The Same Damn Heart - Poetry

A special thanks to my lovely and brilliant friend, Frida, for the title.

The Same Damn Heart
I am used to old, beer guzzling men
with gunmetal hair beneath veteran caps,
with leather jackets and leathery skin,
with scars and wrinkles somehow defiant.
Openly private, and more likely to share social security numbers than war stories.
These old men, intoxicated and intolerable,
have tattooed their regrets onto their sleeves
and wear their piercings to remind themselves
that no matter how much space they take up,
things can still go through them.
Unapologetic and amused by life,
they shout-
"If I knew then what I know now,
I'd do the same damn thing,
because even after all these years
the sweet is just as potent as the bitter."
Slow and steady is the beat of the old man heart,
but if you look closely, you can still see
the youthful soul pressing behind their eyes.

I am used to old, beer guzzling men
sweaty, and tired but not finished
and not afraid.

Jaylin Paschal

Other favorites from title suggestions were "Bitter(sweet)" and "Gunmetal".

Happy Birthday, Trayvon

Trayvon Martin would have been 20 years old today. 

Rest easy.

PSA!!!! "Ghetto" is Not an Adjective

Public Service Announcement: "GHETTO" IS NOT AN ADJECTIVE!

ghet•to     /'gedō/     noun

a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups

Correct use:

The Jewish man shared his experiences in the Warsaw ghetto.

Incorrect use:

Her weave is so ghetto!

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