Friday, June 06, 2014

Atlanta: Where it’s perfectly okay for 23,000 white people to be racist in public.

My dad and I just got back from the world’s fastest baseball trip: 3 days, 2 nights, 3 flights and 3 baseball games. Two of these games were in Atlanta, Georgia, home of the Braves.  You can guess about the origination of the name: braves, like the racist, un-PC name for Native American chiefs. Those of you who are baseball fans already know about the Tomahawk Chop. Those of you who aren't, this is when the fans “chop” their hands and chant this sing-song-y “oh, oh oh oh oh” thing. I tried to take a video. I failed. Here's someone else's. 


I thought it was a spontaneous utterance, but no, the PA system actually tells the fans that they need to Chop. They tell the fans to chop and they put it up on the big screen. And the fans chop away. Not only that, the stadium is unabashedly full of choppy puns. The Chop Steakhouse, the Chop Bar, etc.

(This history of the Tomahawk Chop credits/blames the fans and Florida State and ... Neon Deion for bringing the Chop to the Atlanta. The pride!)

To make matters worse, the fans at Turner Field are almost universally white. The first game we went to had an announced attendance of about 38,000. We estimated that this was pretty close to accurate, but let’s say it was actually 35,000. I’d guess that no less than 30,000 of these fans were white. And if I had to guess, I’d guess that at least 25,000 of these did the Tomahawk Chop when instructed, and a good 23,000 did it with gusto. The icing on the cake: at least 95% of stadium employees were black. These choppers were chopping away while black employees stood in the sweltering heat and humidity (I almost died), making somewhere around minimum wage.


It gets even more complicated. I think that the Braves organization is TRYING to get rid of the racist overtones of the “Braves” name (is that possible?) by aligning “Braves” with “brave” as in “bravery.” They’re doing this by emphasizing the red/white/blue color scheme and, in a perfectly awful combination, tying it into patriotism/nationalism. The first game that we went to (Tuesday night), we were treated to a 10 minute ceremony honoring veterans from Vietnam and the Korean war. We stood (in the sweltering heat and humidity) and heard about each veterans’ amazing feats of Bravery (one of them had killed 13 enemy fighters). Each strikeout by a Braves pitcher was followed by fireworks. There were lots of other flag and Amurica moments: basically, Braves Country was not just about the braves, but about the Brave men who killed off those same braves. Viva Racism!

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Anthony Diener and Joshua Hagen: Borders

Shop Indie Bookstores
Oxford University Press publishes an adorable little series of "Very Short Introductions." They're maybe 7" tall and 4" wide with simple abstract covers and they're just satisfying to hold in your hand. I stumbled on the collection by finding the book about borders (no surprise). The book is a round up of the what scholars of borders have found, and, while it's not news to me, it's nice to read the background and be reminded that there are borders beyond the US/Mexico border that I'm obsessed with.

Anthony Diener and Joshua Hagen start with an historical overview of borders and territory. Borders weren't always the way we think of them now. Without romanticizing hunter/gatherers, there had to be states to have borders, and even with states, borders weren't always the rigid territorial markers that we now think of them. Further, and this seems obvious, they weren't always the SAME borders that we have now. One of the things about borders is that we assume that they are natural and obvious, when in fact they are (usually) arbitrary and always, by definition, exclusionary. Not until absolute state sovereignty in Europe became a thing (16th and 17th century) were the means and requirements there for borders to be fixed. (Of course this practice spread well beyond Europe with colonization of Africa and the Americas.) Diener and Hagen explain the three implications of this: states were free to govern their territories without interference; states alone could legitimately engage in either diplomacy or war; and monarchs needed to mark borders of territories, people and resources to include and exclude in order to rule. Game on. 

Diener and Hagen raise important questions about borders beyond the physical aspects: "Do good borders make good neighbors or are borders impediments to international cooperation? Will state sovereignty continue to be prioritized over national independence? Will nation-states remain the primary global political/economic actors? Is a borderless world possible or even desirable?" (59) They discuss globalization and its myths and realities: can this concept (so popular in the '90s and early 2000s) really eradicate the need for borders? Are democratic states, demarcated by borders, possible? Borders, they argue, are not the result of democratic processes, as evident by the treatment of minority and indigenous populations who were trampled by the lines drawn. Is there a democratic way to create borders? As they write, "Ironically, democratic politics are expected to emerge from democratic institutions tied to modern states despite the fact that there cannot be democracy until democratic institutions and state borders are established." (70) Is it possible to overcome this tension? Do borders actually provide security or do they cause instability? Is there a way to balance this? This is a dense, important little book. It's dry and not the best written of books, but it's a good one and meets its goal: a short introduction.






Monday, May 26, 2014

Barbara Jensen: Reading Classes

Shop Indie Bookstores
The more I read about education and the more classes I teach, the more I think that it's like dog training: The only thing two people involved in the field can agree about is that the third person is wrong. Professor X argued that higher education isn't for everyone at the same time that Obama is trying to push college for everyone. John Marsh argued that, actually, education isn't going to end inequality, sorry. Lisa Delpit explored the ways that inequality is built into our the system. In a way, all of these scholars agree (except Obama): the system is messed up, and we're doing it wrong. On the other hand, they all agree that if we revamp it in a certain way, we can get it right. The thing is, none of them agree on that certain way. 

Add Barbara Jensen to the mix. Jensen writes about how class fits into the picture and argues that the American education system is designed to both ignore the working class and replicate the inferior status of the working class. The modern education system, she believes, is part and parcel of the way we look at class: "having steps on a ladder and that those who work the hardest move to the upper rungs while those nearer the bottom belong there and thus are granted much lower pay, power, and control in their work lives." (24). "This," she says, "is pure bullshit." It is, however, how pretty much everything, including the way we teach our kids from birth, is structured in the United States. We teach kids that individualism is the way to succeed, even if this isn't the way all cultural and class groups function.

Jensen's writing is based mainly on her personal life as a "crossover." She was raised in a working class family in Minnesota and eventually went on to get a PhD in psychology. She struggled (and struggles) to reconcile her new middle class life with her working class background. As she gained cultural capital, she realized that her family, while working harder, would never get ahead in the way she now could. She also saw the middle class controlled this, unwittingly. This is a cycle: "class is an injustice that says some Americans deserve much more time, leisure, control, and far more financial reward than others. Classism is the set of myths and beliefs that keep those class divisions intact, that is, the belief that working class cultures and people are inherently inferior and that class itself demonstrates who the hardest workers and the rightful winners are." (31)

Jensen believes that classism in education presents itself as solipsism, "or my-world-is-the-whole-world, what I call class-blinders. This is the tendency to assume everyone has had the same experience we have had and to be blind to the experiences of others... Societywide institutions, like public education, do the same thing: presume we all think and learn like middle class people do, that we all work best as individuals in competition. American education then punishes kids who have not learned to work best this way." (37)  The working class mentality, she argues, does not privilege individual success and the competitive nature to achieve this success over everything. Rather, there is a collective spirit and an urge to be part of and to protect the group over everything else. This is not what middle class families, popular culture and the educational system teach us: we must strive to be The Best and to Stand Out to get ahead. Working class kids who have to choose often fall back on the culture they are steeped in and the values of their family, this failing at school or opting out, and fall back into the working class, which no longer has much material worth.

"Reading Classes" is an interesting read. It combines personal narrative- Jensen's story of moving from working class to middle class- with oral histories she collects from her family with an extended literature review of the few authors who have looked at the effects of class on education. She combines a few major studies with her insights and experiences as a "community psychologist" to work her way through the educational journey from small child to adult learner. The problem, she thinks, is in how education defines working class (and lower class) students as deficient. We can learn by bringing the experiences of cultural crossovers like Jensen an others to light, problematizing the idea that we are all a happy middle class, best served by institutions tailored to the middle class. What's missing (as usual, I have to say), is a solid platform of solution, or even of what a better situation would look like. Special schools for the working class? (I don't think Jensen would argue this.) Better training for teachers so that they can understand where different students are coming from? (I don't think Jensen would think this sufficient.) Less stratification in the school system? (Not sure this is feasible.) The book has certainly opened my eyes, and there's nothing really to argue with, except perhaps the "lumping" of people in the working class, though Jensen explains herself in this. The question is where to go next.

Ugly Uniform Day

Today is Memorial Day, when the new thing is to wear camouflage uniforms. You may think I'm going to talk about the uniforms today, which are in fact, hideous. But no, I'm talking about two days ago: Saturday, May 24th. I'm not sure what happened, but it appears that MLB got together and decided to declare it Ugly Day.
Texas and Detroit must have had some flashback thing going on.
Only the flannel look is actually jersey, like jersey sheets.
And what is "BP"? Batting Practice? Only... this is during the game.

Number on the pants. Yup.

I guess Michigan is the One Star State now?

Cute font. For a teddy bear, or something.



The Astros. Notice the way the jerseys have elastic bands at the waist.



Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Jason Turbow: The Baseball Codes

Shop Indie Bookstores
Some people (my boyfriend included) think baseball has too many rules. He calls it a "gentleman's game," and not in a nice way. There are just lots of things you can and can't do, and should and shouldn't do. In my opinion, that is what makes the game- it's not like we have to golf clap, or anything! And if I wanted to watch a bunch of dudes run and violently slam into each other, I'd watch football. If I wanted to watch hours of sheer athleticism, I'd take up basketball. No- I'm content with my slightly dull talking sport. And rules give us LOTS to talk about. This short video gives you an idea of what happens when rules are broken, and, if you watch with sound, you'll hear two perspectives on rules. (Me and THB were there that day and had NO idea what happened- it happened really fast. Note: the two featured players aren't in the game anymore, though who knows where A-Rod will be next year...)


Dallas Braden flips out by udrtwe

Jason Turbow's "The Baseball Codes" is all about the rules of baseball that not everyone knows about. Not the neighborhood play or the blowing on a foul ball rules or even more common ones like when the infield fly rules. These are the unwritten rules like when it is and isn't okay to cross the pitcher's mound or when it's expected that a pitcher will throw at a batter and when it's considered beyond the pale. It also discusses why Nolan Ryan threw at guys so much and why some guys wouldn't do it at all. Turbow talks about cheating and when it's okay and when it's not- basically, everyone cheats as much as they can get away with. Interestingly, there's only a tiny bit about PED's, and that's a big oversight. It might be too much to tackle in this kind of book, but it's hard to talk about cheating and unwritten rules without this discussion.

There's a timely discussion of pine tar on the neck (see: Pineda), which includes a discussion of why tony La Russa didn't ask Kenny Rogers to be checked for pine tar in a game in 2006 or make a bigger deal out of the incident. Rather, he was content when the umpires asked Rogers to wash off. Turbow on this: "La Russa's [had a] general acceptance of a base level of cheating in his sport. A baseball man through and through, the manager harbored clear notions of on-field propriety, spending significant time considering the integrity of his actions and those of others. To him, baseball's Code allowed for subtle bending of the rules." This is noteworthy for two reasons: one, La Russa's clubs are notorious for steroid usage (from the Bash Brothers to the Cardinals). Is this a subtle bending of the rules? Baseball seems to think so, as he goes into the Hall of Fame this year. Second, he also does SOMETHING for Major League Baseball. A "baseball man," a believer in the code, and a believer in some level of cheating is clearly endorsed by MLB. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the code is part of the sport. On the other hand, it needs to be acknowledged, and I'd say offered up as part of the humanity of baseball. Let's tell it like it is: no amount of instant replay will make the sport "clean." There's a human element, a tradition element ,that makes the game what it is.

Turbow's book is a decent one, especially for those who want to learn more about the game. It's a jaunt through memory lane of all kinds of baseball players- names you haven't heard for a decade (or more). My man Charlie Manuel made the cut, as did lots of former A's. Dusty Baker appears frequently as does pre-Giants Bochy. If you already are a student of the game, though, a lot of these unwritten rules are already pretty ingrained in you. This will just give you extra fodder when you want to show off to ballpark rookies (as if you need that!) or to bore your boyfriend with. Not that you would ever do such a thing...

Monday, May 05, 2014

David Axe and Tim Hamilton: Army of God

Shop Indie Bookstores
I think this is the third graphic novel that I've ever read. It's also the third graphic non-novel I've ever read and I'm still not quite sure why we call graphic nonfiction "graphic novels," but since I'm also still not quite sure why I'm still reading graphic nonfiction novels, I'm not really going to worry about it. "Army of God: Joseph Kony's War in Central Africa" could actually be called a graphic nonfiction novella: it's very short, clocking in at 100 pages of illustrations which contain very little text. Where "Vietnamerica" was a stunning visual piece and "Fun Home" was a striking memoir, "Army of God" is kind of like a short expose that happens to be illustrated. David Axe went to the Democratic Republic of Congo and was horrified by the carnage Joseph Kony, a lunatic leader with a fierce following was reaping on the country. He came back, and along with Tim Hamilton, put the piece to words and images. The result is kind of, well, easy to pass over, which is unfortunate, because the situation is really icky. I'm going to stick with words.

Saturday, May 03, 2014

Evgeny Morozov: To Save Everything, Click Here

Shop Indie Bookstores

Evgeny Morozov is one of those guys who has a lot of great ideas but doesn't know when to stop preaching and start teaching. I made it through about 50 pages and had to stop. Where Rebecca MacKinnon convincingly argues that the Internet is a vital part of activism that, while not the impetus for changing the world, is a Very Important Tool, Morozov could convincingly argue we put too much faith in what he calls "the Internet." I agree with him that we do: just like MacKinnon, I don't think a computer or the wires between two (bajillion) computers are really going to fix everything, and I think that some people have fallen into the tech trap. (In Oakland right now, there's a mayoral candidate who has argued that Bitcoin will help Oaklanders out of poverty...) Here's what Morozov says about why he calls it "the Internet":
The physical infrastructure we know as "the Internet" bears very little resemblance to the mythical "Internet"- the one that reportedly brought down the governments of Tunisia and Egypt and is supposedly destroying our brains- that lies at the center of our public debates. The infrastructure and design of this network of networks do play a certain role in sanctioning many of these myths- for example, the idea that "the Internet" is resistant to censorship comes from the unique qualities of its packet-switching communication mechanism- but "the Internet" that is the bane of public debates also contains many other stories and narratives- about innovation, surveillance, capitalism- that have little to do with the infrastructure per se.

He compares "the Internet" to Louis Pasteur, the historical figure, to "Pasteur" who we all think of as the guy who invented hygiene. Pasture didn't invent hygiene. The Internet didn't invent activism and isn't going to fix the world. Morozov isn't just railing against "the Internet," he's railing against technological solutionism: a philosophy where every problem has a solution. The problem is bigger than that, though, as Morozov sees it. Not all of the problems that techies want to solve are actually problems. And some problems that DO need solving are overlooked because they don't have quick technological fixes. Some of his examples are cooking- there's some really technologies out there to "help" people cook in a clean, neat way that allow people to make things exactly right. But is that really what cooking is about? And what are the hidden side effects? Well, the technologies are tracking everything. I'm guilty of things like this: I've been having groceries delivered (not one of Morozov's examples). A solution for lazy ass people like me who hate grocery shopping- have people do it for you, for a fee! Well, was shopping really a problem? It was, a first world problem. And now the company knows what I'm eating and a whole class of contract laborers are doing something I consider as "dirty work." And a whole bunch of smart people have put a lot of time and labor into solving this "problem" instead of real food related problems. And I'm having food shoppers go to Safeway instead of picking up the same things at a farmer's market. You get the point, right? This is part of Morozov's point.

The problem is, I couldn't read it. Because after the first 50 pages I was *really tired of being told this from a soapbox. I wanted to hear it in a measured, academic tone, or maybe with some proof, or maybe just like I wasn't defensive. Good food for thought, bad book.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Barbara Almond: The Monster Within

Shop Indie Bookstores
I must have said on this blog a million times that I'm not having kids. In real life, I've said it 8 billion times, and those who know me are certainly sick of it, or at least know that I feel very strongly about this. I have never wanted them, I don't want them know, don't anticipate wanting them ever and get pretty touchy when people say "oh, you'll change your mind." I feel like it's pretty lame to assume that all women will want kids because all women (or those who have biologically female parts) have uteruses. Are we really that biologically determined? We don't even believe that dogs are that biologically determined in everything they do anymore: dogs hump not just because of sexual drive and not just because of dominance (argh!), but also for other reasons: sometimes they're playing! Sometimes they're trying out new social relationships! If we can see this nuance in dogs, why can't we see this nuance in ourselves? Some women don't want kids. Sometimes a uterus is just a body part. Some women have complex relationships with maternity. Thankfully, I live in a time and place where I can make this decision. I have the economic and social standing to have control over my body to make this decision.

And there's more: some women who have kids don't feel 100% hearts and rainbows about them all the time. Some women go into motherhood with complicated and ambivalent feelings about being mothers in the first place. Some mothers don't want to be mothers, or may only kind of want to be mothers, or may only have kids because they think it's the "right" thing to do, or any other number of circumstances. This seems so obvious, right? But we idealize motherhood and demand everything of mothers, demand and expect perfection. Think of how we collectively dumped on Tiger Mom who wrote a book about her demanding style of mothering and how quick we are to jump on and criticize mothers who do outlandish things like have 8 children or awful things like kill their children (yes, that's a whole blog about it). So we expect a bunch of moms, but we don't even give them that much- the US has crappy maternity leave policies, we don't have accessible child care and now women "get" to be supermoms: they have to work AND be perfect moms.

Enter Barbara Almond and the concept of "maternal ambivalence." "The biological, social, and psychological strains of pregnancy, childbirth, and mothering are enormous" she writes,
and, I believe, more underrated than we are willing to admit. It doesn't always go as naturally or as easily as we wish. So of course mothers cling to every possibility of doing it right. But trying to do it right is, in itself, less of a problem than feeling that one must love doing it right. Conflict between the needs of the mother and the needs of the infant and child is the major source of maternal ambivalence. And maternal ambivalence is a major source of anxiety and guilt to mothers. And this anxiety and guilt leads to efforts and reparation that further interfere with the satisfying of reasonable maternal needs, needs that are already eroded by the more pressing neediness of infants and children. It would seem to be a vicious cycle, and it certainly leads to a lot of undue suffering (229-230).
Although a little Freudian for me, okay, a lot Freudian for me, Almond argues that ALL women are ambivalent about children. Whether they're ambivalent about having them before hand or during pregnancy or once the kid has been born, every mom has some kind of negative feelings about their kid and about being a mother. Some have the feelings a lot, some resent their children or being a mother all of the time, and some moms just get annoyed once in a while when the snot is too much. But this part of motherhood is routinely ignored, dismissed or worse, portrayed as disgraceful. Almond, an analyst, uses experiences from her practice and literature to show that ambivalence is normal and routine. She argues that normalizing this will help women be better mothers, help children have better childhoods and foster better relationships between mothers and their children. Almond has written a lovely, compassionate and well thought out book heavy with Freudian references that almost kill it in their datedness. Hopefully the message will get out: it's okay, it's normal, it's enshrined in the literature: mom's are people, too.