Godheval.com

Someone singing Wal-Mart’s praises on Facebook – and my subsequent criticism of that morally bankrupt point of view – reminded me of Barbara Ehrenreich’s book, Nickel and Dimed, which I read back in Economics 101 several years ago.  I looked up the book on Wikipedia, wondering what kind of criticism someone could levy against it, arguing in support of Wal-Mart.

That lead me to Scratch Beginnings, a book written by Adam Shepard detailing how he, starting with only $25 and the clothes on his back, managed to “live the American Dream”.  He started at a homeless shelter, got a job with a moving company, and by the time the whole experiment was over, had his own apartment and nearly $5,000 in savings.

Wow, right?

I found an interview with Shepard where he explains some of his experience and also his views on what it takes to live the “American Dream”.  Before I even found the article, I had some ideas about Shepard – ideas that were only affirmed the moment I saw his picture.  To sum it up in two words: white privilege. (more…)

I posted this video without any lead-in, because I want the viewer to process it on their own, before I weigh in with my thoughts. However, I imagine that the mere title of this post prefaces the video and will make you see it in a different way. Just as the mere fact that it is Bristol Palin in the video – because of who her mother is – prefaced how I watched the video. Or how automatically any analysis of teen pregnancy in my brain necessarily intersects with my understanding of privilege.

Perspective is a funny thing.

Upon first watching the video, I felt all sorts of ill feelings. On the one hand, we have a woman talking about the importance of making good choices with regards to sex – to think before you act, more or less. There is no inherent fault in that argument, because thinking is always good.

On the other hand, the video is using class war to advocate celibacy. And class war automatically intersects with the discussion about race and privilege.  For example, when Bristol Palin’s pregnancy first became national news, there were many commentators who mentioned how there was a general demand for sensitivity towards Bristol’s pregnancy, but that the same demands would not have been made if she had been one of Obama’s daughters or any other teen mother of color.

When the mother is white, teen pregnancy becomes merely a regrettable mistake, one that must be handled with great sensitivity and care. But when the mother is a young woman of color, it becomes some sort of moral failure on her part, not only a bad decision but a symptom of the epidemic of poor decision-making by people of color in general.

Mind you, I am not saying that the video above is making any statement at all about race – at least not explicitly. But it does scream privilege loudly, if only the privilege of being wealthy over being poor. In that way it is waging class war, wherein being wealthy affords one a buffer  against the difficulties of raising a child in poverty, and suggesting that therefore only poor women need to think carefully before they risk pregnancy. (more…)

Yesterday I had the opportunity to sit and observe an 11th grade AP English class. They were doing satire presentations, which included everything from posters to videos to poems. One such poem – a very good one in spite of its content – poked fun at people on welfare, and featured an African-American mother with 7 kids who has her kids steal from stores because they have no money. When confronted by security, she responds by saying “You can have my welfare check.”  A local crackhead enters the picture, at which point one of the children exclaims “That’s my daddy!” The mother confronts the crackhead, asking for money, who responds and ends the poem by repeating the punchline “You can have my welfare check!”

Hilarious, right?

When asked who her audience was for the poem, the student said “Minorities, because they’re the main ones on welfare…”

Now for some demographics. The vast majority of students in this classroom were Euro-American, the exception being two African-American girls. One of these two girls was the one reading the poem. In case the gravity of that escapes you, there were three things very wrong with this scenario. First was that the girl has been given a totally skewed view of the demographics of welfare. She has bought into the idea that African-Americans receive the lion’s share of welfare benefits, to the point of believing Reagan’s myth of the “welfare queen“.

Second, whatever little bit of privilege she’s experienced out here in the desert (more on that later), she apparently has no concept of the historical inequalities that created the need for socioeconomic support for minorities. Third, she felt comfortable enough in a room full of white peers to perpetuate this vicious stereotype. As if when lines of class and race are drawn, she would stand with them, and they’d all laugh together. (more…)

There is one obvious truism that when presented to pro-lifers never prompts any reasonable rebuttal.

Making abortion illegal will not prevent abortions.

Before Roe vs. Wade (RVW) – which for those who don’t know was the Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in the United States – women were forced to resort to all sorts of illicit means of getting an abortion. You may have heard horror stories involving coat hangers, or “black market” doctors who lost their medical licenses but continued to perform the procedures illegally.

Were Roe vs. Wade to be overturned, or were any states to pass anti-abortion laws, the number of abortions would not be likely to decrease. So from the pro-life perspective, which necessarily stems from a desire to “save babies”, overturning RVW would do nothing to help their cause. On top of that it would re-introduce instances of female injury through abortions performed under unsavory conditions.

Perhaps here is a good place for me to state my position on abortion. I am unabashedly pro-choice. However, I do not think that supporting a woman’s right to choose is the same as sanctioning the practice willy-nilly. Where at all possible, I would hope that a woman would choose to keep the child. I would hope that any decision would be made only after a thorough education on all of her options, issues around adoption including the grievous abuses of the foster system and probability of adoption as it corresponds to ethnicity or disability. (more…)

It’s a strange sort of thing when people reveal their personal views to you, before they know whether or not those views will offend you.  There are those, of course, who espouse their views without any concern for the reaction, and others who intend to illicit a negative response.  I’m not talking about either of those.  I mean everyday people in casual company who let on that, contrary to their public image – say, as a school teacher, they harbor some of the most odious views.

I imagine that it must be strange to be a white person of a liberal, progressive, or even anti-racist mindset and find yourself in the company of a casual bigot.  For your common “race”, the bigot supposes that you will not take any particular offense to his off-handed comments about other groups.

I suppose that it is stranger still to be a person of color and to have a white person feel comfortable enough in your presence to reveal that they are a casual bigot.  Where I come from – the east coast – there is hardly a greater insult to a white person than to be called a racist.  It is such a sensitive subject that in “mixed” company, white people take great – and often awkward – strides to prove to people of color – especially African-Americans – that they are “okay”, that they are “down”, that they are not racist.  A lot of fake smiles and superficial banter ensues.

(Note: Those who are not racist feel no urgent need to prove that they are not.)

Things appear to be different here in the West.  And I can only speculate as to why.  For the second time in two weeks, the mentor teacher in my field experience, and his colleagues, let on just what kind of bigots they are.  In talking about the differences between his current and former schools, with regards to the behavior of the kids, he said that the current school had its problems, but was nothing compared to the former, which was 95% Hispanic. (more…)

Abraham Maslow conceived a model of human behavior based on needs. Called the Hierarchy of Needs, the model purported that people act to fulfill certain needs, which once fulfilled give way to “higher” needs. The hierarchy begins with the physiological needs – things like food, water, sleep – and later, sexual gratification. The second level involves the “safety needs” – a feeling of security in the world, of knowing that you are not in any immediate danger, physically or emotionally. The third level is “belonging needs”, which demands a sense of kinship or family or other intimate association with other people. The fourth and fifth levels are esteem needs, which refer to respect and/or admiration from others, and then self-respect and confidence. The highest level of the hierarchy is the stage of self-actualization, which refers to a period of continuous growth as an individual.

The model applies not only holistically to human behavior, but also to behavior in specific contexts, such as work and relationships. It could also be said to apply to groups as well as individuals. Although Maslow used the word hierarchy, he did not place any qualitative value on the different needs, save perhaps self-actualization, which he stated as the ultimate goal. But at that stage, behavior is no longer even dictated by needs, and in a sense the person has “escaped” the hierarchy. (more…)

I have become weary of commoners. Cue self-righteous indignation as you question my right to call anyone else a commoner. Before that, perhaps I should clarify what I mean. When I say commoners I am talking about people who entertain the most average of thoughts, indulge in the most average of habits, hobbies, general behaviors, people seemingly incapable or unwilling of stepping outside the status quo. I am not passing judgment on these people, or staking any claim on superiority to them, just distinguishing myself from them enough to say that I tire of their conversation, their arguments, their very ways of thinking.

Whether it is by “virtue” of a Christian-dominated moral context, or a stale non-progressive cultural context, the way many people – indeed, commoners – think is exceedingly dull. I hear the same things day in and day out, the same tired opinions, the same polarized and even extremist views as if everything is so black and white. Trying to get people to think differently in most cases seems to be an exercise in futility, with the exception of rare individuals, many of them children, who have yet to become so set in their ways (more…)

I’ve had numerous conversations with people about politics and/or economics, heard the viewpoints from both “liberals” and “conservatives”. Now, admittedly, I’m nowhere near an expert on politics or economics, and what I contribute to those debates tends to be what I consider common sense – although often at the expense of practicality.

My argument always comes to revolve around one main point: the importance of education. You may hear me mention, in a welfare debate, how the perceived “laziness” of the welfare recipients fails to take into consideration the effects of that person’s environment, i.e. whether or not they were educated well enough to function properly in a world without welfare. You’ll hear me bring up education even in a pro-life vs. pro-choice debate – talking about how lack of proper schooling may have been at the heart of a situation in which the issue comes into play.

Making education (or lack thereof) out to be of central importance in just about every major issue I can think of may be seen by some as reductionistic. It’s easy enough for me to say “If only that person had been given a proper education, then maybe…”. Who knows what would’ve happened? But my point is that it certainly couldn’t do any more harm.

You’re all aware, I’m sure, of the unofficial “hierarchy” that exists here in America. While there are certainly more factors to be considered, it is formed as a result of social or economic status. People with more money or influence get the most out of life – that much is obvious. But does that mean that people without money should be subjected to conditions which don’t even meet the bare minimum of anyone’s standards? Now, I’d be a fool if I didn’t realize the functionality of this hierarchy.

Everyone can’t be a doctor or a lawyer or a nuclear physicist. Our economy, our very way of life, depends on the diversity of tasks carried out by everyone. We NEED certain people to cook and serve us our food, farmers to raise the livestock and grow the crops FOR that food, factory workers to manufacture it. We need doctors for obvious reasons, but we also need the much-taken-for-granted lay people who process the paper work, or the janitors who keep the hospitals clean, and thus sanitary.

Many of the people who work “blue collar” jobs, or jobs that many of us would frown upon or consider “beneath us” (as I admit I do myself) came into those positions not necessarily by choice, but out of either necessity, or because that was all they, at their level of education, could qualify for. Again, the importance of education becomes clear. If Person X cleaning those floors at the hospital had the same opportunities as one of the doctors, would he have still become a janitor? Who knows, really?

Suppose that in some hypothetical society, every person was given the same quality of education, regardless of social or economic status. I’m talking about from the pre-school level all the way through 4-5 years of post-secondary. Would the socio-economic hierarchy still exist? A hierarchy would still exist, for certain, but it probably wouldn’t have anything to do with economic status. The fact is that, whether our idealism will allow us to admit it or not, everyone is not capable of being “anything they want to be”. You’ll hear parents say that to kids – “Oh, you’ll be a doctor, or a lawyer some day, if you work hard enough.” Will they?

This could very well be a destructive delusion. If a child simply does not have “what it takes” to be that certain thing they strive for, or were told that they could become, is it even fair to place such false expectations into their mind? Now, I need to get to what I mean about “having what it takes”. I’m talking about genetics. In a nature vs. nurture debate, one side will argue the superior role of genetics in the development of an individual, while the other will argue that a person’s environment, how they were influenced and guided (their education) was the determining factor – because after all, all people are created equal. Are they?

So, going back to this hypothetical society – if “Nurture” was the same for every person, then we’d find out the role of “Nature”. I honestly think that the hierarchy would still exist, but that it would be formed based on each person’s intrinsic abilities and limitations (as defined by genetics). It is quite possible that some people simply are not cut out for much more than being a janitor or a burger-flipper. But should their life potential be determined simply by the conditions into which they were born, in effect taking their own fates out of their hands?

I suppose, though, that it would be awfully devastating for someone in this hypothetical society to be faced with the reality that no matter how hard they try, they’ll NEVER make it beyond a certain “level”. But then, perhaps it wouldn’t, if a certain other problem was eliminated. In our real society, jobs like store clerk, or janitor, or elephant shit scooper, are frowned upon by the majority – jobs that are only taken because there isn’t much of a choice. What is taken for granted though, as I mentioned, is how important all these jobs are, maybe not individually, but in their cooperative contribution to the society as a whole.

The reason these jobs are looked down upon is because of the socio-economic status associated with them. We all have some kind of potential niche in society, some arguably more important than others, but few of which are completely expendable. Unfortunately, many of us have to just work with the hand that’s dealt to us, and never even get to realize that potential. If we occupied certain niches as a result of our inherent ability, rather than socio-economic status, would that make for a better hierarchy? Actually, I should stop using the word hierarchy, because ideally, there would be no rank involved in the diversity of roles/tasks, but mutual recognition and respect between them.

Is it really nurture that’s causing the distinctions, or are people genetically inclined towards certain types of jobs, and conversely, inhibited from being able to take on others? In talking about genetic predisposition, I’m not talking about situations like person X, being of a muscular body type, being better equipped to be a dock worker. That much is obvious. But given the proper training, and assuming he/she has the necessary ability, person X may very well go on to become a physicist instead. For the most part, we associate skills in a certain trade with education and/or training. That is 100% nurture. Talent in a given area, presumably passed down genetically in some capacity, is another factor – and that would be nature.

Since I’m coming dangerously close to the kind of “genetic determinism” that is used to further social Darwinistic and fundamentally racist ideologies, I’d like to clarify that I DO NOT believe these “predispositions” to be race-specific. I’m trying to touch on a more abstract concept. The talent to play basketball has nothing to do with the sport itself, that is, the ball, the layout of the court, the technique behind shooting or dribbling the ball. There’s something else – perhaps a subconscious grasp of applied physics – enabling a person to better alter the trajectory of the ball, given a sense of its weight, and the distance between the person and the basket?

Would the diversity of genes amongst the population cause that population to disseminate amongst the wide variety of jobs to be performed, independent (but not regardless) of the training associated with those jobs? This is the idea I’m trying to express when I say “genetic hierarchy”. If these kinds of genetic associations could somehow be identified, then tests could be run early in a person’s life, and perhaps then they could be nurtured towards fulfilling a certain role.

Someone may say that nurturing along the lines of predisposition may influence a person such as to take away their free will to choose their own path, but the nurturing fostered by socioeconomic status is no better. In the social machine analogy, everyone is some kind of “cog”, that is, a necessary part of the machine. Which part they are in our society, however, is determined by socioeconomic status, which is arbitrated by those of higher status. In a sense, the current model plays the role of fate, and it takes a great amount of work to overcome it. Sometimes it is simply not possible.

The only difference between nature and the socioeconomic hierarchy serving as the arbiter, is that the latter was created and is sustained by people. People, generally self-serving by nature, are not qualified to make that judgment, to play the role of fate. To be an arbiter, one must be impartial. There is no more fair or qualified judge of a person’s status or niche than their own nature (i.e. their genes), because in being self-preserving it can only have their best interests “at heart”.

I believe that “will”, if such a thing can be explained, is part nature, part nurture. A baby’s will or inclination towards anything is probably formed primarily due to the influence of parents or other key figures. They are impressionable, and their “free will” is tainted, that is, if they had it at all. It could only be better for them if that influence took their natural inclination into consideration.

As I mentioned earlier, I think that parents instill self-destructive delusions in their children. They also often wrongfully push them in directions which may not be right for them. Parents are huge idealists when it comes to their children, and probably really believe that could be “anything”. This just isn’t true, although in today’s society the limitation is more the result of a social or economic handicap, rather than a matter of not having the ability. A parent well-informed of their child’s innate capacity would be in a better position to guide them through the formative stages of life.

As mentioned in the above example regarding basketball, a person’s predisposition towards a certain job wouldn’t have anything to do with that job itself. After testing, it’s likely that a person’s innate abilities would steer them towards a variety of different jobs where their talent would be applicable. So, instead of saying that a person would be nurtured towards a certain role, I should say they’d be nurtured to bring out their talents, which could then be applied to one of many possible roles, out of which they would choose one. Also, perhaps instead of showing merely the jobs in which the person would excel, the tests would also show a wider spread of jobs comprised also of those they’d be likely to perform at an above-average or average capacity.

This would broaden their selection considerably. Their life being their own domain, they could also choose to go completely against their predisposition. However, they may not excel, or have a harder time pursuing that career. On the other hand, if they chose to follow the recommended path, given their genetic predisposition, they would be better equipped to handle the role, and would be likely to excel. This could foster a trend towards greater job competency, and thus increase the efficiency of the society as a collaborative whole.