Skip to main content

Uh Oh, Racism!

    The danger of a single story is that it reduces a people down to one thing (oftentimes negative) which influences the real life perceptions of that group by others. Nkali (to be greater than another) is a part of the issue because those who wield that power are able to dictate how an entire people or culture is viewed by controlling the story. As Adichie says: "The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story."

    Overwhelmingly, what I believe we should all take away from this speech, is that it really IS a shame that all young Americans are serial killers... and if there's a second thing to take away, it's that diversity in stories is vitally important to a better understanding of people, and therefore, vitally important to world-peace.

    To be honest, I found the story quite hard to follow in the first half. I barely registered that there were two Johns until about the section with the train-station. Them both sharing the same name probably led to some of my confusion. They grew up together as friends. Henderson was white and Jones was black, like the Cartoon Network logo. Whereas Jones became disillusioned with the world around him, Henderson seemed to remain very illusioned, right up until his death (side note, who dies from being punched once?)

    I think the reason for this being fictional is simple: it's easier to tell a story when it's not real, you know what every person is thinking, what every person is planning, everything at all times. A story is much more able to fit themes when it is expressly molded around them.

    I think the narrative is pretty clear with how Jones is changed by education: he loses his innocence, and sees the oppression around him for what it really is. Though he only really realizes how much he changed when he comes back home, and sees how everyone else has stayed the same. Though fictional, this aspect doesn't seem too far fetched. A person's worldview changing because of education is something that not only does happen, but happens quite a lot.

    The thing I think I can most compare Adichie's TEDtalk to is how the judge believed that black people couldn't/shouldn't try to go above where they were at, that their place was to be servile. He thinks that to go against this is to go against being black itself, somewhat like how Adichie's professor didn't believe her story was "authentically African" because the people drove cars and were educated. Of course, I highly doubt that Adichie's professor was as racist as the judge. If he was, he might've died from an aneurysm at the mere thought of a Nigerian woman attending college.

    I can't exactly get into all the troubles faced by black people during the Jim Crow era, I have a deadline on this thing. So I'll only focus on one part: Sundown Towns (or Sundown Counties, an entire Sundown State in Oregon's case, etc.) Sundown Towns were/are areas in which, put simply, It is illegal to be black. Sometimes it was after a certain time (which is why they're called sundown towns, black people had to be out by sundown) but other times it was 24/7, like the previously mentioned Oregon, which banned black people from being within it (though, this was repealed only a year later.) The intent was clear: to keep black communities and white communities separated. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They're Called Cell Phones Because The Phone is of Out Hot Cell Eat The Phone

     (The title is a reference, if you don't understand, don't worry about it.)      These two articles are a bit more linked than normal, as one is a direct response to the other. Though aside from the fact that they both talk about phones and are written in English, there aren't many comparisons I can make, they differ from each other quite severely.     First, and most obviously, their stances on cellphones are direct opposites. The one titled "Have Smartphones Destroyed A Generation?" Is, shockingly (not really,) thinks that the impact smartphones have on the youths is negative overall, whereas the response, "No, Smartphones are Not Destroying a Generation" thinks that this is not the case (another shocking revelation, I know)     There are also some more minor differences in format, for example, the response is much shorter than the paper it's responding to, which I appreciate greatly because my attention span is garbage. The source...

Pandemic Book Part 2: Electric Boogaloo

      I'm not sure how I'm supposed to follow the note because I can't see what passages other people picked until I submit this. -writing this as I read, I find it  mildly interesting that Jeevan was a paparazzo twice. I thought it was one solid block of his life, but nope. -Also, what kind of name is Jeevan? for the remainder of this blog I'm gonna call him Jeeves -calling it now I think Frank's gonna die or otherwise be separated from Jeeves. -"his hands ached from compressing Arthur's unwilling heart" is a pretty neat line, good contender for the line I'll discuss. -when Jeeves's phone rang and he said "hua" I thought that was an exclamation of surprise, like "HUH?!" -I'm disappointed to find out Arthur wasn't patient zero, makes him less interesting to me, and it also makes the original "and this is when it happened" line I praised very dull in hindsight. Because even if "it" didn't happe...

Forget this book, let's talk about Early Modern English!

-It's nice that they have a traveling acting troupe in the post-apocalypse. -I hope Jeeves died. Not because I dislike him, but because it would be narratively interesting. We get to learn about a person: their past, their hopes and dreams, their struggles... only for their story to be cut-short by the virus. -The farther we get from Shakespeare's time the more incomprehensible plays of that time become. "The safer sense will ne'er accommodate his master thus"?? What does "thus" mean in this context? In modern English it's used like "[cause] thus [effect]," you don't just end a sentence with it! And even if thus wasn't there to muck-up the whole line, what does it mean for a safer sense to not accommodate something? My best guess on what "safer sense" means is caution. Like, "Oh I would go play on the highway but I have a safer sense for that." or something. Does this mean that the person doesn't think cautio...