The true issue with Colbert

   So Colbert did this, a tweet that comes up with a blatantly racist institution to support Asian American culture. And the internet along with many Asian Americans went on a storm. However, turns out the tweet was taken out of context and the actual video was this, where he conflates the association made by the Red Skins for the Native American with this fictitious racist Asian American focused organization. Now many a person on the internet have risen up from the intellectual cornucopia to defend Stephen. They claim that the original use was proper and the right blend of satire. However, I believe people are missing the larger point as to why so many Asian Americans are upset.
    Minority voices and images have historically been used for the entertainment of a white populous. The minstrel show wasn't only for African Americans as many Asians, Latinos, Native Americans and many more minorities find themselves caricatured and put on display for a white audience's amusement. Nowadays such blatant racism is called out. In its stead we find a stream of subtle appropriation going on. Minority culture is taken and fetishized, used as an object for the rhetorical purpose of mainly whites. And therein lies the issue with Colbert's bit. As a straight white man, Colbert has many privileges others don't have. Even more specifically Colbert certainly has no true understanding of the plight faced by minorities via the media. Yet he finds that he can use their images and stereotypes as tools at his disposal to provide entertainment that everyone but the group being used (in this case Asians) would enjoy. Now can an Asian American make this joke and do it successfully? Perhaps. I'm unsure if I could speak to that seeing that I am not Asian American, but that's a debate that would happen within their particular community, not out in the public for the media to grab hold on. Simply put, there are some jokes you make with people in your own community and to have someone take part in that discourse as if they were entitled to do would be considered off putting. Also the tweet had Colbert's name on it and was associated with comedy central so he should definitely share blame. None of this it wasn't me "Shaggy" type bullshit. 

Welcome Rich White America

Bienvenidos Rich White America, please feel free to make yourself at home
Kick off your boots and and take a seat at your table, crafted down the street.
Oh you don't know how to read the menu, no worries, English and money accepted.
And we'll fry your brat some chicken fingers too because he doesn't like ethnic food.
And you'll pass favorable judgement on us, smiling wide, proving that we can all get along,
just as long as I know my place and you know your place and we're all in place!
Ahh enjoy my island breeze as my children struggle to go back.
Please speak your Rosetta Stone Spanish as my kids struggle to pick up their native tongue.
But they're Americans! Really? So they have rights? To life, liberty and the pursuit of the next paycheck.
And as for the poet? Oh he's just a whitewashed sell out at a liberal arts college. But the author doesn't      matter

Yo waddup Rich White America, please feel free to make yourself at home.
Slum it up on my trains and whine over the smallest inconvenience.
It's fine, I'll still dance and ask for some much needed money.
Excuse me Ladies and Gentlemen, pardon the interruption. But I'm trying to sleep.
So please stop being sloppy drunk because the midnight shift doesn't have an after party.
And no I won't be taking a taxi. I'll walk after my hour and half commute.
Yet I'll still see you at my, street fairs, cultural events, wearing the Puerto Rican flag during the parade.
Don't worry my best friend is Puerto Rican, you say as you mispronounce his name.

Hello Rich White America, welcome to your campus.
Don't worry we've decorated it with all the necessary ornaments:
Old buildings named after you (if you're a man), A beautiful diag with a grandiose library and plenty of    minorities to make you cultured!
Please enjoy your Americanized versions of our food and talk about that one time you went to a traditional  Chinese (Southern) restaurant with your friend.
Also we have your houses lined up in a row as close to campus as could be.
Don't worry those minorities won't be given a house or if they do it'll be out of sight, therefore out of mind.

He's just an angry minority complaining because he's oppressed!
Yea, this is why he'll never be successful, he just wants a hand out!
Also this is reverse racism, I'm going to demand you take it down!
My family worked hard for the policies and positive biases they received!
Doesn't sound quite as poetic.

Humans of New York annoy me

          Yep, I'm back again for some good old fashion hating. For those of you who don't know, Humans of New York is a Facebook group that aims to tell the stories of New Yorkers "One story at a time". It does this by posting a picture that is presumably the person or people the story is about and then leaves a small caption that explains their "story". Sometimes these captions are long and extensive, explaining a very detailed story for us all to revel in. But often it's not. Instead we are treated to obfuscated nonsense like "It constantly depresses the shit out of me that we have to die", cut to a picture of a man on a bicycle cab sitting down and you too can be a self patronizing asshole who likes to indulge in pseudo meaningful nonsense. My point is simple: that isn't a story. Hell that isn't even productive. Yet people rush over to the post, shower it in likes, while engaging in what could only be described as an emotional circle jerk.
          My true bone to pick with Humans of New York doesn't stem from the people posting. I believe most people who post are trying to vocalize their story any way they can. I feel the readers are the ones who fetishize these posts, consuming them as if they are emotional and insightful porn. Why I feel Humans of New York encourages a shallow consumption of the human experience is because often the stories are syncopated into short blurbs to keep up with the pace of life of the average 21st century college student. The observer doesn't engage with the story because there isn't enough to engage with. When someone says "My stepdad was always demanding that I respect him. Yet he didn't respect me at all," I still know absolutely nothing about his story. That story could be mapped onto anyone with a step dad and while many might be saying "that's the point", I find this lesson in universality to be redundant. It only takes a few "universal points" to prove to me that the human experience can be similar across the board. I thought I was learning this kids story, but clearly I'm not. I don't know anything about his situation with his step father or why his step father shows him no respect. I don't know how this kid is struggling with it and how it has affected him. I don't know what respect manifests as in the mind of this kid. In fact I know absolutely nothing about his story and I gain nothing from this blurb other than the common adage that "to get respect one must earn it (or give it, or something like that)." Yet people keep flocking to these posts, sharing and re-posting. Why? It's because it makes us feel better. These posts aren't about the people posting them, but about us. We want to engage in what we think is a high level of emotional vulnerability without actually dealing with the details that makes the emotional vulnerability so frightening. We want to gain spiritual understanding without even drudging through the difficulties of conceiving life's important questions. We want wisdom without ever understanding the true gravitas of that wisdom as it occurs in the real world. And Humans of New York gives us all of that with no emotional commitment (or reading commitment) required. Even the comments are self serving, often finding a way to insinuate that the commenter had already had that knowledge or experience and this post just confirmed it.
      I want someones story to be juicy. I want the details to run down the sides of my mouth like the juices from a freshly peeled Orange. I expect recoil and difficulty as I sift through scenarios I have never been in. And empathy on my part requires true concentration because I must truly try to put myself in the shoes of another, not merely assume we've been wearing the same footwear.


For your entertainment I made some HONY submissions of my own. I'm not sure if they'll make the cut though.

I used to be afraid to stand up for people. Now that I'm older, I still don't stand up for anyone. 

Follow your dreams and perhaps you can live an average life with an average job, but hey at least you have a college degree. 

Sometimes people ask, what's around your neck. I just ignore them 

As a kid I wanted to be a doctor. Now that I'm an adult, I've decided to be a lawyer instead.

Puerto Rican Politics

         
                      We are the gatekeepers of Latino solidarity. The reason this is the case is because Puerto Ricans are prime prospects for the new Latino model minority. Puerto Ricans by liberty of Puerto Rico's status as a commonwealth, all have American citizenship. This reality is often ignored by political advisers who intend to lump the Latino vote as pro immigration reform and against immigration. It's not that simple, especially for Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans who only have Puerto Rican family truthfully have no bone to pick with immigration reform. It matters little to us. In fact, some Puerto Ricans are staunch opponents of immigration reform (as shown in this article) for the same reason many non-Latino Americans are against immigration reform, it threatens job security. However, when the NY Times begins releasing articles about how immigration reform might affect Republican policy, it becomes clear that there will be places where the Puerto Rican vote will matter. The GOP does not need to win the Latino vote, it needs to win enough of it. In solidarity the Latino block is strong in certain parts of the country, but in areas such as New York and Florida (places where there are high Puerto Rican populations) the Puerto Rican vote (mixed in with a smattering of Cuban votes who have been given asylum) can be enough to turn the tide, allowing Republicans to have their cake and eat it too.
                   We have a choice. We can side with the Republicans against our Latino cousins or we can remain unified in policy demands. This solidarity may cost Puerto Ricans politically in the short run. There are particular policy goals that are salient only to Puerto Ricans, such as the statehood/ national recognition of Puerto Rico. But these goals are far too particular for Puerto Ricans to expect the Latino block to make demands on, hobbled as it is. Long run political outlooks are far more promising. If we can insert ourselves into the bedrock of political influence in the country, then we can begin making good on unilateral goals that help all Latinos, including Puerto Ricans. We will not longer have to ask to be given a seat at the table we made, we will sit in the chairs we brought ourselves. But if we are to falter. If we begin to side with the Republicans in the ballot box, then we will forever be second class citizens, unable to decide our own fates because we have sided with a party that does not recognize us as equals. Do not let Marco Rubio fool you. Instead we need to supersede political alliances. We need to do what is right for Latinos, not what is right for Democrats and Republicans. What is clear is that the Democrats have our interests at a much higher priority than the Republicans. This article from Gallup confirms that there are more Latinos in the Democratic Party than there are in the mostly white Republican Party. We cannot trust any body of politic but ourselves. We can only depend on a Latino block that will not treat us as second class citizens. I cannot force any individual Puerto Rican to make a choice, I only hope that years from now you won't regret placing your children at the mercy of a political machine that doesn't respect them.

Fruitvale Station should win an Oscar, but it won't. And it's because Normative culture cannot properly experience it.

       I can tell you why Fruitvale Station didn't get nominated and it's not because its lacking any artistic depth or cinematic intricacy. The movie is crafted to catapult street culture or inner city culture onto the big screen without diminishing it by giving into the hegemonizing effects of white suburban culture. However its use of what I dub "Street Aeshetics" has prevented it from entering the good graces of Oscar land. Mainstream media is not ready to get rid of its elitist academically driven judgement of society and high art rejects art that has been made with clay and sidewalk pavement (much to the dismay of many dead artist who relied on such materials to get by). Street Aesthetic praises city culture and rages against the notion of "nothingness". It preaches building up your community, not getting out. Or if it does preach about getting out, the voices waiver, embroiled in a struggle between where they are from and a foreign land that is suburbia. This reliance on Street Aesthetic to tell a story is in my opinion a budding art form and as long as inner city kids like me are foolishly given a college education from an Elite institution, soon we will  see a shift in the critical discussion of art. You need a city kid to spot it, but anyone can interpret and analyze a movie through the lens of Street Aesthetics. Street aesthetic is unique in that it serves two purposes.
      The first purpose and the one I consider to be primary is the impetus to emotionally move those from the inner city with its content. It is the Oscar award winning movie (or Pulitzer Prize novel or Game of the Year game) that can be easily understood and more importantly empathized with by those from the inner city. It doesn't cut corners or create a tidy depiction of Oscar Grant. Instead it portrays him through the eyes of his own culture. He is a man of faults, but the weight of those faults that are typically over sensationalized by the mainstream media are instead contextualized by the people around him. This movie is jarring for most non-inner city folk because it forces them to reconsider their stereotypical notions about the black man who is a criminal. To many people black men who do crime are the problem. They plague the black community and make up a large percentage of the black community (or as some people have phrased it to me, are the "loudest" in the black community"). These assumptions make it ok to hold preconceived notions, otherwise known as stereotypes, about black people.
      But Fruitvale Station fights against this stereotypical portrayal. Instead it takes the incarcerated black man and portrays him as the Father, the Son and the animus of the community. He is not perfect, but he is an integral part. One, who is from the inner city, cannot help but relate with Oscar Grant. He is your neighbor or your best friend. He is no different from many people in our lives and even for some of us he is much like ourselves. If you find yourself disagreeing, then you are most likely not from the inner city and therefore cannot easily connect with the cultural content being displayed. For once the cultural capital needed to interpret art is found on the side of a building in graffiti as opposed to the footnotes in a Norton Anthology.
      Does this seemingly foreign cultural complexity make it impossible for non-inner city people to be able to connect to the movie? No. This hurdle is tied to the second purpose of Street Aesthetic. Street Aesthetic is cognizant to the hegemonic forces at work in its medium. Therefore it strives to bridge the gap between those who are being mediated by white suburban hegemonic culture. This bridge often comes in the form of an outsider looking in. For Fruitvale Station the girl at the supermarket, Oscar's mom and the married man are three bridges provided to non city audiences. The girl at the supermarket allows Oscar to show the universality of his humanity. Oscar isn't only a black man who cares about black (Latino/Asian/Minority would probably also fit here) people, but someone who cares about the people around him. Setting him up with ulterior motives such as him trying to get his job back, allows the audience to safely maintain their preconceived suspicion of his character. His mother who is portrayed to raise him well and to be a secure role model in his life, exists to connect to the audience, who is mouthing (inside) with Oscar's mom the chastisement she gives him for his poor life choices. However, her wisdom and reliance on normative institutions ultimately fails her in the end, resulting in the death of her son. Finally, the man who Oscar meets outside the area where his girlfriend is using the bathroom represents the perfect bridge between two individuals. The man portrays himself as a rags to riches story, which required him to also cross the line between right and wrong, thus bringing himself down to the same moral compass of Oscar. The only difference is this man somehow created his own start up. The movie does not explore why the prospect of Oscar doing the same is very small, but instead brushes it off and creates a scene of camaraderie that borderlines unbelievable. The notion of them having this deeply reflective and personal conversation does not seem out of the realm of possibility, but the man handing his business card did seem a tad incredulous for a man who just met Oscar in the hazy euphoria of New Years Eve. Then again perhaps New Years Eve is the only time those shenanigans would take place. Regardless, the man exist to allow non-city audience members to finally relate. They begin thinking, "wow, I misjudged Oscar he is more like me than I thought." This misconception is necessitated by stratification. If you want an audience you need to connect with those with money somehow. I am not saying that those from the inner city cannot possibly understand or empathize with the story of Oscar Grant. I am merely suggesting that movie is cognizant of the cultural gap between it and its audience and it strives to fill that hole with a series of bridges that serve as cultural training wheels.
         The impulse of many reading this is probably to laugh. Many might think that this notion of "street aesthetic" is a fantasy developed by a cultureless and artistically inadequate inner city kid. However, I know that the movie uses powerful imagery that can only be fully understood with knowledge of city culture. The use of the pitbull, a commonly misunderstood dog, slaughtered in the movie creates a powerful foreshadowing of Oscar's death. The pitbull is consistently used for dogfighting in street culture, but it's also used for protection, a first line of defense if you will. The pitbull is the ADT for a poor inner city family. Also, the location by the water and it being referred to as the place by the water mirrors the small pockets and "safe" havens one must find in order to regain sanity in the city. The closeness to water is a common trope, of escaping the suffocating experience of the city.These are only two, I can go on and on about cultural signifiers that the movie uses.
          Street Aesthetic does not ignore race, but race isn't a pre-requisite to engaging with it. What I mean to say is that just because you are black doesn't mean you have the cultural capital to engage with street aesthetic. There are plenty of blacks who will watch Fruitvale Station and be unable to connect with some of the themes in the movie. Just as there will be Latinos who connect far more strongly with the story of Oscar Grant. Does this strip him away from his blackness via a homogenizing "urban" label? No. Ingrained in inner city culture is a necessity to categorize by race and ethnic background. One cannot separate the race or ethnicity from the person because the city constantly reminds you about those identities. I'm unable to speak about this from the black perspective (I am not black), but I know that there are some themes in Fruitvale station that will not be understood by any individual who has not experienced inner city culture. The same is probably true for some of the black experiences portrayed in the film, ones that I cannot fully understand without engaging with black culture (and many experience I'll never fully understand). The point trying to be stressed (and possibly quite poorly) is that Street Aesthetic both affirms ones racially driven experiences, while removing the subordination of a racist society on said experience. It also acknowledges a "melting pot" (and I use that word while wincing) experience one faces in the city where we certainly are forced to deal with a hodge podge of individuals (often time minority). Furthermore, these minorities have strong communities that have stores that carry their own traditions and way of life, making it common for one to experience culture in a more visceral manner as opposed to those who are forced to branch out into a predominantly "this or that" neighborhood, where one culture is the context for all others existing.
     I finish this exposition of "Street Aesthetic" feeling quite unsatisfied. I have so many questions that I haven't yet sorted out. First, I wonder if a movie that does no provide a bridge for a non inner city viewer would still be considered Street Aesthetic. I also foresee a stringing racial critique of my use of blackness in this essay. I can understand how this might be read as a threat to black culture, but I feel many blacks from the inner city who read this will see it more as an accurate interpretation of the dynamics of race and class. Also, when we work with social class more, one will find that the city experience isn't only germane to the poor, making the dynamics of middle and even at times (though rare) upper middle class a problematic element in many of these films. It's hard to watch the scene between the married man and Oscar and not feel a little perturbed by the huge disconnect between the situations of the man and Oscar. I really appreciate anyone who decided to waste their time reading this far into this post. I understand that the musings of an undergraduate commands very little respect. Feel free to insert your own observations. I strongly believe that this is the beginning of a new critical discussion of art. One that serves to undercut the bourgeois theory that most of my peers work from, completely ignorant to how the normative white, upper class assumptions they bring into the world.
      

When the wealthy pretend to be poor

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sylvia-gindick/my-empty-fridge_b_4724981.html?ir=College

Above is the article I'm referring to in the post. It's written by a fellow U of M student. I have no idea what the author's financial situation is, so I don't want to insinuate that I think the author herself is part of an upper-class that is "pretending" to be poor. I am merely saying that the way the writing is structured begins with a complaint that stems from a wealthy point of view and then uses a subtle switch and bait to conflate poverty with their issue. 

Watch out for the switch and bait. The article claims to be about balance and food, but its true issue lies in economic instability. In fact, the most compelling portion of the article comes when it cites issues faced by poor students who struggle with eating options due to money constraints. The beginning of the article is front loaded with a variety of factors the author faces and while I'm slightly sympathetic to many of them, to compare Ann Arbor to a food desert is a bit ridiculous (which is insinuated with this line "I was not warned of the food imbalance written into the environment, replete with liquor stores, bars and restaurants, yet lacking an affordable grocery store.") Then when it cites the statistic that 40 percent of UM students feel insecure about food, I become curious about how much of that statistic is due to financial instability or true lack of access. I cannot speak for other campuses, but I have plenty of friends who live in apartments and manage to get groceries every other month if they have the necessary funds to do so. Access is never the issue when you have bus services that take you to Meijer. Is it annoying to do groceries at Meijer and then have to take them onto the bus? Yes. But when you're a poor student who came from a place where fresh produce and a huge supermarket of groceries was a rarity, then the trek is more of a nuisance rather than a serious barrier. The author was right about one thing: food choices are about trade-offs. But I rarely find my friends stressing over whether they'll have access. Most of their issues stems from economic instability. Either they don't have the money to purchase their groceries or they are too busy working for the money to buy groceries. This article doesn't emphasize economic instability as the pressing concern. Instead it puts economic instability on the same order of magnitude as a well off student who simply doesn't have enough time in their day to take a trip to the grocery store (notice that a well off student doesn't necessarily have endless amounts of money, they have economic security which might mean just enough afforded to them by their parents to buy groceries, but we shouldn't immediately assume that they can afford the far more expensive grocery stores). Even the complaint concerning expensive grocery stores stems back to economic disparity. So what's your beef Raymond? They mention all that stuff in the article. Yes, but the article is titled "My Empty Fridge" when it should be titled "My Empty Pockets".

Further Musings: Another thing I want to avoid is "Rich shaming". I'm not saying wealthy students don't have the right to complain about lack of access to the best quality of food. That's fine. In fact I encourage it. But don't conflate the issues of the poor with your issues. They aren't the same. 

I'm not a person of color, but I'm not white

                         The term person of color has been irking me for quite awhile. Not because I don't think it's an appropriate term, but because I find so many people forcing me into it. The reason I'm not willing to identify as a person of color is because my skin color is what many would call "passing". Hell, if someone were to ask me what my skin color was I would say white. But I don't identify as white because that's not what I am. I'm Puerto Rican. I grew up Puerto Rican and there were plenty of people who made sure to ask the questions necessary to discover my Puerto Rican identity (it wasn't like I was hiding it). No one called me white once they found out I was Puerto Rican (unless they were trying to insult me) and I never had any desire to be White. So when I see this definition being used in the Michigan in Color section of the Daily "Person/people of color — or PoC — is a blanket term typically used to refer to all non-white individuals. ", I begin to scratch my head because I'm certainly a "non-white individual" yet I wouldn't ever consider myself a person of color. I've had people chime in mentioning my ancestors and also my ability to tan in the sun, but neither fact changes the reality that often when people see me on the street they don't immediately see a Puerto Rican. However, when someone who actually is a person of color is seen, their skin color is immediately noticed. I could never imagine how it feels to know that just by someone looking at you they are able to deduce that you are not like them. You are part of the "out group". This is an experience I have never had to have and it's all because of the color of my skin. And this isn't just for people who are "brown and black", but also Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, etc.) frequently deal with this instant visual recognition according to their skin color.
          The point is the term Person of color is lacking. It creates an implicit (in my opinion false) hierarchy within the minority community. Minorities all face forms of oppression, but when you designate spaces and terminology for people of color, then left out are those who don't fit in either person of color or white. Furthermore, PoC masks the differences in types of oppression minorities face. Latinos (black and white) face similar types of oppression. But the term person of color instead splits up the Latino community and instead suggests a connection between dark skin Latinos and other communities of color. While certainly the experience of being judged by your skin is relatable and can often be compared, this doesn't make it so that the experience you have will align more with someone of color (but not Latino) than someone who is Latino (but not of color). Intersectionality is important to consider here. White privilege as it comes in its manifested form of skin color also exacerbates this divide because many light skinned Latinos tend to do far better than their dark skinned brothers and sisters  (this is due to institutions of privilege that served light skinned Latinos). This socio economic divide, paired with the term "person of color" lends itself to a construction where the light skinned Latino is essentially white in their peers' eyes.
    Furthermore, the term person of color encourages a glossing over of the model minority legacy that still exists within the United States. To say that Asian Americans (Chinese, Korean, Indian, etc.) did no benefit from policies which specifically targeted blacks and Latinos in this nation is outright ignorance. Does this mean Asian Americans received no discrimination? Of course not, they were oppressed just as much as any other group, but the nature of that oppression was different. The model minority construct, which should not confine Asian Americans today (many in the Asian community have bravely spoke out against this term and continue to do so), has a legacy that still provides privilege. The term person of color does not provide a discourse about how Asian Americans, especially Indian, may have profited from conceptions of whiteness formed in the early 1900s. While eventually Indians were barred from White privilege, for a period of time the ability to claim Aryan ancestry was considered to be the pseudo scientific litmus test of whiteness, a test many Asians were able to claim they passed. The term person of color glosses over this history and instead inserts a narrative where all people of color (in quite literal terms) have a claim to "color". This propagates that Indians were always of color. Chinese were always of color.  Instead what should be emphasized is whether these groups were able to gain access to "whiteness". So do we remove the title of color from them? Again, no. They are still living in a present world where people still judge them according to their skin color. There is no pseudo science to whiteness now. The issue is that the term PoC, when used exclusively to dominate the discussion of oppression glosses over this reality.
        I deserve a voice and a space, which isn't currently provided for me at the University of Michigan. MiC seems to think that it is that space, but its insistence to use color as the prerequisite for entrance does a disservice to me and a disservice to many people of color. What I mean is if MiC were to accept my writing and be the space for me, it would distort the term PoC and expand it so that meaningful conversation about how skin color drastically affects peoples' lives would never be possible. My suggestion is to return to the term minority. The term minority is far more encompassing and can provide a space for all of those who are oppressed on this campus. Until this linguistic snafu is dealt with, then communities where there are many who can pass will begin to feel unwanted by their own communities and instead forced to assimilate into a white one.