The price of intervention

Recently, I saw a comment on a Facebook thread that set my teeth on edge. You've probably seen comments that do this to you as well. The commenter is being lighthearted and the content of the photo or link has nothing to do with the comment - it is just an add-on - a tangent. And yet, it is so potent and offensive in its casualness. Let me explain.

Here is the portion of the comment that caught my attention:

"...I want to run like the wind with a Pocahontas costume..."

For those of you who know me and know that my academic focus is Indigenous Rhetorics, you know that this kind of fun, easy, seemingly innocuous comment is anything but fun and innocuous. Easy? Yes, because of the ubiquity of misinformation about real Indigenous peoples and because of the ubiquity of misappropriation and misrepresentation about real Indigenous peoples, past and present. Fortunately, my friend whose photo this thread was on is understanding and reacted exceedingly well to my intervention comment. 

To intervene or not? That is, perpetually, the question. Vine Deloria, Jr. wrote in Custer Died for Your Sins that "we need a cultural leave-us-alone agreement." He meant American Indians need us white people to leave them alone - stop writing about, studying, trying to help - just stop intervening. All respect to Deloria and his motivation for making this statement, but I disagree to a certain extent. 

The price we pay for NOT intervening and NOT trying to help change the narrative about real Indigenous peoples and cultures is the continuation and predominance of misinformation, stereotypes, and misappropriation of Indigenous peoples, their cultures, practices, sacred items, languages, names, everything. If you doubt what I say, consider this brief list of products and organizations:

Cherikee Red soda, Washington Redskins, Calumet Baking Soda (logo), Land 'o Lakes Butter (logo), Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves (and their fans' charming "tomahawk chop"), Disney's Pocahontas, Princess Pocahottie (Halloween Costume), "What Makes the Redman Red?" (Disney song), Lone Ranger and Tonto (TV show and newer film), Firewater Whiskey, Jeep Cherokee, Ford Thunderbird, Winnebago (this is the "Chieftain" model), Crazy Horse Malt Liquor, Sue Bee Honey, Urban Outfitters' "Navajo Panties" et al, hipster headdresses. . . .I could go on.

Argument: All of these representations are racist.
Counterargument: "But we're honoring Natives!"

Here, read this. She says it better than I could. And has all of the persuasive visuals to back up her argument embedded in the post. 

As an outsider to this issue, all I can do is feel sympathy and offer action in my own small way. So I post stories to Facebook, I teach college students, and I intervene online when I see a seemingly innocuous comment that I know was not intended to be offensive. Most people just don't know. And while I do have a great deal of sympathy for this unwitting lack of knowledge, I also understand that 'not knowing' is just shy of being a lame excuse. However, as I am committed to changing the narrative, I do my best not to be too aggressive in my approach. But the hesitance that I still feel, even after years of studying this issue, writing about it, and educating people. . .that hesitance is what bothers me.

I paused when I saw that FB thread comment. Stared at it. Read it over and over, in fact, debating whether to say something or not. I knew the stakes. My friend and her friend may not take too kindly to being told, even in the kindest terms, that Disney's Pocahontas is a complete misrepresentation that sets the stage for believing Native peoples to be fantasy relics of the past - invisible to our current lives. The stakes for me are fairly straightforward whenever I make public activist statements that advocate strongly for a position or a group - I may lose friends, I may make enemies, I may be thought of in ill-terms, or at least thought of with accompanying eye rolls. Interestingly, all of these thoughts did cross my mind, but then another thought dominated and it is the one that caused me to act. 

I can handle losing friends, making enemies, and being thought of with eye-rolls. What I choose not to handle with silence (which, to me, implies acceptance) is the persistent expectation that Indigenous peoples do not currently exist and do not have feelings if they do. I consider myself fortunate to have many colleagues who hail from such diverse nations as Miami, Citizen Potawatomie, Eastern Band of Cherokee, Osage, and more. When I see such lighthearted comments, I think of my colleagues and students and the harm these types of comments are doing to them. And I just can't sit quietly by for the sake of peace in the family and friend circle. 

I've never been one to leave anything alone, least of all a blatant injustice. I encourage you to consider intervening the next time you see any kind of lighthearted comment made about a group of people that you care about. The personal price is miniscule and worth paying if the result is just one more person who gets it. 

Change may be slow, but as individuals, we must be willing to pay a small personal price in order to make progress. We will enjoy a more open, tolerant, and knowledgeable society, and that is the result of intervention. 

Complaints for 2014

While the bitter cold polar vortex exposes our softness and inability (or unwillingness?) to deal with extreme weather situations, I have noticed something about 2014. In the first four weeks of the year, I've heard and seen more complaints about more things than I think I heard and saw in 2013. I could be remembering this wrong, or maybe I just blew off last year's litany of various complaints so quickly that they didn't sink in. I even mentioned to my man last week how often people seem to be complaining in various venues and for various reasons and I wondered why. He said it is our nature to complain - something about survival skills and not wanting to settle - getting our species off the plains and into heartier abodes and such.

Well, then.

In the spirit of moving the species forward, I give you a list of complaints to last all year. Let's use these as motivation to improve ourselves. Did I miss any?

It's too cold!
There's too much snow!
My (insert body part) hurts!
My (insert product) stopped working/needs repaired!
I'm broke!
I'm jealous of (insert name)!
(Insert situation) isn't fair!
It's raining!
It's too hot!
It's too dry!
It's too humid!
(Insert publication) is subjective and publishes crap (because they rejected me)!
I'm bored!
My (insert space) is a mess!
I'm not having fun!
I'm disappointed!
I can't lose weight!
I can't gain weight!
But, I don't know how to (insert activity)!
But, it'll cost so much to (insert activity)!
But, I don't want to (insert expectation)!

That seems like a broad enough range to get started. In an effort to be more proactive, here are some suggested responses to these complaints that should result in forward movement/progress and possibly (gasp!) lead to changing the situation that we find intolerable enough to complain about:

Complaint: It's too cold!
Solution: Wear layers, invest in winter outwear that actually keeps you warm (scarf, hat, mittens, warm boots, etc.) Spend as little time as possible outside and just get to where you're going. And yes, this applies to all ages.

Complaint: (Insert publication) is subjective and publishes crap (because they rejected me)!
Solution: Of course (publication) is subjective. When you create anything that didn't exist before, people will judge its quality and appeal. That publication's editor judged your piece as a bad fit for their agenda...so what? Send it elsewhere. Don't let one rejection paralyze you or make you quit. Send that piece to five or six publications (and accumulate five or six rejections) before revising it. Maybe your work doesn't suck. Maybe it just didn't fit. Rejection is part of our world. Suck it up, buttercup.

Complaint: It's too dry!
Solution: Buy a humidifier. Drink more water. Use lotion.

Complaint: But, I don't want to (insert expectation)!
Solution: Then don't. Just stop. If this is part of your job and it is a required activity, suck it up, buttercup. If you can't stand that aspect of your job, figure out a way to change it or go find a new job. If you can't change that aspect and actually enjoy the rest of the job, just do it, do it as quickly as possible, and focus on the more pleasant aspects. If this is something that someone in your personal life expects you to do, have the difficult conversation and address the issue directly so that person knows you don't like it and you can work together to seek alternatives.

The next time you feel a complaint rising in your throat, pause and take a breath. Try to imagine what the answer might be for you - a complaint means something is wrong. And you really DO have the power to change most situations by taking action. ;)

“We can’t tolerate this anymore”: The salve of toothless words

"We can't tolerate this anymore." But we will.

Americans are in love with violence. Our nation was born through warfare, genocide of Indigenous peoples, domination, oppression, conquest and the abuse of peoples and lands. We have always turned to violence to solve our difficult problems. Diplomacy is mocked, prevention is disallowed for fear of stepping on toes or causing embarrassment, empathy is given lip service. We distrust change.

In the aftermath of the Newtown, CT massacre, we cry and lament, we demand justice and answers, we claim to want change and vow to make things different. We scream that we "can't" tolerate these mass murders anymore. Our lawmakers look on sternly, threatening to pass new laws and restrict access to guns and increase funding for mental health services. We claim, we argue, we demand, but our words are a toothless salve to our imagined wounds. We are horrified today. We will accept more tomorrow. 

Here is the ugly truth. We are in love with violence, our deep-rooted national mother. The roots are now enmeshed into land, as much as into our spirits, our national identity, our communities, and our homes. I could easily make this argument broader and say that the human species is in love with violence, but I am speaking as an American, and so am focused on America.

Americans are in love with violence. From the genocidal conquest of the millions of Indigenous peoples not so long ago, to the wars fought in the name of money, resources, land, ideas, and revenge, to the seemingly minor and insignificant presence of violence in our everyday lives with television shows, movies, video games, insulting gossip, road rage, intolerance of difference, and looking the other way when a person’s behavior is “off.” We walk around each other on eggshells, ready to fight and argue at a moment’s notice, hair trigger tempers kept in check by weakening threads of civility.

We know what the problems are. All of us stand ready with reasons, arguments, evidence, and pleas, but none of us has the courage to admit the truth: We are in love with violence. We turn to violence as an answer – we always have. And here is the ugly truth: We always will.

The events of Newtown, CT did not occur in a vacuum. We are all culpable. We are a violent society born out of violence, forged over hundreds of years of violent acts used as resolution, and hardened and desensitized by our entertainments, our news, our daily commutes. We speak toothless words of outrage to salve our violence-loving selves. But we will not change. And this will happen again. Because we will not change.

Perhaps we really are like the Romans after all.

Death in education

Within a week of each other, the following three articles were published in three different publications:

Chronicle of Higher Education: "10 Tips on How to Write Less Badly"

New York Times: "Forget What You Know About Good Study Habits"

Philadephia Inquirer: "The Lecture is Dead"

What these articles have in common thematically is death: death of diligence, perseverance, and work ethic even at the highest levels of the education community; death of attention-span, common-sense, and structure of any kind for students; and these articles also lay the foundation for what seems to be coming faster than some of us would like: the death of the traditional college classroom where we interact face-to-face two-three times per week with our students, getting to know them and their personalities, quirks, and strengths. At worst, taken together, these articles announce the result of decades of growing laziness, convenience-addictions, and computer-assisted-dependence. At best, these articles are identifying serious and fundamental problems in the education system for the participants.

When it comes to academics writing "less badly," which my students just loved as a title (oh yes, I made my college composition students read that article for information and perhaps some relief that none of us writers are perfect), the biggest problem seems to be an over-abundance of self-importance and a lack of gritty work-ethic. Especially in grad school when it comes to finishing projects like dissertations on time. And everyone in the academy knows someone who fits Munger's "poseur writer" description, right down to the hipster skinny jeans and too-cool-for-school scarf or jaunty hat on a head so filled with ego that no real (and useful) ideas may penetrate.

For most of us, Munger's assessment is not shocking or even remotely surprising, but for those outside the ivory tower, his pronouncements may be unsettling. After all, aren't we supposed be advanced and hard-working idea people and wordsmiths cranking out publications for our own and our home universities' glory? Well, yes, but have you seen the average teaching/service workload for a tenure-track professor recently? This is something I'm recently discovering, although only three weeks into it and I did manage to find time to complete a book review. But maybe I'm just the weird, old-school one who works too hard and believes in deadlines? (And I also don't spend 4.5 hours per day on Facebook.)

As for the death of study habits, well, no shit. Hell, in 1987 when I was in high school, you could count my study habits with one fist. Namely, I had none. And certainly, secluding myself away in a little corner with a desk, a lamp, a hard chair, and no noise would have driven my teenage mind bonkers. Only later, after a career in advertising and one in journalism, when I returned for my advanced degrees did I discover the need and joy for silence when I studied. And usually in a soft, comfy chair with a cup of tea or Diet Coke or water and with my cat, Lucy, climbing all over me.

But the problem isn't when and where and how students study, it's that they don't study. And they don't care enough to retain new information. Well, many of them. Admittedly, I've only taught 400 students (not including my current 90) over the short four years I've been teaching in the university setting, but many of my students were so tightly and narrowly focused on one particular career goal (engineer, accountant, "business"...whatever the hell that means anymore) that they resisted giving thought-space to subjects that the university deemed valuable such as world literature and writing. Mostly, my students were swell but were more interested in just getting through those classes than in actually LEARNING and RETAINING anything. So in today's university setting, which is becoming more and more consumer-oriented with outcomes and goals that read like a fact sheet for the Widget Factory, with every piece in its narrow place, the value of studying subjects outside one's specialty/major may be in danger of being de-valued.

Thinking about devaluation, that last article is both true and a little scary. On one hand, I agree that lectures don't really work - students fall asleep, have the attention-span of a gnat (when it's not something they are already interested in), and are easily distracted by other more exciting tasks like texting, doodling, making paper footballs, and staring slack-jawed into space. I've seen it happen, which is why I chose to conduct my world lit survey classes without one lecture from me. I made the students present and lead class discussion (with me chiming in to add details, ask questions, and provide background when appropriate). Every day. And despite some hearty fear and resistance at first, they delivered tremendously and did (imho) get more out of those discussions than they ever would have by me just talking at them for an hour a day. So yes, I agree the lecture is dead, but my concern is what university administrations are doing with this type of information.

If the classroom is no longer a place where students are lectured at by brilliant PhDs, why have a classroom at all? Why not go online? In fact, why hire PhDs to teach those online courses? Why not hire Tony Robbins-esque type public speaking dynamos and give them a pre-crafted syllabus and readings and let them loose to dazzle the students via video-pod?

I'll be honest. This unnerves me because I did not become a professor to teach solely online, but I do see that's the direction of most universities because online education is a solid money-maker. And considering the speed at which things change nowadays, I'm wondering how long I have to create interesting, discussion-based, classroom-grounded environments in which my students can get to know me, each other, and some new useful material. Five years? Ten? More? Less?

I'm not averse to hybrid courses where students come to class once a week and then are responsible for a vast amount of work on their own time. That seems a smart compromise. But going online 100%? I'm not convinced that is the right direction to educate vast numbers of young people (undergraduates) who already spend too much time in front of their computer and TV screens.

Although, that would create the perfect workers who are content to sit for 10-12 hours a day at a computer screen in their pajamas...who would fit cog-like into the Widget Factory's concept of uncomplaining and controllable worker productivity at low cost, would it not?

Free air...free fear

I don't know what is worse. The fact that we must now pay for tire air for our gas-guzzling, inefficient automobiles...or that I have actually been PAYING for said air. I feel such the fool. Today that ended. I went to AutoZone and purchased a small, $16 air compressor. Humph. Now I can have all the air I want...even on the road. It will only take 16 tire inflations to make this little baby start paying for itself in free air. A wise investment has been made...may I suggest you do the same?

Free air. What a concept. We breathe it. We use it to inflate tires. Politicians abuse it. Land of the free. Where apparently fear is all the rage and just as "free" as the air.

Why are so many people so afraid of change? Specifically, change related to positive environmental changes? Yes, I just watched An Inconvenient Truth (finally), and have come to the realization that the only people who find it "preachy" must be those who are insanely resistant to its message. The facts and science presented in the movie are all in the public domain for our perusal...so why are so many people angry at the suggestion that perhaps we are decadent, inefficient, selfish bastards who might want to make a few minor changes for our and everyone's benefit?

Political will. Gore mentions this more than once. And I distinctly recall this phrase coming out of my own mouth a couple weeks ago when explaining the disaster that is Social Security to my students...who had no idea how SS worked OR why it is a problem. After I gave the brief overview, they were outraged...and now feel as helpless as I do, I'm sure. Back to the fear of the environment.

At the risk of devolving into a right-left blame game dichotomy, I will say that most of the accusations of "hoax" and "bullshit" are coming from the political conservative camp. Coincidence? No, because true conservatives are also capitalists...and the greatest myth surrounding positive environmental change is the mythical (and highly unlikely) destruction of business and the economy as we now know it. Business and the economy would just change. Change with different businesses, entrepreneurial opportunities, and yes, even investment opportunities. (And how about that all-powerful morality card? Is it MORAL to wantonly destroy a finite resource, like the earth?! What WOULD Jesus do? An exceedingly uncomfortable question, I'm sure.) The question, what if the destruction of the economy doesn't happen, is neither politic nor comfortable for many conservatives to answer. I'm thinking specifically of my dad and uncle and others I know who are attached at the hip to rhetorical vitriol of people like the illustrious racist, Rush Limbaugh. They say China spews more pollutants than us...which a) is not true and b) does not negate OUR responsibility. Since when does America wait for freakin' China to do something before we do? Good grief.

I like trees. I like rivers and oceans. I don't like ice. But I must say that the ice was the most compelling and eye-opening element of Gore's argument. Hard to argue with dozens of pictures of ice shelves and glaciers that are no longer there because they MELTED. Oh, this is so frustrating! How could anyone look at those pictures and say, "didn't happen," or "they'll come back," or "don't take away my SUV!" Grrrrr.

When WILL there be political will to stop fearing the environment? When our food supply starts diminishing? When Greenland partially melts for good and Key West is under water? I just don't understand what is so terrifying about a) change and b) helping the environment stay healthy. Why is this such a fearful task? Do corporate execs dislike their green, manicured lawns? Do politicians find trees and wildlife offensive? Do none of them like to breathe?

Money. The people at the top of the world's food chain have the most money and will die last, due to their vast personal resources...which is why they don't give a shit what happens to the rest of us. Least of all to the poorest elements of society...or, say, a forest. Or a species of animal or insect.

Think of it this way. If the environmental scientists (yes, ALL of them) are right, and we are headed for tragedy AND our government and corporations decide to act and make some small necessary changes, thus reducing our "carbon footprint," what will it cost? The result will be one of two options: things will stay the same or things will improve. On the other hand, if the scientists (yes, ALL of them) are right and we do nothing, things will either stay the same or get incredibly worse. Personally, I'd prefer the first option. But then, we do live in a country where the politicians seem to think that having the largest number of the most powerful nuclear weapons will somehow protect us from absolute destruction.

I admit I don't know what the answer is. I only know that it is becoming incredibly frustrating to be well-educated, well-read, well-studied...and realize there's not a damn thing I can do. If the oceans are going to heat up, if the storms will continue growing in size and strength, if the bees die off and reduce pollination worldwide...despite how adamantly I talk about it, encourage others to think about it, and vote for people who care about it...there is actually nothing I can do unless those in power deign to act.

Fear is as free as the air and just as easy to swallow. The hard thing is to close your mouth, open your eyes, ears, and brain, and realize that one of these is poison.