How We Should Remember MLK

In my elementary school days, one day a year, usually in February, during a pathetic lets-get-this-over-with version of a Black History Month observation, I sat through videos and discussions about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I learned about how peaceful and tolerant he was. I learned that he "had a dream," and tried to accomplish that dream by passive-aggressively ignoring the violence and sheer ignorance of the day. Essentially, I was taught that he patiently waited for the white man to come to his senses. In high school the lesson, if it's even taught, has remained the same. But it's not entirely true.

There was nothing even remotely passive aggressive about Dr. King or his methods. He was assertive and to the point. He set goals and often went to drastic measures to meet those goals. Dr. King's nonviolence policy should not be confused as him looking the other way when white people were brutal. His policy was simply his refusal to fight fire with fire, in an attempt to put out the flames in their entirety. "By any means necessary" wasn't his thing, but he also didn't just pray and sit quietly while simply hoping better times would come.

If he saw something he didn't like, he did something about it. He spoke up. He sometimes broke the law with the logic that "one has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

His true existence would be better described as radical but nonviolent, as he said himself that he did not believe in peace where there is injustice, stating: "If peace means keeping my mouth shut in the midst of injustice and evil, I don't want it." He also stated in his famous Letter From Birmingham Jail, "I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate [...] who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice." As ironic as it sounds, true peace had to be fought for.

Never let people respond to your cries against police brutality, unjust murders of black men, women, and children, racial profiling, or systematic racism with some misquoted or out-of-context quote from Dr. King claiming that "MLK wouldn't agree with this anger/idea/uproar/protest." Because he did feel what we are feeling.

On police brutality: "We can never be satisfied as long as the negro is the victim of the unspeakable horror of police brutality."

On unjust murders and a racist system/society: "We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced the murderers."

On racial profiling/ black self-love: "Look in your dictionary and see synonyms for the word 'black'. It's always degrading, low, and sinister. Look at the word 'white'. It's always pure, high, clean."

You never hear quotes like these from Dr. King. I feel like that's because people and the education system will always neglect the more assertive teachings and beliefs of Dr. King. They'll always promote passive aggressiveness and pacifism because they can manage that; because it keeps a conversation from starting and allows a "negative peace which is the absence of tension" to more easily exist. That's why you  hardly ever learn about Malcolm X in schools. People don't want you to latch on to his "radical" ideas -- which they had no control over; which provided no wiggle room-- , and so they shove the not-so-radical ideas of MLK down your throat. "Remember, MLK wouldn't have lost his patience with Darren Wilson or the justice system." Yes. he definitely would have lost his patience. Maybe not his temper; definitely would not have abandoned his nonviolence policy or morals; but patience would have been wearing thin -- that's for sure.

Yes, Dr. King was peaceful and nonviolent. Yes, that is important. Extremely important. I cannot stress its importance. But I wish he was remembered for the more controversial, revolutionary ideas as well, because those ideas are what really pushed this nation towards a tolerant society, free of prejudice and racism.

I love that we as a nation honor and remember Dr. King. I love that, and I appreciate it. I think it's a beautiful thing. I look up to Dr. King in so many ways and everyone should join together to remember a great life lived by a true lover of peace. We should remember Dr. King by honoring his "true legacy of radical resistance against the status quo."

On The N-Word (Why Black People Can Say "Nigga" and You Can't)

We avoid using offensive terms in an attempt to be decent human beings. Almost everyone agrees on this, until it comes to the "n-word".

Whenever a black person asks a white person not to say "nigga", the response is never just "okay." It's never "I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was being offensive." The response is usually one of these three:
"Get over it, everyone uses it."
"I have black friends so I can say it if I want."
Or, the response I'm discussing now: "But if black people use it, they can't be mad when white people use it."

Wrong.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Wrong wrong. WRONG.

Let's say you have a friend. She's overweight and has an unhealthy diet. She constantly refers to herself as "fat" or a "big girl". Would you ever call her those things? Would you call her "fat" or "big" because that's what she calls herself? No, because it's offensive.

You have another friend. He's gay. He uses terms like "f****t" and "q***r" (don't feel comfortable typing them) when describing himself and other gay people. Would you use those words because he uses those words? No, because they're offensive.

If a group of people who have been oppressed and offended by a derogatory term decide to use it, that's completely fine. They're reclaiming those words for themselves. Often slurs are used by minority groups as a symbol of solidarity, to take some of the sting out of a word, and reverse the effects of something that was created to be hurtful. Minority groups should be able to reappropriate the terms that held them down. Majority groups do not have the right to join in on that. And they're use of the term may not make sense to you, but it makes sense to them. And that's what matters.
As Michael Eagle said in a Washington Post article: "I’m a person who believes in in-group versus out-group privileges and respect. So like if my experience is the ‘nigger’ experience, then I feel like I have free license to do what I want with [the word]. Like, people that don’t have to have their head on a swivel in certain parts of Alabama, I don’t feel like you should be using that word like it’s just cool. Because it’s not just a cool thing."

Now, with all of that being said, I personally don't like the "n-word". I think it is only a reminder of an evil time in American history, and although the use of it ironically reclaims the word, it seems to only encourage white people to continue to use it disrespectfully. I think the word should be totally eradicated. I hope it dies a painful death. But if I do decide to use the word, a white person has no business telling me not to. I agree with Jeff Calimbas, who was featured in the same Washington Post article, when he said "There’s no way that any other race has a right to tell a black person you can’t say – that word. We don’t have any bloody attachments, or history with that word. It’s kind of like telling a woman what she can or can’t do with her body. … So if the word is to be removed from everyday speech. It has to come from the black community, and only the black community."

Until the n-word dies, avoid saying something that offends people for the sake of being decent. Don't argue. I've said in a previous post: "Instead of being defensive, listen to what they're saying and agree to alter your vocabulary in order to make everyone feel comfortable and accepted." So if a woman calls herself a "bitch" and her friends "bitches", but asks a male not to use the word, he should respect that. Regardless of whether or not he agrees with it.

I really don't understand why I even have to blog about this. Why is this concept so hard for people to grasp? You'd think it was rocket science.

The Internet and Journalism

I have always wanted to be a writer. Always. When I was little I'd imagine myself living in New York City and working for some big newspaper or magazine. I thought about a life with deadlines and seeing my name in print beside a weekly column and in the issues that would circulate daily. Now I'm older and am realizing that the life of a journalist is not what it used to be. Journalism in its entirety is not what it used to be. Chances are I won't be able to see my name in print as often as I'd like or clip out and save my articles in my own, personal archive. And this is all because of technology - more specifically, the Internet.

Since the internet was created, the ability to instantly access information has been granted to millions. News is available with the literal click of a button, and can be constantly updated and edited to be more timely and precise. And this is wonderful. It has revolutionized journalism and provides people with the news they need exactly when they need it. No one has to wait for tomorrow's paper, with news that will seem old by the time it's reached the masses.

No one has to look specifically towards journalists for information and updates. Social media is the new age platform for instantaneous reports, and anyone with an account can release information that can potentially reach millions of people. People can upload information, photos, and videos, and often quicker than reporters can. With constant information coming from hundreds of sources, no one has to solely rely on journalists anymore. Journalists no longer control how informed or knowledgeable the general population is. With the internet available, ignorance is a choice. I think Aleks Krotoski from The Guardian explained it extremely well when stating, "If knowledge is power, the web is the greatest tool in the history of the world."

People can connect like never before and ideas can be shared across the globe. Entire revolutions have been started and carried out online. There are countless events that never could have taken place without the use of the internet to communicate plans and organize ideas.

I am very excited about how the internet has changed journalism and happy that I will be apart of the digital age of releasing news and information. I think it's exciting to have the world at my fingertips, and consider myself lucky to be alive in the age of the internet.

However, although the internet has changed journalism in a way that is quicker and connects more people, it has taken a serious toll on the quality and integrity of journalistic writing.

Less and less journalists take the time they need to perfect a story as they are in a great, big rush to upload their articles and update their blogs before everyone else. I can't tell you how many typos I've found in online articles because there's just no time for proofreading if a writer is to remain timely and relevant in the age of the internet. There's no time to really think about a story; to evaluate it from every angle; to make sure what you're publishing is quality work. Journalists are rushed by their editors - who hardly edit - and their audience, who want more and more as quickly as they can press the refresh button.

With the internet came the ability to cheat and more easily abandon the ethics and rules real journalists believe in. Plagiarism is so much easier to do, as one only has to press "Ctrl + V" to claim the words and work of another as their own. It is simple to edit images online to falsely portray a scene. It is easy to tell a blatant lie without having others fact-check. It is easy to hide behind a screen and do all of these things. And it is not just journalists who do this, but random people all across the world with Internet access and blogs or Twitter accounts to use.

Reporters no longer have to keep their ears to the ground and go out searching for stories and scouring for witnesses and quotes. There's hardly anymore "pounding the pavement". Journalists just simply log into Twitter and see what's trending; see what everyone's talking about on Facebook. Reporters can wait for the facts to be tweeted and can pull photos from online. They simply obtain their information how everyone else does: online. The stories come to them, and practically write themselves and the need for a journalist's analysis has dwindled. Some may consider this to be a benefit of the web, but I think that a basic and important (and fun) part of journalism has been loss to the internet.

Although it's great that everyone can do some "reporting" of their own and join the conversation online, a lot of the facts are lost when civilians are reporting. Those who are not trained to write as journalists often give information that is biased or misleading because they do not look at the story objectively. It's information - but is it trustworthy? Like Yves Eudes stated in the same Guardian article as cited previously, "Anyone can make bread, but it's lousy bread."

There are obvious benefits of the internet that have changed and will continue to change journalism for the better. However, the negative aspects of the internet have altered the practice of journalism in such a way that I often question whether or not it is the profession I want to go into. Hopefully I will end up writing, and I learn how to use and share my work on the internet without ever having to sacrifice the quality or integrity of my writing.

                   

  

           

 

           

I'm Officially a Published Poet!

My first poem ever published was in issue #10 of Mock Turtle. Being published has always been a goal of mine and this really meant a lot to me. Just thought I'd share.

xx

On White Privilege

White privilege is extremely hard to explain to white people. I try, but I am rarely ever successful. Having institutionalized privilege usually means that you hardly even notice said privilege. I know there are some people who are completely confused by and annoyed with the idea of white privilege. And that's totally understandable. Every single human being struggles, and it can't feel good to hear someone tell you about how easy you've got it when you're struggling.

And I do acknowledge that white people struggle. I'm not at all suggesting that their lives are perfect or doubting the severity of their issues. I know that white people struggle just as people of color struggle. The idea of white privilege is not suggesting that white people live life free of adversity or unfairness. White privilege simply points out the fact that there are certain troubles that white people will probably never wrestle with because of their skin color.

A white person gets a good job, or into a good school, and no one will confuse their hard work as Affirmative Action.

A white boy in a hoodie running is seen as trying to get out of the rain, while a black boy in a hoodie is seen as suspicious.

A group of white friends can usually walk down the street without people locking their car doors or nervously looking away.

A white person will never be told to "get over" 9/11, Pearl Harbor, or the Holocaust like black people are told to get over slavery.

A white mother never has to have a conversation with her son at age 10 about how he should behave around older white men and communicate with police.

A white person is labeled as "quirky and eccentric" for doing the same things that get black people labeled as "ghetto".

A white person can almost know for certain that if they are pulled over or followed around a store for no reason, it is not because of their race but because of the mistake/boredom/etc. of the officer.

A white person may never wonder too hard about their culture(s) because white history is taught in schools and published in books. (All of the text books I've read have plenty much skimmed over black people. Of course slavery and civil rights are mentioned, but their is hardly any cultural information included. (African American studies is usually an elective, if even an offered course.))

A white person is much more capable of learning about their ancestry, where the files and records of an African American's family lineage rarely goes back past Antebellum, as slave records were not kept or maintained very often. Ancestry.com wouldn't do much for me.

A white person can see people meeting European beauty standards on television and in the media regularly, where I always search for the people of color in a cast or in a magazine.

A white person never has to see their peers in blackface or hear them say "nigga/nigger", and be told to "calm down" or "take a joke".

A white person never gets surprised looks when they prove to be articulate or intelligent.

A white person never has to hear, "Wait, your dad still lives with you?".

A white person never has to sit through a lecture on Martin Luther King or Barack Obama and have the entire class stare at them.

A white person is never assumed to be violent a terrorist (even though some of the most violent crimes in history have been committed by white people *sips tea*).

I could go on and on and on.

I am not asking for or expecting an apology from white people. They shouldn't have to apologize for the privileges history and society has granted them. I don't think they should feel bad for these privileges. I don't think they should feel guilty for taking advantage of them. I don't think they should feel ashamed for the actions of other white people in the past and in the present - they have nothing to do with those people. All I would like is for them to acknowledge their privilege. And to take advantage of any opportunities they have to make a difference.

I may be writing about race relations/racism for a while, as it is one of the most influential aspects of society, and due to all of the race-related stories in the news.

R.I.P. Eric Garner. R.I.P. Tamir Rice. R.I.P. Michael Brown. R.I.P. John Crawford. R.I.P. Trayvon Martin. R.I.P. Oscar Grant. R.I.P. ...

Open Letter: Let's Call Racism What It Is

Dear Reader,

If you do not believe racism exists...

I have a dilemma. I'm thinking that you may be able to help me.

You have recently stated that racism is no longer a problem for African Americans. You so kindly reminded us that we've won the battle for civil rights. This is great news! I mean really, it's a relief.

The problem is, Reader, my little cousin (14) was on the phone weeping to me the other night.

My cousin has experienced a lot at a young age. Too much, honestly.

Once he was riding home with a group of friends, all of them white, and they were pulled over for no apparent reason. He was sitting in the passenger seat, and asked to step out to be searched while the rest of the boys he was with could wait inside the car and were asked no questions. Eventually, when the cop was finally done harassing him, he was able to return to the car and ride home in the awkward silence.

My cousin has been told by his crush that her dad would not let her date black guys.

My cousin has been accused of shoplifting because he had his hands in his pocket while walking around a convenience store.

My cousin has been told that he is ugly because his skin is too dark.

My cousin, who is brilliant, and the only black person in his science class, constantly has to look at the shocked expression of his chemistry teacher whenever he is as successful as or more successful than his white peers.

Even though my cousin has had these experiences, and many more, this is not why he was crying to me.

My cousin, who never cries, was crying for Eric Garner's family. He felt so bad for his mother and his wife and his children. He was so deeply saddened by the fact that a man could be killed by an illegal chokehold caught on tape without justice. He said that he couldn't even imagine how devasting it must be to lose a loved one to murder, and then to hear that that murder was okay.

He claims that this is why he cried, but I know better. Yes, of course he felt sorry for Eric Garner's family. But he was crying for his own. He was crying for his mother and his family. He was crying for me. He cried because he knew that the name "Eric Garner" could easily be switched out for his own. As could Tamir Rice's. As could Michael Brown's. As could John Crawford's. As could Trayvon Martin's. As could Oscar Grant's. And a slew of other names belonging to black men who have died without justice. He cried because he knew that these situations were not at all personal. These men did not die because they were bad people; these weren't thugs, or threats to society. These men died because their black skin causes society to view them as dangerous; as deadly; as violent. Racial profiling and prejudice had ended their lives, before they even had a chance to defend it. My cousin cried, Reader, because he knew that he wouldn't have had a chance either. And that his killer would probably walk free too. And that his family would suffer the same way Eric Garner's had. He wept for his family. For us, and for himself.

And near the end of the call, he kept asking me "why". "Why does this happen?" "Why can this happen?" "Why won't it stop?". I wasn't able to answer his question, and he went to bed believing that he was living in a racist society, and that he would have to learn how to survive in a country where the legal system does not value or defend his life.

But, there is hope! According to you, Reader, he should not feel that way because of all of the civil rights we've won.

And that is why I must ask a favor of you: tell my cousin why this happens. The real reason why, since it's not racism. He needs to know.

Thank you.

Sincerely

Assertive Does Not Mean Bitchy! (On Shaming Girls for Taking Control)

I'm channeling my inner feminist. Sorry, not sorry.

I am so tired of being called bossy. And bitchy. And stuck up.

It would be different if I was actually bossy, bitchy, and/or stuck up. I would not take offense to these claims if they were accurate. I'll wear any shoe that fits.

But the thing is: I'm not actually bossy. Or bitchy. Or stuck up. I'm stubborn, for sure; strong-willed. And yes, I'm sometimes a bit candid. I'm passionate. I'm assertive. When I have thoughts and opinions and ideas, I share them. I stick with my gut; trust my intuition. And because I am this way, I'm often labeled unfairly.

These labels are assigned to me simply because I'm a girl. That is literally the only reason. Throughout history, women have not been the leaders, but the conformists; silent and obedient and polite. For some reason, it seems as if young women are expected to still fit into that mold. And when she doesn't; when she dares to speak up or innovate or take control, she's bossy. She's a bitch. She's stuck up.

Why aren't women allowed to be assertive?

Anna Wintour is always called a bitch, and I absolutely hate hearing people call her that. An entire book/movie (that I admittedly love) was supposedly based off of her, called The Devil Wears Prada. The devil! Lucifer! Satan! Anna Wintour was compared to Satan! And for what? For being brutally honest? For not accepting mediocracy? For protecting Vogue's position as the most influential fashion magazine in the world? Here's the truth: there's no one on Earth who can do what she does the way she does it. No one. And she knows that. And she's proud of that. And if she's seemingly serious and harsh I can only imagine that it's in order to ensure the continuation of the success of American Vogue. She works hard. She means business. That does not make her a bitch. If a man had her job, he'd be called revolutionary and innovative and an inspiring leader. Let's treat Anna Wintour (and every other successful and assertive woman) with the same respect.

Why is it that any woman reaching for leadership roles is portrayed as power-hungry and men-hating?

Time Magazine's cover story one week was a feature on Hillary Clinton's success. The cover? A photo of a heel about to step on a man. The portrayal of Hillary was ridiculously inaccurate, considering the fact that man-crushing has never been on her agenda. Why is it that society thinks that women measure success by the shortcomings of men? Men: we are not out to get you (not all of us, at least). Out to get some of your jobs, maybe, but not you. There's nothing wrong with women wanting positions that are usually filled by men. If anything, it's beneficial to the job market, creating some healthy competition.

And another point: WOMEN ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO BE WARM AND CUDDLY!

Contrary to popular belief, not all girls are made of the perfect blend of sugar and spice and everything nice. Actually, a lot of girls are mostly spice. And that's ok. They cannot control their personalities. If they aren't necessarily the friendliest person in the world, that does not make them a bitch. Just because she's not talkative or touchy-feely doesn't mean she's stuck up, just introverted. 

Stop criticizing girls for not fitting into the mold society has made for us.

So yeah. I think I'm done ranting now.