel I am drawing is meant to be generic and abstract, rather than a precise comparison. (more…)

A Response to Fade to White by Ishmael Reed

In a New York Times Op-Ed, Ishmael Reed discusses the movie Precious, and how it was offensive to the African-American audiences to whom he spoke, while being more widely accepted by white audiences.

He writes:

Among black men and women, there is widespread revulsion and anger over the Oscar-nominated film about an illiterate, obese black teenager who has two children by her father. The author Jill Nelson wrote: “I don’t eat at the table of self-hatred, inferiority or victimization. I haven’t bought into notions of rampant black pathology or embraced the overwrought, dishonest and black-people-hating pseudo-analysis too often passing as post-racial cold hard truths.” One black radio broadcaster said that he felt under psychological assault for two hours. So did I.¹

It seems to be Reed’s contention that the heart-wrenching portrayal of an African-American woman living in a terrible situation is palatable to white Americans because they already think very little of how African-Americans live.  On the other hand, African-Americans whose lives do not in any way resemble that of Precious should be offended for how that story misrepresents them.

And here is where Mr. Reed and – everyone else who feels this way – makes a critical mistake.  Like so many others, he treats the example of one individual who happens to be African-American necessarily as a representation of all African-Americans.  This kind of presumption is one that bubbles up from the cracks of institutionalized racism.  It is an irony and a travesty where African-Americans themselves – like Mr. Reed – are instilled with racist presumptions by way of this institution. (more…)

In an earlier post, I discussed the need for designers to incorporate a wider range of ethnicities in video games.  As to why they haven’t done so up to this point, and why the few non-white characters tend towards stereotypes, I offered up one possible explanation.

Part of the reason for this is that a large number of games come out of Japan, which being nearly homogeneous in terms of ethnicity, and insulated – both physically and culturally – may lack a strong frame of reference for depicting a diverse cast of characters.  Where the games are made in the Europe or the United States, where ethnic variety is more common, stereotypes may instead emerge as a consequence of one-dimensional writing.  Perhaps a developer cannot be bothered to do the research into all of the nuance and idiosyncrasies that rise from a character’s ethnic experiences.

While those developers who have at least made the attempt to be more inclusive should be acknowledged, it is more important to point out where more work needs to be done.  I am almost six years late in discussing the case of Jade from Beyond Good & Evil, but an interesting post by Jason over at Microscopiq brought the issue to my attention.  The post discusses the “first 11 black video game stars”, specifically those characters of visible African descent who were not only featured in games, but were the main character.  Jade was amongst those mentioned.  For those of you who have not played the game, here is an in-game screen of the character.

Jade of Beyond Good and Evil

At a glance, some – if not most – people would question whether or not Jade qualifies as “black” in any sense.  Arguments could be made for virtually any ethnicity as her appearance is quite ambiguous.  The only solid support for Jade being a “black” heroine is in looking at the original concept art, which featured some earlier renditions of Jade with either locks or braids in her hair, and features more commonly associated with certain peoples of Africa.  From the concept stage to the final version, much was changed, and we have a character who could pass for virtually anything.

(more…)

When I talk about things like “renouncing blackness“, I think people sometimes get the wrong idea. I stated it clearly in the above-linked article, but let me say it again here. My renunciation of my race, my rejection of the whole concept of race, does not in any way distance me from my sense of justice and thereby my allegiance to those – to any – who find themselves discriminated against, marginalized, disenfranchised, or subjugated. Because my allegiance is to humanity.

So do not think – even for a nanosecond that because I say I’m “not black” that I won’t still punch you in the throat for calling me – or anyone in my presence – a nigger. Don’t think for an instant that I have abandoned “black people”, that I do not wish in the depths of my heart to see true equality, and do not ever think that I will be on the wrong side in any conflict where so-called black people are being mistreated. I choose mostly to fight my battles with ideology, to mark as my enemy the status quo which continues to allow racism and stupidity and divisiveness to prevail throughout the human condition. But please – please – do not ever mistake where my loyalties lie, and do not ever underestimate the methods I am willing to employ to see justice done.

Sometimes it dawns on me that I may just be the only sane person in the entire world. But of course, just as I think that, the inverse occurs to me as well – that such a thought may mark me as the crazy one. This seeming paradox is represented in my mind by the taichi symbol used to express the relationship between yin and yang – you know the one.

On each side there’s an absolute color, black or white, but embedded in each area is a small dot of the opposite color. So on one side you’ve got me – let’s say the black dot in the white area – being the only sane person. But the complement to that, on the other side – the white dot in the black area – is me being the insane one in a sane world. Which is reality? Perhaps both, perhaps neither. And maybe, much like yin and yang, the opposites are not in conflict, but complementary, and the border between sanity and insanity is not so stark, but rather fluid and transitional.

What is a person’s identity?

A conglomeration of ideas built on top of one another, itself built on top of a set of biological imperatives, all collectively bent towards preservation. I have identified 9 “types” corresponding to the composition of being – the different levels at which identity is constructed or redefined, all of which can be examined in order to determine how they shape our identity.

The genotype is constructed from a blend of genes from two parents, the genes then expressed through probability by way of the phenotype. At some point during our early childhood we learn to distinguish ourselves from our external environment. We subscribe to the idea of “self”, which has both conscious and unconscious manifestations – together called the endotype. The advent of self also gives birth to the idea of “other”, the essential crisis of human consciousness.

Throughout the course of our lives, we are influenced in various ways by our external environment, our interactions with it providing positive or negative feedback. From there we start to form a growing understanding of the relationship between self and other, in places reconciling the two – as we do in forming bonds with other people, and in places maintaining a certain distance or dissonance, such as competition for resources or mates. The total effect of the external world on a being is its exotype.

As we interact with our external environment, developing impressions of other beings, those other beings also develop certain perceptions of us, either through direct interaction or filtered through pre-existent identification paradigms such as race, religion, gender, or nationality. Our identity as perceived by others, which is infinitely variable, is known as the ectotype. This also means that we construct an ectotype for every other being with which we interact. We integrate into our identity different ectotypes from individuals whose impressions we value for any reason, or that which is projected onto us from the greater society.

Ectotypes affect our interactions with others, that is, they determine how those others treat us, whether they accept us or reject us, like or dislike us, admire or scorn us. This in turn can have an affect on how we see ourselves, either validating and reinforcing our self-image or creating a disparity which puts the endotype into crisis. All of these interactions are a part of how the external environment influences our being, and so in this way there is a triangular interplay between endotype, ectotype, and exotype.

How this interplay shapes our identity is both conscious and subconscious. Sometimes we are not even aware of how we make changes to our identity in order to make ourselves more “fit” for the external environment. Physical adaptations are obvious, while cultural adaptations can take place on a level beneath awareness. Humans do of course on some level consciously choose how they will represent their idea of self to the world – by way of physical appearance and outward personality. Often this representation is genuine, while other times it is a facade. As we go through life, it is at turns fixed or changing, and some aspects are circumstantial while others are consistent. It is our conscious response to the interplay between endotype, ectotype, and exotype, and is called heretype.

As we establish our identities we adopt ideas about everything. Ideas about other people and our relationships with them. Ideas about our world, from our immediate surroundings out to the whole of planet Earth and the universe beyond, and how we fit within them. Our social consciousness, our politics, our religion, our morals, our ethics, our aesthetics, our membership within groups – all of these complexes of ideas collaboratively form our ideotype which we fix upon ourselves. We “identify” with them, which is to say that we affix them to our identities. Our ideas about ourselves and the world become as much a part of who we are as our physical bodies.

But what does any of this really mean? Is any of it substantial? At the very bottom of our identity is our physical body, which had it developed in a different place under different circumstances and had different interactions with different people, may have manifested as an entirely different person. It has already been established that at some point we choose who we are, or at least how we represent ourselves to the world. This ability to choose makes human being’s existential freedom unique amongst all other animals of the world – but only insofar as we are aware that we have this choice.

While we may say that so many variables “determine” our identity, the word determine connotes a lack of choice. Our sense of self is affected by others perceptions of us, but if we are of the right frame of mind we can reject those perceptions where they conflict with our sense of self rather than internalizing them. We have that freedom. We have the least control over our physical bodies, but even they are subject to change through choice of diet, choice of activities, and other factors. But even if our identity was grounded in our physical bodies, it certainly does not mean that we have to subscribe to any of the ideas attached to them by others. This means that whatever “meanings” are applied to the various sets of physical characteristics, such as body types or “race” can be accepted or rejected in how we conceive our sense of self.

Although sociocultural constructs such as race, ethnicity, nationality, family role, gender, religious affiliation, and political orientation are layered upon us to form our identity, we can at any time reject any part or the whole of that identity and reinvent ourselves as we so choose. The crisis of establishing one’s identity is called angst, and where there is a disparity between sense of self and how others perceive us (or how we think they perceive us) there is anxiety. The two terms share a common etymology, and are quite clearly intertwined.

Most people probably are not even aware of the freedom they have. For example, a woman gives birth to a child. Social norms and biological imperatives dictate that she should play the role of “mother” to this child. Built within these norms and imperatives are positive feedback mechanisms which only further incline the woman to sustain that role, to identify herself as a “mother”. She may affix this identity to herself so firmly it supersedes all other aspects of self, and were she suddenly to be wrenched from this identity it would put who she conceived herself to be into crisis.

But the truth is that this woman, social norms and biological imperatives aside, has the freedom to abandon that child, to renounce all responsibility and reject the role of mother. Now depending upon how she goes about this the consequences – emotionally, socially, or legally – may be more or less severe, but they do not affect her ability to free herself from her identity as a mother. So that it’s clear, I am not advocating the idea of women abandoning their children, but merely making the point that such freedom exists.

That to many people would be unthinkable. They may say that even if she put the child up for adoption she is still technically – by the fact of their biological connection – the child’s “mother”. But the role of mother, just like all other non-physical aspects of identity, is a construct, and as such it can be deconstructed and renounced. Imagine a hypothetical close-knit society where the children of any set of parents are treated as the children of every adult in the society. Perhaps the words “mother” or “father” do not even exist in this society. The child merely exists in a familial relationship with the entire community.

Certainly there will be different people who fall into different roles with respect to this child, but none of them may be exactly what one would classify as a “mother”. A woman who breastfeeds the child may not be biologically related to him at all, but merely another woman who was lactating because of her own recent pregnancy. This woman may then do nothing else for the child as far as nuturing or protecting him or even interacting with him. Perhaps her only job is to feed him. Is she his mother? Or does that title fall to the man who coddles, protects, and loves the child? It should be clear that the role of “mother” is not as substantial as we normally take it to be.

The person that I conceive of as my own mother is merely the ectotype for her that I have created through our interactions, but is not at all the whole of her identity. To think so is to place limitations on who she is and who she can be, and it is not my place to do so. Only she can choose to what extent she is my mother, and what that means for our relationship and how that contributes to her personal identity.

What the example of the mother is meant to demonstrate is that a person can deconstruct their identity – starting at any layer – and “rebuild” themselves as they choose. From renouncing one’s race or ethnicity to rejecting cultural norms or mores to abandoning one’s entire self-image. This can be beneficial in many ways. For example, if a person has been continuously rejected in their quest for romance for any number of reasons, they may internalize these rejections as meaning that something is wrong or undesirable about themselves. But the truth is that each rejection is an individual event, and not necessarily reflective of any global truth about the person.

Perhaps one person invalidated them for having what they saw as an unattractive body type.  Another because they weren’t of the same “race”. Yet another rejected them for their choice of fashion. We may be invalidated and rejected at anytime and for any reason, and if we were to internalize every single one of them, we would only be in constant crisis. But we don’t internalize them all. Which ones we reject and which ones we accept are all a matter of choice. This means that we also have the choice to reject them all, to not allow any of those external judgments to determine our sense of self.

The point of this essay is not to say that a person should necessarily abandon their entire identity, but to demonstrate that they have the freedom to do so. The only true identity is a divine nothingness – a rich soil in which we can plant any kind of seeds, a blank canvas we can paint however we wish and paint over again and again, a clay that we can mold and shape into any form, a void which can be filled with anything the free-thinker desires. As children we understand this freedom – if only subconsciously – more than we do by the time we become adults – since at that time we are likely to have become set within a certain identity.

But this freedom never leaves us, as evidenced by people who hold to certain ideas for the majority of their lives, only to come to some revelation and change their minds completely. This kind of revelation and change can come in youth, in middle age, in old age, or even on a person’s deathbed. But it is only a “revelation” after we’ve forgotten that we can change who we are, what we think, how we feel, and what we believe at any given time.

So in conclusion, if you find that your identity places you in some kind of crisis – either within yourself or with your environment, remember that you have the freedom to change, or the freedom to determine whether or not that crisis has to exist at all.

Physical bodies, ecosystems, ideas, personalities, cultures, communities, nations, worlds – and verily, the entire universe – are in flux. Should it be so strange that an individual identity is inconstant, deconstructable, and adaptable? Certainly not.

Part 1 of the Black Dilemma Series

It should be understood from the start that I am writing as an American and I am talking exclusively about the experience of the African Diaspora in the United States. How the terms mentioned apply globally to various other groups of people is beyond the scope of this essay.

Blackness does not exist in a vacuum. It exists only as a reflection of whiteness. It represents both how peoples of the African Diaspora have been regarded and treated by white people – racism, discrimination, subjugation, and annihilation, both physical and cultural. It also represents how the Diaspora has responded to these conditions – submission, acceptance, and resistance.

Blackness also further validates whiteness, existing as a point of reference. White people can claim “We are not that” – that being the exotic or inhuman “other”.

At some point, American society determined that the word “nigger” was inappropriate in the public sphere. That which was a commonly accepted term to describe so-called “black people” – here defined as enslaved Africans and their descendants – became unacceptable only because of its direct association with slavery, or the slave-holding south. That it became taboo has nothing to do with any sudden revelation on the part of white people that slavery, subjugation, or inequality was wrong, and thereby the terms that imply those processes should be abolished.

It became taboo as white society scrambled to erase the stains of the past from its consciousness – a feat that has been mostly achieved in contemporary society. The word “nigger” is one of those beacons that penetrate the veil of delusion, that remind “black people” as well as “white people” that the legacy is not dead, that it has merely transformed. Those who use the word in a racist context are considerably more genuine than their apologetic brethren, as they do not suffer under any pretenses of equality. They acknowledge and celebrate it – abhorrent for certain – but that at least makes them conscious of it.

The etymology of the word “nigger” has to do with a mispronunciation or warping of “negro” or similar words which in the European languages of the slave-holding Europeans meant “black”. It is not that the word “nigger” itself, as some unique linguistic phenomenon, confers lesser inhuman status upon darker people. It is that in meaning “black”, an exaggeration of darker skin tones, it also came to mean “inferior” due to its association with those darker skinned people. In other words, the less-than-human status was conferred first, and then all things associated with them as such, came to refer to inferiority. In this way, “black” – is just as fundamentally racist as “nigger”. This becomes even clearer when you hear people use the term “blacks” instead of “black people” – again a removal of the human element. Of course those same people also probably say “whites”, but there is no dehumanizing dimension to whiteness, and therefore it does not carry the same connotation.

Categorization is an everyday practice in every human society. We facilitate our understanding of a multitude of phenomena by trying to group them by their common traits. This is true of everything – objects, animals, ideas, and people. “Black” is used to categorize people who are perceived to have common traits. However, these traits are numerous. They are not exclusively biological, as there are as many differences within that group as there are similarities, just as there are between “black” people and any other perceived group. The biological differences between human beings are fluid in how they pervade the entire species, and do not create such distinct separations. The traits are not merely visual, as the spectrum of so-called “black people” incorporates incomparable diversity.

This is not to say that there are not identifiable biological differences between human groups, or that all systems of group classification are invalid. However, those differences do not at all correspond to how those groups are identified in America – our conception of race. Furthermore, genetic differences are really only relevant within the context of medicine, and even doctors are careful not to attribute the prevalence of disorders within perceived groups to biology alone. They realize that those disorders may have as much to do with bad practices transmitted through culture, such as diet.

Within the medical context, to whatever extent racial classifications are helpful in identifying high risk conditions, and in fostering a culture of illness prevention, then they should be examined further. But there is little need for these classifications to be transmitted into American culture, as they have proven only to be divisive.

The differences between people aren’t merely social either, as “black people” also exist at nearly all levels of the socioeconomic spectrum, albeit with a clearly uneven distribution. They are not intellectual or emotional, because no one can claim to know the minds of an entire group of people, what they think or how they feel.

Then on what grounds do we even classify certain people as “black”? So-called black people themselves, here in America, may see the term as synonymous with “African-American”, and claim that a certain group of people share in the experience and history of subjugation, discrimination, hatred, and oppression. Indeed there is a group of people with this shared experience, but even the degree to which they experience it exists along a spectrum, with some able to blissfully ignore it, while others feel that they suffer under its influences on a daily basis.

It is not merely that generalizations are made about “black people”. Blackness itself is the generalization. Blackness purports that all people of visible African descent have the same experience without exception, and denies any claims to individuality.

If black, then, is defined as a group of people with this shared experience, then it reaffirms my earlier claim that it exists only in response to whiteness. The aforementioned experience was created and is maintained by so-called white people, who continue to need some justification for the sense that they exist in opposition to, or at least distinct from, a darker skinned “other”. Many so-called black people themselves cling to this identity for the same reason, accepting their place as a minority “other”, although now in some way resisting the experience rather than succumbing to it. But they still only exist as a response, rather than due to anything inherent to their being or character. Of course, for all my pedantics here, I realize that most people use “black” to describe themselves simply out of tradition. “It’s not that deep”, someone might say. Until it is. And, really, it has been since the beginning, but it’s been so co-opted into “black identity” that it’s been taken for granted.

The cultural phenomenon known as “black pride” is a paradox. On the one hand proponents acknowledge their perceived differences from others – while somehow ignoring the reasons for those perceptions and their basis in demonization – while espousing a pride within that identity. How can an individual take pride in the characteristics ascribed to a entire spectrum of people?  How can one be proud to be considered inferior? Now of course no so-called black person would consider themselves inferior, but in accepting the term “black”, they are validating that exact perception of their being.

The so-called “black experience” is a fact of many people’s lives. Its effects cannot be underestimated or ignored, and certainly should never be forgotten. However, this does not mean that it must be used as a basis for people’s identity. Our lives are certainly affected by many natural and cultural phenomena, such as thunderstorms and earthquakes, the loss of a job or the loss of a loved one. We do not then become Thunderstormians or Unemployedians. There is clearly a sense of identity that exists before and supersedes those events. In the same way, so-called black people possess a fundamental character and identity that exists apart from, albeit influenced by, the “black experience”.

This identity is dichotomous, because on the one hand each person has a uniqueness that prevents them from being totally submerged within any system of classification. Yet on the other hand they have so much in common with every other one of their fellow human beings as to under certain circumstances ignore their differences altogether. As a hypothetical scenario, were a hostile alien race to suddenly set upon the earth, they would become the exotic and reviled “other” and the whole of humanity most likely would unite against them.

A distinction must be made here, between the “black experience” and identity as “African-American” – a term I begrudgingly tolerate. It is not merely a matter of word choice. If the word black is understood as fundamentally racist, then the “black experience” is only the shared experience of being subjugated and defeated by racism. On the other hand, there are many things – cultural phenomena – which have been transmitted through generations of people from Africa. Art, religion, music, food, kinship systems – in fact, practically all aspects of African-American culture have been influenced in shades by an African heritage.

The problem is that Africa is a giant continent, not some small country, and a continent with such immense diversity that even the demarcation of nations there does not represent the distribution of biological and cultural variation. This is to say that there is no homogeneous “African” culture, and therefore no single culture to which American members of the Diaspora can trace their identity or customs. There is also the fact that many so-called African-Americans do not even know from which region in Africa their ancestors came. Therefore, more than any of the cultural practices that stem from the African continent, the central current of African-American identity is also the “black experience”, that is, the shared legacy of slavery.

The United States is one of the only places in the world with such strong cultural distinctions between its members. A place like Indonesia may have 2,000 ethnic groups and 500 languages (those numbers are arbitrary – the point is to say that there are a lot) but the differences between them probably exist along a spectrum rather than in a large number of discrete and seemingly irreconcilable groups as exist here. This being the case, even the “American” identity is subject to question. If there is anything distinctly American, it is that the American cannot be defined as any one thing.

At least that is the reality of the situation, but in practice, those things which have been deemed “American” are those ideologies and practices of “white people”. Everything and everyone else is so distinctly un-American that they require an additional prefix. There are Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, and of course African-Americans, but those who subscribe to the white identity are simply “American”. These include Spanish, Italians, Dutch, Irish, Polish – and in some cases Jewish people – except where these groups retain their cultural differences and identify as whatever particular kind of American. And this is what has to change. We who consider ourselves American need to stake our claim upon that identity and see it become more adequately representative of our diversity.

After all, if American-ness is something that can only be fully claimed by “white people” and African-ness is diluted, unidentifiable, then where does that leave so-called African-Americans in identifying themselves? With the “black experience”. Again we have a situation where a group of people are almost forced to identify themselves through the atrocities and grievous injustices once committed (and still being committed) against them. Again their identification is based on the actions and perceptions of another group of people – a group of people who have chosen to regard them as less than human.

If your rosy picture of reality leads you to think that this is not still the case, that there is no legacy to slavery, that “black people need to get over it”, or that we live in anything sort of “color-blind” society, then you are delusional. It was only eleven years ago that American “scholarship” produced a book that presented “scientific evidence” that so-called black people – something they even had trouble defining – were on the whole less intelligent than so-called white people. The ease with which the views of that book and similar “scholarship” were accepted into the mainstream, and continue to color people’s perceptions of group differences only reminds us of the strength of slavery’s legacy.

The perception of certain people as inferior on the basis of their “blackness” – buried as it may be beneath pretenses of tolerance and misguided “diversification” initiatives – is still an undercurrent to American society. Why should anyone be complicit in this demonization by routinely accepting the label of inferiority? Blackness has nothing to do with African-ness, except by chance. Had the colonialist Europeans decided to take most of their slaves from China, then the Chinese would be “black” – in terms of status, as obviously a different term would’ve emerged. Instead, blackness has everything to do with whiteness. If whiteness itself is a fallacy, and black identity only exists as a reflection of it, then it is equally inauthentic, and equally representative of the most ill-conceived stratification of humanity to ever exist in all of history.

Blackness, as I’ve said, is not a characteristic of anyone. It is something that was and continues to be inflicted upon a perceived group of people. In other words, no one is born black, but rather they are “blackened” by society. Just as different peoples of European descent “bleached” themselves in taking on a white identity in order to benefit from the corollary status advantages.

Now the word “inflicted” carries a negative connotation, and indeed blackness is a negative attribution. For proof of this, all anyone needs to do is consider in what context they use the term. “Black people”…what? Invariably what follows is something negative, either a racist generalization on one end or a claim to victimization on the other. Either way, blackness refers not to the people in question but to the status conferred upon them.

Identity is a fluid concept. It is constantly changing and must be highly adaptable to changes in the surrounding environment. For this reason, and because of its foundation, and because of its self-renewing and detrimental effects, the so-called “black” identity needs to be eliminated. This does not mean forgetting the legacy of slavery, subjugation, and oppression. That can never happen. This does not mean being oblivious to the ways in which people classify others, and how those perceptions shape our culture. That would be blissful ignorance. The acknowledgment of the institution of race is as much a necessity as dressing properly for bad weather. This does not mean that we have to let it define us as human beings, or define the relationships we share with other human beings.

To be a “black person” is to play right into the hands of those who seek to retain you as so necessarily different and so unacceptably “other”. So-called “black people” need to get on with the business of being human again – humans with a unique history and plight for certain – but still humans who need not be defined by it.

So for all of this, what am I really saying here? That self-identifying “black people” need to start identifying themselves in a way that is truly representative of the great diversity and uniqueness that makes up the rich spectrum of humanity within that perceived group, rather than falling into this self-limiting stigma of “blackness”. I would say one ideal would be – as I mentioned earlier – to fully claim American-ness, to wrest it from white exclusivity.

This means claiming it through our language, through our self-estimation, through our actions, such as being more active in the socio-political process. This is especially important when we consider the nation’s diminishing reputation throughout the world, and how this reflects upon us as people. So-called “Black people” and “African-Americans”, their history notwithstanding, need to play a more significant role in defining what it means to just be American.

There are problems with claiming “American-ness”, however, inherent in the fact that there is a prevailing disconnect between African-Americans and the mainstream society, one sustained by institutional inequality.  It is difficult to find identity within a country that rejects or dismisses your contributions, and rejects you bodily, linguistically, and culturally, and a country where the demographic majority dismisses your particular hardships as a thing of the past or the result of “hyper-sensitivity”, and refuses to discuss how history continues to echo into the present.

And history is important to identity; roots are important, if only for suggesting a foundation that belongs to an individual or a group of people, rather than identity being formed in opposition to the mainstream, or defined by the perceptions of outside groups.  People whose cultures have been anchored firmly in the soil of history tend to be more resilient in the face of adversity, their core identity sustaining itself against attempts to destroy or assimilate it.  There have been many attempts in the academic sphere and through smaller cultural movements to tie African-Americans back to continental Africa, to reunite the Diaspora with the motherland.  This would be an alternative to claiming American-ness, but like that, comes with its own difficulties.

As already mentioned, Africa is a continent, one with as much cultural and ethnic diversity as virtually the entire rest of the world.  African-Americans have very little in common with Ethiopians or even Nigerians, who for their place in West Africa might be closer related ethnically and culturally.  However, amongst peoples from Africa who migrate to the West, especially the United States, there is a certain sense of African unity, of Africans being one people at least as strangers within this country.  There seems to be no inherent paradox between individual identity as Ethiopian or Nigerian for example, and also identifying more holistically as “African”.

However, this unity does not, by default, extend to African-Americans, who exist in a strange limbo between their very present American identity and their distant African identity.  It becomes a question of whether or not it is possible or even practical, for African-Americans to enfold themselves within that continental identity, as opposed to American identity.  For the cultural, geographical, and historical distance, it seems difficult and even awkward, especially where African-Americans know so little about the continent of Africa itself, a result, invariably, of the “dark continent” paradigm in the West, where very little time is spent investigating the rich history and cultural diversity of an entire continent, leaving countless people viewed through persisting stereotypes, exotification, and definitions imposed by European colonialism, including those that emerge from racism.

The dilemma of African-American identity is one that has remained since enslaved Africans set foot on this soil, and one that is not likely to be solved in one essay or one discussion.  In the meantime, I personally have found some solace from such psychic dissonance in the increasingly popular classification “people of color”, which while it also defines itself in opposition to whiteness, is one that has been willfully taken on by people who are not white, rather than being imposed on them by white people.

In that way, more than blackness, it exists as a statement of defiance to the mainstream U.S. culture, and suggests solidarity rather than group subjugation, amongst those for whom the mere existence of whiteness as a construct has determined their ability to integrate themselves into this “American” culture.  It, like the idea of unity amongst continental Africans and the Diaspora, suggests a global connection, rather than merely a local one.

More than anything this essay is a call to all progressive-minded people to make a change in their language to remove the persisting blight of racism. If you find yourself struggling with how to categorize someone, ask yourself if they even need be categorized within the context of your dialogue. Is he a “black doctor” or just a doctor? In these situations, also have the courage to recognize what your language says about your perceptions of others.

The following article is part of an independent study intended to examine and deconstruct the biases of the author (and undoubtedly many others) towards the practices within “Islam”. The quotations there acknowledge that such an umbrella term was made prominent by Westerners (i.e. non- practitioners) and is often mistakenly used to group many ideologies under one category, to the detriment of acknowledging the many differences between them. I will continue to use the term Islam to highlight the fact that this article may need to be subjected to further scrutiny to acknowledge that the assessments contained within do not apply universally to any group of people or ideologies. Aside from casting a negative light on a religion, my biases present the additional risk of stigmatizing the people who participate in it, and it is for that reason most of all that I am writing this article.

It should be understood in advance that I am writing as someone who is mostly secular in orientation, and a skeptic who feels a need to challenge anything that would be claimed as “truth”. That being the case, I must also put my own orientation to the test, to be willing to abandon my preconceptions about religion – particularly that it is necessarily any more misguided than scientism or any other secular schools of thought. It should also be noted that where I have any grievances towards Islam, it is not due to any exaltation of Western ideals. Instead my biases come out of my own personal ideals – such as a strong sense of justice – which while certainly shaded by Western ideology often fall outside of that context. That is to say, I am not making any qualitative comparisons between “Islam” and “the West”, because I am equally inclined to subject both to indictment.

So it must be said that my bias did not emerge out of some self-fulfilling prophecy that there was anything inherently wrong with Islam, as is often the case where the self must find fault with the “other” to maintain its integrity. Instead it emerged where Islam came into ideological conflict with my own ideals. Therefore Islam can easily be “redeemed” if by further examination I find that my preconceptions on the whole are incorrect. With all of this in mind, one of the few points of contention that I have with Islam is what I have perceived to be a great inequality between genders. I acknowledge right from the start that this preconception is based on the absolute minimum of information about Islam, some of it drawn from sensationalist pop-journalism, the rest from my own conjecture based on what I’ve observed. Focusing on two particular situations that appear to demonstrate gender inequality, I will gather more information, and attempt to either affirm or refute my preconceptions. (more…)

When I tell people that I’m not a Christian, or more specifically that I’m against institutionalized religion altogether, their first question is often “Are you an atheist?”. This entry is to state officially that I am NOT an atheist. What am I, then? Before I get to that, I figure I should explain why I am so vehemently against standardized religion.

It begins with a story from my childhood. I wasn’t raised under the umbrella of any particular faith, which left me open to discover religion on my own. I found Christianity by way of an Evangelist youth group; a friend of mine from school invited me to attend a recreational event, and I was having such a good time playing basketball and hanging out with other kids that it wasn’t too much of a leap for me to listen to what they had to say about God. For awhile I was really into it; there was something satisfying about placing your hopes into a higher presence. I used to even go up to the altar during prayer sessions.

One day that all changed. (more…)

In the face of modern globalization, existential individualism is threatened, as the one becomes assimilated into the many. In the movement towards a world bureaucracy, the idea seems to be that no one is important, only the general masses. The individual self is placed at risk of being lost in “the they”, as Jean-Paul Sarte or Martin Heidegger would call it. This movement has many fronts, and thus can be examined from multiple perspectives. First, let us consider the political angle, where big business is competing with government, conservatives and liberals serving as their advocates, respectively. Liberals, most often Democrats, push for larger government with more control. In theory, big government will be better equipped to aid the people it represents. Conservatives, most often Republicans, push for smaller government with less control, i.e. delegating power more widely or “returning power to the people”.

There are problems with both of these ideologies. The idea that larger government will better serve its people is entirely dependent on those people actively participating in that government. Unfortunately, as apathy increases, government no longer truly represents the people as a whole. Usually, this translates into representation for the wealthy and well-educated minority. Even the Democrats then must cater to these interests, as it is the basis for their power. On the other hand, while smaller government implies more power for the people, the ability to use that power requires knowledge. It also requires the actual inclination of the people to use that power. Again this implies greater representation for the wealthy and well-educated. Perhaps more significant is the new form of control that slips in through the backdoor of the conservative agenda – that of big business.

This modern situation is comparable to France in 1943, when Jean-Paul Sartre released his play “The Flies” as an allegory of resistance to German occupation. At the time, writers could not publish anything that explicitly criticized the Nazi regime, or that suggested any rebellion against it. Sartre, who became affiliated with the resistance movement, was quite critical of the French government, which practically collaborated with the Nazis through acquiescence, and the people who simply “allowed” the invaders to rule over them. Indeed one could say that the average person was helpless, that the French would’ve stood no chance in blatant opposition to the occupation. Sartre disagreed with that very concept of “helplessness”, believing that it was up to the people to take responsibility for their situation, even at the expense of their lives.

The people of 1943 France and their dilemma in World War II are analogous to today’s subjects of globalization and the invisible war in which big business is firmly entrenched in its battle with government. In general, the corporate goal is one of total consumer dependency. Clothes, food, private healthcare, entertainment – all the things people need – could simply be purchased. Why do anything for yourself when big business is there to lend a helping hand? Is this any different than “Big Brother”, i.e. large government, taking all responsibility? Both are inauthentic, because neither tends to represent the interests of the people, who sit complacently within one system of control or another rather than taking action for themselves, and being self-sufficient. The situation creates a rather formidable catch-22, in that dependency yields complacency, complacency leads to apathy, and apathy sustains the system of control that advocates dependency. The existentialist point of view, in staunch opposition, demands that one take control of and responsibility for their own lives.

Next let’s look at things from a social perspective. It seems common in the west, and increasingly throughout other regions of the world, that image is to be prioritized above substance. People’s value seems to be based on their purchasing power, as material wealth is reflected through image. This aligns with the aforementioned corporate objective as well; it does not take much deduction to come to the conclusion that a person has more value to a corporation if they can spend more. This idea has political ramifications as well; as mentioned earlier, those with money tend to be better represented.

However, this is a fallacy – inauthenticity in one of its ugliest incarnations. A person is not defined by the sum of their wealth and material possessions. A person’s value cannot be quantified. This insidious notion of image over substance is prevalent in western pop culture, which through its enviable fidelity as a meme-complex, has spread like wildfire, and become a medium for globalization. For example, many young people in Japan are obsessed with western culture, be it the music, the clothing styles, the associated attitudes, or even the language. There is also a biting irony in the fact that people in destitute countries can be seen wearing big name American brands, indicative of the corporate leash having a farther reach than the helping hand. The assimilation of western culture most often leads to displacement rather than blending, and through globalization, a homogenization is occurring. The movement is towards one worldwide monoculture, dominated by western ideology.

Why is this a bad thing, if it implies a sense of unification? It is bad because it suggests a growing worldwide trend of inauthenticity. To further examine this point, let’s take a closer look at some aspects of western culture, again noticing the emphasis on image over substance. On a certain website, I discovered the way in which a person can become “Emo”. Emo is a type of music with roots in punk, rock, and alternative styles, which seems to highlight a sense of grief or anguish, usually with regards to [the failure of] romantic relationships. From the music arose a “lifestyle”. According to the site, there is a set of criteria one must follow if they are to be “truly emo”. These include:

* Dyed black short hair with a very specific style
* Body piercings and jewelry – “the more the better”
* Horn-rim or thick black framed glasses
* Tight faded shirts meant to look as though they were bought in a thrift store
* Tight pants – “sometimes cuffed once or twice but never more”
* Black or blue Converse shoes

The specificity of these criteria is alarming. It seems that people have no sense of individuality, and as a result seek to validate themselves through their ability to be categorized – on the basis of physical appearance, no less. It is not enough to simply share an interest in music; one must identify with the very “lifestyle” associated with it in order to be accepted as genuine. All of this plays right into the hands of corporate control, as subscription to “the they” creates new markets. Another quote from the same site states: “If you are not skinny, you have to lose weight before you can officially be emo.” One can just imagine the kind of self-esteem issues this kind of ideology induces – in young women in particular – as image becomes the yardstick for measuring self- worth. This isn’t exclusive to one “lifestyle” or another, but seems to be the view highlighted by mainstream media.

Simone de Beauvoir, an existentialist author and pupil of Jean-Paul Sarte, wrote about how women in the 1950s needed to claim their own identity, apart from the contexts of their relationships to men and their designated “role” in society. Today, it seems that is not as much of an issue as is it that a woman claim a distinct identity vs. the mainstream-defined “ideal”. As another example, consider the fact that in no television commercial for GAP, Inc. will you see an overweight person, nor is there one to be found anywhere on the corporation’s official website. Even the pregnant women somehow all maintain their figures, discounting of course their enlarged stomachs. In a particularly absurd display, GAP.com once even used fake models, ones that defy the human anatomy, to showcase certain maternity products – and all to sustain that “ideal” image.

(Author’s Note: Sometime after the original writing of this article, the fake models were replaced with idealized real models)

These days, “the they” takes many forms, appearing wherever there is a market. On the flip side of the mainstream “GAP” image, there is the counter-establishment image as seen in the fashions of stores like “Hot Topic”. Their motif seems to be setting the mainstream image as a benchmark, then rebelling against it as vehemently as possible. While I can respect the desire to be “unique”, as it insinuates authenticity, the truth is that people are only trying to be “different”, by creating one standard in opposition to another. Mainstream and counter-establishment are equally inauthentic in that they aim to group and categorize people through common image, in effect suppressing the identity of the individual. Sartre and de Beauvoir must be rolling in their graves. Meanwhile, the business entities all aim to sustain this bureaucracy, because as long as it creates a stable market, who cares about the individual?

Just so I make myself clear, this essay is not about “fighting the power”, nor is it meant to be leftist anti-corporate propaganda. For that reason I will also cite examples of how globalization, and through it the proliferation of the western mindset, may allow for existential freedom. There are many other cultures, where people do not have the luxury of being able to concern themselves with image. In third world societies in particular, a person may simply “be”. They do not have the freedom to “reinvent” themselves, or to transcend the context of mere survival. Where government oppression is the norm, ideals such as freedom of speech and religion are nonexistent. As speech is overt thought, the inability to speak freely may cultivate the disinclination to think freely. How, then, does the one stand distinct amongst the many, if they lack the awareness that they even exist as such?

In this way, communism (as an example) does not lend itself to freedom anymore than capitalism. Communism emphasizes equality, but by way of the idea that all people are the same, i.e. part of one giant puddle of miscellany. Since communism usually runs hand in hand with some form of extreme governmental control, people only know themselves within the context of “the they” as defined by regulation. If through globalization, the western ideals can be adopted by those who have never known such freedom, then that is one positive aspect. However, while western capitalism does suggest freedom, and indeed stresses the idea that life is what one makes of it, it is all for nothing if a person fails to recognize their freedom and yields it to a different form of control. After all, the capitalist bureaucracy is quick to take that same people-soup, and run it through a strainer, to sift out those who “don’t matter” , i.e. those who have no bearing due to their apathetic political non- participation or lack of purchasing power.

In conclusion, it must be said that every person has a right and a duty to exercise their existential freedom, as it is one of the greatest things about being human. I am not so pretentious as to believe this essay will have any lasting impact on anyone, or influence people’s way of thinking at large. If I could convey one message to everyone, however, it would simply be for them to be aware, think for themselves, take responsibility for their lives through action, and above all to matter…