tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5 2009-11-14T14:53:49Z J. W. Wiley has possibly orchestrated and engaged in more conversations about diversity and social justice than anyone else in the North Country of New York. He is as eager to get in your ear as he is to have you share your thoughts. Movable Type 3.33 tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.808 2009-11-14T14:50:59Z 2009-11-14T14:53:49Z

I pointed out that his blindly spewing language that he himself had been basically introduced to in his ascent to adulthood wasn’t necessarily his fault until the logic of the transgression was pointed out to him, but from that point forward it was his fault.

J.W. Wiley Recently I sat down to grade papers for a diversity class I teach and was surprised like you wouldn’t believe. Reading one of the student’s papers I was all of a sudden faced with an intriguing situation. The student started the paper by informing me that he was in a local business and over heard two people discussing J.W. Wiley’s take on the word “girl.” Aside from the fact that this business owner was publicly disparaging me with gossip that could be heard by anyone within earshot, the business owner is also a woman who condones “girl talk” as well, and was attempting to make a point about not just the substance of my message, but the delivery of my message. Normally that wouldn’t be a problem for me to hear about and I’ve even had students close to me ask me about my delivery or style, trying to figure out the rhyme or reason for my approach at times. That has never bothered me. But this business owner allegedly didn’t realize that she was criticizing and chastising me for my style of delivering a message while she was displaying her style, class (or lack thereof), and aplomb before people that she had no clue might possibly be connected to me somehow. In this case, one of them happened to be a student of mine who decided to include some of the specifics of the business owner’s public critique in a paper he was writing on gender. The main reason the student included the business owner’s comments in the paper was that he couldn’t understand how, under any circumstances, this business woman wasn’t in agreement that the use of the term “girl” is very much inappropriate when aimed at an adult woman. Now, this business owner has a reputation for gossiping to the point where I know a couple of people who have never returned to her business because of their disinterest in hearing her gossip or share her opinion of people that she barely knows, or obviously can only articulate stereotypically. I once wrote a blog on gossiping (October 7, 2007 “Neighborly Gossip: Dissed Respect or Just Down Right Un-Neighborly?”). In this case though, what motivated this gossip was a conversation I allegedly had one night at a bar with the business owner’s husband. During an extended period of time the business owner’s husband repeatedly referred to women as “girls.” Now, I don’t mean young women under the age of 18—which we actually can feel comfortable referring to as girls because legally they aren’t considered women yet—even though their intellectual engagement and responsibility levels may transcend that of many women older than them. The business owner’s husband must have referred to at least four different women as girls in a span of about 45 minutes. His references were so casual and inconsiderate, and vocal, that finally I felt I had no choice but to engage him about it. And believe me, I don’t get off on being the diversity police, but after years of encountering him and having to sit by and watch him toss around “girl” I wouldn’t have been able to sleep that night if I hadn’t challenged him. I was also prompted to engage him because he has a tendency to project a level of sophistication in his manner and world view that is above reproach—so somewhat as a favor, I wanted to point out to him that he might be undercutting his social image—not too mention framing his respect for women and/or his understanding of women’s struggle in a very negative manner. So, on some level, I was attempting to give him an assist, perhaps challenge him to think beyond his own socialized and inconsiderate perspective. Hence, I didn’t attack him, nor belittle him for referring to adult women in a manner he wouldn’t refer to adult men. Yes, at no point in the evening did he refer to any man as a boy. So, I asked him an obvious question to take a round-about-approach to the conversation. I asked him if he loved his 13 year old daughter. He answered yes, with no hesitation. I then asked him if he loved his wife, mother, sisters, aunts, etc. His answer was an unequivocal yes to all these questions. I then asked him if he had little patience for men who disrespect women. He answered yes to this as well. I then politely pointed out to him those references to adult women as girls contribute to the infantilizing of women. I also shared with him that reference to groups of people that had five women and one man, or three women and one man, or four men and one woman (in other words, any combination of mixed gender in a group) as guys” was problematic as well because it kept men at the center, even though women do it just as much as men. Now I understand that many things we say are just instances of language use that are as automatic as men putting on pants and women wearing brassieres. However, it still is worthwhile for us to consider why we use the language we use as much as it doesn’t hurt for men to consider why we don’t wear dresses and for women to consider why men don’t wear brassieres (when we all know that some men should as much as some women really don’t need to wear them). If most of the problems with social injustice are a result of the way we are socialized or a result of our inadequate unpacking of how we were inappropriately indoctrinated in terms of how we engage differences, then while we don’t want to disparage each other for our inconsideration, we still do want to improve our environment by challenging one another to consider the consequences of those actions we exhibit that are problematic. In essence, that is what I was doing with him, trying to get him to “consider” the statements he might be making about women and the sexist world he was further adversely perpetuating for his daughter to grow up in. I pointed out that his blindly spewing language that he himself had been basically introduced to in his ascent to adulthood wasn’t necessarily his fault until the logic of the transgression was pointed out to him, but from that point forward it was his fault. He didn’t like the insinuation of him possibly transgressing, in any way, shape, or form, and loudly attempted to cry foul. He implemented what I jokingly and arbitrarily often refer to as “move number 14,” and immediately went into a spiel about how it isn’t that serious. He followed that rationale with what I now will jokingly refer to as move number 29, the argument that “he’s always spoken that way (the fallacy referred to as “the argument to tradition”).” Both of these arguments are extremely weak, especially for a Black man to use (yes, he was Black), because they are the same arguments that people used back in the day to justify calling people that look like him and me boy (and other disparaging terms) before so-called Civil Rights were inadequately distributed in our society. When I pointed out the hypocrisy of his position he only got louder and more annoyed. Go figure! Ultimately his voice became louder and edgier. Ironically, the edge that eventually arose from me in my exchange with him came from his repeatedly talking over his wife’s voice in a very disrespectful way, as if she should know to defer when he was talking. It got so bad that I pointed it out to him a couple of times and he summarily dismissed that as well, as she got silent each time he did it, rolling her eyes in disdain, while nevertheless yielding the conversation to him. Then later, in the student’s paper, it was revealed to me that she didn’t like my style of communicating. I found this so bizarre, seeing as how she was visibly disturbed by his dominating the conversation, not allowing her to get a word in most times. So, my questions to you are these: Why do men get so defensive when you point out the fact that they are hypocritically disrespecting the same women that they claim to love? Should men (or people) get a pass on possible disrespectful language simply because the language has always been used that way? How many of you think that the elimination of “girl talk” might actually contribute to a necessary change in consciousness towards the way we think, speak, and treat women? Should women also stop the “girl talk” or is “girl talk” an accepted “in-group” thing similar to the use of the N-word by some African Americans, B-word by some women, and F-word by some gays, and R-word by some people with disabling conditions? In other words, is it okay for adult women to call one another “girl” but inappropriate for men to do it? Should women who consider themselves feminist or socially liberated feel like hypocrites by further contributing to keeping themselves marginalized while simultaneously keeping men in the center when an extreme example of this can be seen when they say “farewell you guys” to a group of all women? Obviously you don’t have to just answer these questions, but go wherever you choose to go in discussing “girl talk.” tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.792 2009-10-29T04:37:52Z 2009-10-29T04:41:54Z

I steeled myself for what I might find in the email, then glimpsed once more around the unoccupied spaces of my office to further gather myself while avoiding eye contact with anyone. I then double clicked to open the correspondence. In a flash the words that somehow conveyed what I didn’t want to read were somehow processed by me amidst a flood of disbelief, an onslaught of grief, a wave of anguish, a smidgen of anger, and a modicum of clarity. The email stated that...

J.W. Wiley I was sitting in my office with three of my TAs when the email arrived. It had the student’s name on the subject line: “Danny Keeler.” I turned and shared with the TAs that I was about to open an email that had me quite nervous. The colleague who had sent me the email is one of my mentors and while we are close in many ways, with me owing him a debt for the support he gave me early in my problematic career at SUNY Plattsburgh, recently we hadn’t talked much. In fact, at that time, I probably owed him a phone call. Suffice it to say, we hadn’t spoken in a while, so an email from him with the subject line” “Danny Keeler,” was more than a bit odd, it was actually quite daunting. I steeled myself for what I might find in the email, then glimpsed once more around the unoccupied spaces of my office to further gather myself while avoiding eye contact with anyone. I then double clicked to open the correspondence. In a flash the words that somehow conveyed what I didn’t want to read were somehow processed by me amidst a flood of disbelief, an onslaught of grief, a wave of anguish, a smidgen of anger, and a modicum of clarity. The email stated that Danny had been killed two days earlier, hit by a car, while walking to a convenience store from his hotel. “What?” This couldn’t be correct. No one in my world dies by getting hit by a car! Not at 27 years of age. Not someone who is preparing to be a teacher. Not someone who wants to be a teacher to use it as a stepping stone to make this world a better place. Not a young man whose energy I always saw as immeasurable. The words I had just read weren’t saying Danny Keeler, the Danny Keeler that I knew who had his entire left arm tattooed, who had asked me what he should do about it when interviewing for jobs, who was always eager to rap about racism with me, who must have given me more music CDs than any other student, ever, possibly more than all the others combined, that Danny Keeler couldn’t die. I recall meeting Danny when he joined the mentoring program I founded and directed for SUNY Plattsburgh called T.E.A.M. (Transitions, Embracing All-Inclusive Mentoring). He was amongst the last mentees I agreed to mentor while I facilitated T.E.A.M. The mentoring program was one of the few failures I believe I had in my administrative career at SUNY Plattsburgh. We had a membership once of over 250 people, but always suffered from faculty/staff signing up to mentor students, and then far too often never calling them. I was always inundated with disappointed students who really thought they were going to have a great relationship with a faculty or staff member, but instead were left hanging. So, I often had not only my one or two assigned mentees, but often another three or four that were floating. Danny, a young, White male was cool with the fact that I was to be his T.E.A.M. mentor. Though my background was Los Angeles while his was Syracuse, my academic background was Philosophy and his Anthropology, my distant mentors were W.E.B. DuBois and Socrates while his local mentors were Mark Cohen and Richard Robbins, we still somehow connected because we were both fascinated by one another, and we both put some energy into the relationship. He was a serious student who always seemed to ask the one question in class discussions that would have been left on the table if he hadn’t been in the discussion. His questions provoked, and revealed a depth in his way of seeing that was far beyond his years. He was one of those students that you know you are fortunate enough to have in your class, in your mix, perhaps even in your crew because even you, as mentor, knew that however cool you might be, affiliating with this new age urban scholar would elevate your game as well. Smart, handsome, athletic, intelligent, edgy, insightful, witty, charming, articulate, cerebral, funny, and did I say smart? He had it all, and was committed to not flaunting it, but would bring it with force when necessary, or provoked. I remember the day he introduced me to how racist some dimensions of his Syracuse reality were before he arrived at SUNY Plattsburgh. He would talk in disbelief about how ridiculous it was of him to have disliked people simply because others had a dislike towards them that they hadn’t unpacked and were trying to get him to see the world the way they did. I remember watching him interact with my son and how wonderfully my son responded to this extremely accessible and unpretentious young man. Sadly, I also remember when I called my son to tell him of Danny’s death. It was quite painful to have him respond that he didn’t remember Danny. Startled, I wanted to challenge him by asking “How could you not remember Danny?” Instead I just let my eyes fill with tears and silently started the process of terminating the conversation with my son so that I could truly sit in silence, and grieve. In life Danny taught me that I was, at least in his eyes, an adequate professor and even better person. He respected my mind, my manner of mentoring, my methods of intellectually challenging my students, but more so, he liked to rap with me about life, his life and mine. Unlike many students that share stories of their world while never asking or entertaining what might be happening in their professor’s lives, Danny genuinely was curious about what made me tick. As a matter of fact, he seemed genuinely interested in what made others tick. It was this unique sensibility of his that had Professor Deb Light and I, on more than one occasion, despondent about the fact that we wouldn’t have the chance for him to TA with us due to his impending graduation. I have had one of the most difficult periods of my professional life trying to put into perspective the loss of this intellectually adventurous young person. I lost another student about a year ago that I thought the world of, but really didn’t know him in contrast to my knowledge and teaching experiences with Danny. As a result of the profoundness of our relationship I have fought tears throughout writing this blog and know that Danny’s death will haunt me forever as a symbol of the unpredictability of our existence. More so, what will haunt me as well are those times that I could have kicked it with Danny on the West Coast if I had just rescheduled this or that. I will second guess, even though I know I shouldn’t, some of those vacant moments of political correctness with people I would have preferred not to be spending time with, when I could have been further engaging Danny’s intellectual curiosity. But Danny’s true legacy, his lasting impact upon me will be for me to remember to take the time and truly engage those stars that from the very beginning just seem to shine brighter. By doing that, if they happen to fall from the sky, at least I will know that before their fall, I embraced the opportunity to revel in their majesty! tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.775 2009-10-15T15:30:42Z 2009-10-16T08:11:58Z

However, someone who has never been propositioned in such a manner, who doesn’t have/hasn’t had the economic means to just up and make an impulsive, perhaps even romantic move such as Juan Antonio is suggesting, might justify taking advantage of the offer by the mere fact the opportunity might not come around again.

J.W. Wiley Recently in the CDPI Diversity Film Series we watched “Vicki Cristina Barcelona.” Coincidentally (or not) in my Romance, Sex, Love and Marriage (RSLM) course at SUNY Plattsburgh we are about to complete the sex theme where we also watched film clips from “Vicki Cristina Barcelona” to further accentuate/breath life into some of the assigned readings. A scene that garnered quite a bit of conversation was when Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) approaches Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) upon their first meeting and invites them to join him on a private plane ride (with himself as pilot) to a small somewhat hidden away island for a weekend of what he describes as showing them around where they will “eat well, drink good wine, and make love.” Upon resistance from one of the women, Vicky, Juan Antonio further adds “Why not? Life is short, life is dull, life is full of pain, and this is a chance for something special.” When further challenged by Vicky to be more explicit about who exactly he is proposing could be making love, he unabashedly states “the three of us.” Now, in the RSLM course we go places you couldn’t begin to imagine. As in most of my classes, it is about the conversation. Also, it helps having a class of approximately 45 students every class meeting who come from different walks of life, armed with different perspectives. I can’t begin to tell you how this scene was interpreted, assailed, or embraced. Oddly enough, what didn’t come up in any of the conversations between these two very different gatherings (CDPI Diversity Film Series and RSLM class) were the socio-economic class implications to our "ways of seeing" this scene. Is it possible that the lens through which we view this scene very much reflects our socio-economic reality, with an emphasis on the economic as much as the social? Someone reared in a Judeo-Christian upbringing might easily default to those lessons and see Juan Antonio, in the context of his offer, as one step removed from the anti-Christ. However, someone who has never been propositioned in such a manner, who doesn’t have/hasn’t had the economic means to just up-and-make an impulsive, perhaps even romantic move like Juan Antonio is suggesting, might justify taking advantage of the offer by the mere fact the opportunity might not come around again. Which camp are you in? Should the young women (probably late twenties) be offended, or take Juan Antonio up on his offer? Why? Why not? Is the response to Juan Antonio a generational thing? Would women of the ‘60s have been more apt to take advantage of the offer than women of the ‘80s, or post millennial generation. Does age become more of a factor in a woman’s ability to read a person for their authenticity and integrity? What about Juan Antonio? How many men even have the moxie to approach one woman, let alone two, and proposition them upon first meeting for the type of weekend that Juan Antonio proposes? What are the socio-economic class implications that accompany his offer? Ironically, there was also very little discussion about the very different ways these two best friends saw Juan Antonio’s invitation. Vicky was outright appalled while Cristina was flattered and quite interested in taking Juan Antonio up on his offer. How can two people so very different actually become best friends? What are some of the factors that contribute to that occurrence? Is their relationship an instance of diversity at its best? What are some larger lessons we could learn from the model of friendship that their relationship provides? Oh, if you haven’t seen the clip I am talking about you can find it on you tube, the scene is actually briefly excerpted in the movie preview. tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.750 2009-09-16T14:22:14Z 2009-09-16T14:25:51Z

Does Obama’s presidency somehow threaten the sanctity of our political system, symbolizing the advent of different representation of traditionally disenfranchised voices? Are there concerns that a successful Obama presidency could cause a shift in who will lead us into new eras of our socio-political future?

J.W. Wiley What is really happening with our nation’s response to the Obama presidency? Since my professional reality centers upon challenging others/myself to recognize the biases we have that may be counterproductive to our being the best we can be, I need assistance unpacking some observations surrounding “our” first African American president that just don’t make much sense. Public reaction to the collapse of our economy, our ongoing military presence in Iraq, and reaction to the Health Care plan are all complex. It is par for the course that these concerns are all very serious socio-political realities that leaders of powerful countries must engage. But a president’s legitimacy to serve her/his country is an unbelievable question to still be asking. Does anyone actually think a person named Barack Obama could have ever ascended to the presidency if he didn’t have the proper pedigree? Concerns over his birth/legitimacy even question the adequacy of our vetting process for the most prestigious position in our government. So, what could be the reason why President Obama is receiving treatment far different from other presidents? The fact that America is no longer a racist society—now that we have elected a Black man to the presidency—allows us to put away the race card, right? Obama’s ascendancy to the presidency suggests that the reasons could no longer be racially motivated because all of us are so much more sophisticated about race relations, right? Could the motivation be solely political? Does Obama’s presidency somehow threaten the sanctity of our political system, symbolizing the advent of different representation of traditionally disenfranchised voices? Are there concerns that a successful Obama presidency could cause a shift in who will lead us into new eras of our socio-political future? Granted, Obama’s election could be a paradigm shift of a magnitude too large for his opposition to fathom/manage. Is it acceptable that some might be attempting to manage the change through duplicity, questioning his worthiness to have access to our children, and accusing Obama of being a prevaricator? Is this just political posturing at the highest level or politicians who truly believe there are no subconscious motivations at work, or at least none they are capable of seeing. A president’s privilege to communicate to her/his constituency should be a no-brainer. So, why isn’t it? Suggestions or belief that our elected leader would say something to harm our children are so ridiculous I can’t believe I had to use the keystrokes I just used to address it. That people would believe it suggests that some people’s ways of seeing Obama are heavily mired in not being able to overcome an insidious xenophobic indoctrination. What would have been the outcry if socio-economically deprived parents had denied Bush, Clinton, or Reagan access to their children because of those presidents’ excessive capitalists’ perspectives? Capitalist agendas don’t necessarily suggest immediate change/benefits for people who are often born into a proletariat that enables a bourgeois society to thrive. Why was there no outcry? People can cloak their Obama dislike, disdain, or dismissals any way they feel necessary. But really listen and then unpack the utterly preposterous answers people give you about why they don’t want our elected “President” speaking to their children. I was appalled at MSNBC’s Morning Joe’s Joe Scarborough’s response to ex-President Jimmy Carter's assertion that many American’s reactions to the Obama presidency could be racist. Scarborough’s reaction was to dismiss the possibility of racism with sweeping generalizations atypical of someone wanting to avoid accusations of racism. It was rejuvenating to watch his colleague Mike Barnicle attempt to mentor him to be professionally responsible and not dismiss the possibility that "some" people "may be" responding to Obama because of their racism. Consider Congressman Joe Wilson’s outcry. Was it racist? We don’t have access to his motives, so asserting it was is problematic. On the other hand, it is possible that he is as racist as all of us are homophobic and sexist in a society that hasn’t figured out how important these types of conversations are to us overcoming our xenophobia. I recall an episode of Seinfeld where Elaine had a new boyfriend whose racial identity Jerry, George, and Elaine couldn’t quite determine. They all wanted to talk/speculate about his race, but ultimately really didn’t know how to discuss it since they had never had to discuss it before. Eventually they discussed it ineptly by awkwardly attempting to not embarrass themselves by discussing it. Perhaps it is time that we found a way to really discuss our fears. tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.747 2009-09-05T12:32:16Z 2009-09-05T17:40:23Z

This is when one of the students in the class made the assertion that romance between them couldn’t be possible because a groupie can’t be romanced. Recognizing that we first need to define the problematic, judgmental term “groupie” before we begin to attempt to determine whether he/she can be romanced is necessary, don’t you think?

J.W. Wiley It has been a short summer, hasn’t it? I wonder if everyone is happy putting so-called relax time behind them for a while? For me, I’m excited to be back in the mix with the steady flow of my life. This semester excites me more than others because I am teaching my Romance, Sex, Love, and Marriage (RSLM) course once again. I only teach it once every third semester and because of that there is usually a healthy number of students clamoring for it by the time it arrives. This energizes me because if you know anything about college electives, it isn’t easy attracting students to do serious work for a class that isn’t required. So, having 50 students in what is essentially a non-required philosophy class to discuss various dimensions of their lived, or soon to be lived lives is what we would call in the vernacular of my old neighborhood “off the hook!” Having just concluded the second week of class we were engaging the topic of Romance. We looked to Goethe’s first novel “The Sorrows of the Young Werther” and a conversation of Socrates’ in the Symposium to assist us in exploring what John Armstrong calls “the Romantic Vision. We considered various music and film clips to bring some of our romantic concepts to life. One song in particular, “Slow Down” by Bobby Valentino, inspired a conversation about how men are socialized towards seeing women as objects, and in general how people prejudge one another subconsciously relative to the romantic perspectives as much as in any other human interaction. In the instance in Valentino’s song he has a guy overtly fascinated with a woman’s shapely lower backside. In singing about her, his fascination with the movement of her shapely lower backside and his imagination relative to that movement is overtly apparent, even seemingly contradicting other potentially romantic things he is trying to convey (you can “you tube” most of these songs/film clips if you are unfamiliar with these references and want to have more of a feel for what I am talking about).: What he actually says is” I saw you walking Down on Melrose You looked like an angel Straight out of heaven, girl I was blown away by Your sexiness All I have to do is catch up to you [Hook:] Slow down I just wanna get to know you But don't turn around Cuz that pretty round thing looks good to me Slow down never seen anything so lovely Now turn around And bless me with your beauty, cutie A butterfly tattoo Right above your naval Your belly button's pierced too just like I like it girl Come take a walk with me You'll be impressed by The game that I kick to you It's over and for real The game the guy was attempting to “kick” to her didn’t particularly impress the students and was deemed quite unromantic by many. However, the depth of diversity revealed itself and quite a few women in the class articulated their comfort with having their backsides admired, even celebrated, by someone they might find attractive. Nothing definitive emerged in our pursuit to determine the merits of a romantic encounter. We did however set the mood for the film clips and accompanying scholarship to be engaged. Between the first class and this one we had watched some of the following film clips to establish what exactly is romance or a romantic moment. Boys Don’t Cry (the scene where Brandon [whom we also know as Teena] and Lana have their first encounter) Out of Sight (the classic bar/hotel room scene between federal law enforcement officer Jennifer Lopez & escaped convict George Clooney) Sin City (opening scene with Josh Hartnett exclaiming the sincerity of his growing passion for Marley Shelton) ER (a hospital scene where two gay men [one HIV positive, the other not] appear to be desirous of sharing HIV positive status, for differing reasons--as a statement of their feelings towards one another). Love Jones (Larenz Tate romances Nia Long with seductive spoken word during a chance meeting in a nightclub) Sex and Lucia (Paz Vega romances Tristan Ulloa with a very, very direct approach) All of these film clips contributed to painting a broad based conversation about romance, or romantic love (infatuation). However, when the conversation centered upon the scene from “Sex and Lucia” that arguably depicted romance, Lucia, initiates an exchange with a renowned local writer in a bar in Madrid by openly acknowledging that she is a fan of his who has been fascinated with him for quite some time (having read his novel) and is in love with him. She also acknowledges having followed him, knowing where he lives and his daily routine. Thrown off guard for a moment, the writer (Lorenzo) recovers to focus upon the fact that this very beautiful woman is quite lucid in the articulation of her desire to be affectionate towards him. Ultimately from that point, it can be argued that they begin a romance. This is when one of the students in the class made the assertion that romance between them couldn’t be possible because a groupie can’t be romanced. Recognizing that we first need to define the problematic, judgmental term “groupie” before we begin to attempt to determine whether he/she can be romanced is necessary, don’t you think? The stereotypical notion of a groupie is someone who is interested in a relationship with someone else because of their notoriety, fame, or even fortune. Usually this so-called groupie lacks comparable prestige or visibility and therefore his/her self esteem is often tied to a relationship with a person of notoriety, fame or fortune, whom from this point forward we can refer to as a “celebrity” to simplify matters. In our conversation we eventually linked the two medium’s messages (song and film), accentuated by a few students further substantiating their points with references to pertinent scholarship, and came out with the question is it possible for an ardent admirer of a celebrity (a so-called groupie) to be romanced? Why/Why not? One of the students (Kayte) challenged the class by critiquing their criticism of Lucia’s candidness towards Lorenzo. Most of the class seemed to initially concur that her revelation to him that she began to fall for him through reading his novel was infatuation as well as shallow. Kayte asserted that some in the class were being hypocritical in saying that the guy in Valentino’s song was shallow in his lyrical admiration of her attractive backside and now when someone is acknowledging their attraction to someone’s mind (Lorenzo’s writing) we want to also label her appreciation of him as shallow also. It was actually a profound moment in our discussion because most of the class (including me) had missed this contradiction. We agreed to some extent that a so-called groupie who is trying to get next to a celebrity will be making moves that could be construed as romantic overtures. But upon the realization that a groupie is interested in the celebrity, does the groupie somewhat yield the right of having their overtures reciprocated? After all, do you have to romance someone that obviously is head over heels towards you, or do you simply have to receive the adoration and affection that they extend? In other words, are you reciprocating romance simply by receiving it? So, what might be the power dynamics that play out in what could be construed as an unbalanced beginning to a romance? In Sex and Lucia, the woman (Lucia) is a waitress, the man (Alonzo) a writer. Saying it in a stereotypically blunt manner, the woman is a woman, the man a man. So, what does that mean? Well, if she were the prominent writer and him a waiter would their pursuit of romance have played out differently? Could the less economically able person have romanced the other after revealing waiter/groupie status relative to celebrity status? In other words, would the dynamic change if she were the celebrity writer and he was the so-called groupie? Larger questions that ensue from this conundrum of sorts are: 1. Does our class status accentuate or prevent, help or inhibit us from romancing someone in another socio-economic class? 2. Is it possible to ever transcend this dysfunctional socialization and romance someone as if we live in a classless society? 3. Aren’t we all potentially groupies on the continuum of attraction? What do you think I could possibly imply by this question? This third question is the one which I am most interested in hearing your thoughts. Your response will possibly add to our in-class conversation on romance. A good thing about that is you didn’t even have to register for the class. A bad thing about that is that you aren’t really in the class. Sorry about that…! tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.742 2009-08-06T05:41:29Z 2009-08-15T22:39:18Z

If Obama is hood, then I am a choir boy (I was actually an altar boy once). However, he might frame himself as a hood to be able to appropriate the rest of the song for his purposes. His lack of class and humble beginnings, including the questioning of his American-ness and his meteoric rise are somewhat compatible with Game’s lyrics.

J.W. Wiley I Love You Just the Way You Are didn’t become a personal mantra of yours. Then there were those songs that we listened to that made us want to be better people. John Lennon asked us to, “Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can, No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people, Sharing all the world... “ I tried real hard to not be materialistic after hearing the lyrics to Imagine. There were even those songs that made us not want to take any crap off of someone. An agitated, irritated 50 Cent rapped in his song Places to Go, "You mistaken me for somebody that you should be testing, You should be stressing I'm gonna "frollicking" teach you a lesson," No, he didn't actually say "frollicking." Work with me here! ]]> Remember the Time. He also heard Prince warning about 1999, talking about Sexy Mother "Frollickers," and telling a woman he wanted to be her lover. It would be somewhat comfortable for most of us if we could leave it there, but we can’t. President Barack Obama, arguably the epitome of modern cool was only about 29 when the gangster rap group Niggaz with Attitudes entered the rap scene. I am curious how many people may have considered that our president, Barack Obama, might very well be a music fan with a wide range of taste. While he has displayed a level of class, grace, and style, in arguably most everything he does, many people may not consider the fact that he may like jazz as well as rock, soul interchangeably with country music, as much as easy listening, classical music as well as hardcore gangster rap. Why would that be? Well, come on, we do have preconceived notions of what we are going to see and hear from people we first meet. Seeing basketball player Allen Iverson and then later discovering him listening to Beethoven would be somewhat surprising to me, if not you. It would also surprise many people to find out that Senator Orin Hatch was an avid Snoop Dogg fan. Since music has been the background for so many of the moments in our lives, why would it not also be in the foreground as well? It is possible that President Obama, right before he has entered a room for a press conference, say on Sotomayor, or perhaps his Health Care press conference that was punctuated by the Gates-Crowley question, may have just finished listening to a certain type of music that might surprise us, while explaining some other things. I can imagine President Obama listening to Tupac’s Secretz of War before he enters the press conference anticipating resistance, if not outright partisanship. The lines “You either ride with us, or collide with us, it’s as simple as that for me and my “Negroes,” Though Negroes is not the street term he actually used, if Obama were listening to this song before he entered a press conference he might not be inspired to be as tolerant as we imagine he would be. Also, the “me and my Negroes” would have to be massaged in his mind to reflect his “staff,” “constituency” or “crew.” Wasn’t it Rep. Michelle Bachmann who once said that Obama is running a “gangster government?” Did she mean “gangster” as in Mafia, Costa Nostra, or Family. Or did she mean gangster as in gangsta, as in the thug life that Tupac, Ice Tea, Dr. Dre, Snoop and other urban youth popularized. These rappers not only joined soul singers and black rhythm and blues artists in articulating black struggle and pain, but consistent with the Malcolm X inspired “by any means necessary,” they started to talk about actions that they could take when being disrespected. Would Obama have any reason to turn to rap music for consolation. Well, let’s see. We’ve had presidents become recluses, turn to outside relationships, probably hide behind medications etc. Why is it hard to imagine that our newly elected president, who has been challenged about his birth, called a socialist, a muslim, etc. hasn’t gotten fed up and silently adapted an anthem or two to have as his theme music before he has to engage an often dysfunctional populace, as stated by Gangstarr in their rap hit, Battle, "You don't even know, the half about me-I bring it straight to your chest, ask your staff about me, I'm just a little bit older, plus a whole lot wiser, I might advise ya, or I might pulverize ya- I can visit any city, get respect in the street-While you alone in your room, shook to death of the streets … " I have thought of the way I teach philosophy as somewhat outside of the paradigm of its tradition, though consistent with the method used by William James, Cornel West, and Michael Eric Dyson in making it more attractive and accessible to mainstream society. Because of my racial and cultural uniqueness within the discipline, dual appointment as administrator and lecturer, director, if not primary architect of the university’s diversity initiative, etc. my reality often potentially has me outside the margins of the discipline. When people have been outside the margins of their discipline they have garnered monikers or labels like “patriot” or “freedom fighter” when seen as valued to the hegemony or agents of change, and “terrorist” or riotous,” “outlaw” or “gangster” when seen as a threat to the prevailing morality. So while it may sound as if this is preposterous, don’t dismiss it too quickly, especially when you consider how much music has motivated you in the past. Kill Yourself by Timbaland may represent exactly what I am talking about, “It’s life and death, either one…I killed the game, I didn’t use a gun, who better than me, don’t make me laugh, I run the “defecate” they just chase my “rear”, I’m not talking “defecate” Negro, just telling the facts, I think all the tracks I’m hearing from Negroes are whack, I be hearing these Negroes, what they say in their rhymes, I took my spot, nobody gave me mine, Again, Timbaland doesn’t say “defecate,” or “rear” just like none of these rappers are saying “Negro.” If you can’t feel in the blanks, then you may want to stop reading this because you are probably missing most of my message. Can you feel me on this? Do you think my proposition about Obama is unrealistic, or might he be in his limo 5 miles/minutes away from his next engagement using this specific excerpt from Gangstar’s Battle to give him the edge he needs to put up with all the additional crap a Black president must deal with? “You can't compare to the status right here, Legendary worldwide, we can battle right here, Listen junior, I’ll tear back your wig, This ain't TV but I'll show you what a "Fear Factor" is. Stop grillin me, all that frontin is killin me, You leave me no choice but to hurt your feelings G” Or this excerpt from the Game’s song “How We Do,* ”They say I'm no good, Cuz I'm so hood, Rich folks do not want me around, Cuz “stuff”might pop off, and if “stuff”pop off, Somebody gon' get laid the “fudge” out They call me new money, say I have no class, I'm from the bottom, I came up too fast” If Obama is hood, then I am a choir boy (I was actually an altar boy once). However, he might frame himself as a hood to be able to appropriate the rest of the song for his purposes. His lack of class and humble beginnings, including the questioning of his American-ness and his meteoric rise are somewhat compatible with Game’s lyrics. Frankly, while I do use Michael Franks and Al Jarreau to assist me in setting my mellow moods, John Coltrane’s romantic vibe to grade papers and write creatively, I do use gangsta rap to assist me in having an edge when I need it. That’s just real for me, or as Snoop once said in a Dre cut titled Nothing But a G-Thang, “that’s realer than real deal Holyfield.” More so, I hope, for the sake of our nation, that Obama’s relating more to Marvin Gaye’s Inner City Blues: “Hang ups, let downs, bad breaks, set backs, natural fact is, I can't pay my taxes Oh, make me wanna holler, And throw up both my hands Yea, it makes me wanna holler, And throw up both my hands Crime is increasing, Trigger happy policing, Panic is spreading, God know where we're heading Oh, make me wanna holler” Or maybe listening to Sabac’s I Have a Dream “I have a dream, I want to wake up to a revolution, I have a dream that people will rise up, Become wiser, I want to see people united, After the fighting. I have a dream.” One thing is for sure, whether I’m right or wrong about our President, don’t you think someone should at least ask Obama about his musical taste? What are the songs that were so powerful that you were inspired to take some type of action? What are the songs that you think Obama may be getting inspiration from? Does he listen to gangsta rap? If so, could it be an influence? How? ]]> tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.729 2009-07-01T04:56:49Z 2009-07-01T05:22:37Z

How does ageism curtail our romantic overtures? How does privilege make someone sexier? How does a lack of privilege make someone hot?

J.W. Wiley When we romance someone do we consider how/why she/he receives us the way she/he does? When we kiss someone what is the criteria that contributes to our kiss being considered a “good” kiss as opposed to a bad one? Could it be because my lips are fuller or less full than other people’s lips? Could it be that a person has been told they are different, enough to affect their confidence? Is a preference or disdain to lip size or hip size racism, or ableism? Does our sexual orientation affect the quality/way we are capable of loving or being loved? Can sex be better if you have it within a backdrop of a 5 star hotel, or with cars racing past as lovers hurriedly attempt to take advantage of a moment, with the only option available being a car and the only location the side of the road? Are these questions that most people ask themselves? Would our experiences with romance, sex, love, and marriage be better if we engaged these questions as we move in and out of our intimate moments? Well, what do you think? Every third semester I teach a class at SUNY Plattsburgh titled Romance, Sex, Love, and Marriage (RSLM). As the director of the Center for Diversity at SUNY Plattsburgh people often are startled to hear that as a man who specializes in diversity and social justice education I could be engaging something that seems worlds apart from the topic of diversity. What do you think? Could RSLM actually be a diversity class? Well, enough of my Examining Diversity through Film students sprint to this class that I have to wonder is it about the interesting places we go with the subject matter? Or the fact that Attila the Hun could be teaching the course? If Attila (or should I refer to him as Mr. Hun?) or anyone else was teaching a class that enabled 20 year olds to unpack some of their romantic notions, or discuss some of the most unromantic things they have heard about or encountered, would it be well attended? Probably so, but that aside, please inform me of some other ways how you think RSLM could be related to diversity and social justice? I have come to realize that the people who respond to my blog often reflect on these topics in profound ways. How does ageism curtail our romantic overtures? How does privilege make someone sexier? How does a lack of privilege make someone hot? Since the semester is only a couple of months away, I am also curious if any of you would be interested in sharing with me what some of your favorite films/scenes in films are so that I can consider them for my class. Why are the scenes your favorite and what lessons can be learned from these films? More specifically, how would you categorize the choice of your film scene? As a matter of fact, some new film clips that I will use in my class this semester are: Sin City, XX-XY, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Sex and Lucia, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Poetic Justice, Bull Durham, The Human Stain, and Alfie. Any guesses on the scenes I will use? You probably aren’t familiar with any of them, are you? Recently I watched “Vickie Cristina Barcelona” (VCB) and “He’s Just Not That Into You” (HJNTIY). While the first film could easily gain cult status as a film classic (especially with Penelope Cruz winning Best Actress for her performance) with its 70 rating on Metacritic, HJNTIY could be dismissed summarily as a mediocre ensemble piece with its 47 rating on Metacritic. Nonetheless I easily could use both films in almost all categories, though their strengths may be centered more in one area than another. In HJNTIY and VCB romance is all over the place and sex is in the air. HJNTIY provided an excellent example of a non-traditional perspective on marriage through the relationship between Ben Affleck and Jennifer Aniston. VCB takes sex to some places that films years ago wouldn’t dare go (okay, so Last Tango and Nine ½ Weeks are an exception to everyone’s list) and most of today’s films arguably don’t do sex well. Both of these two films engage marriage in creative ways, as well as provocative notions of romantic love. So how does romance relate to diversity and social justice (visit my March 5, 2008 blog titled “Here’s Looking at You Romance” [11])? While the gender implications of sex or obvious (don’t be so sure), how many of us process our sex through the lens of race, privilege, ability, or socio-economic class (visit my October 12, 2007 blog titled “Is a Kiss Just a Kiss” [12])? How is love influenced by our ability, gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, age, socio-economic class, and privilege (visit my April 3, 2008 blog titled “Is it Possible to Love” [19])? All of these conversations were truly intriguing and provocative as demonstrated by the total of 42 comments that framed the three discussions, or as seen in the number of comments bracketed within the parentheses above. At the very least, check out the films that I have mentioned if you are interested in escalating an evening to a romantic level where thoughts of sex, love, and even marriage may abound. Do it quickly (watching the film that is) and let the Wiley Wandering crew know exactly (but tastefully) how we spiced up your night. At best, share some of your hottest, sexiest, most endearing/loving selections so that others can fall in love/lust/like through your contribution. Now, let me get back to my triple header: “Y Tu Mama Tambien,” A Lot Like Love, and Closer.“ I know some of you may be thinking that if I am immersed in 6 hours of film watching my insights must be theory based. Well you may be right, but watch them critically and add to your game. Watch them with the right person and you may not need game. You don't hear me! tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.718 2009-06-01T11:49:14Z 2009-06-17T18:19:23Z

This ex-student attempted to take me to task for being intolerant simply because I challenged the politician's alleged statements.

J.W. Wiley Recently I wrote an In My Opinion (IMO) in the Press Republican (PR) on April 28 about a local politician who recently made statements that were consistent with what men who were against the women’s suffrage movement might have said, or what racists against the abolitionist’s movement might have said. When I expressed disbelief that she could have made these statements, I was called intolerant by an ex-student of mine in another PR IMO (May 9). This ex-student attempted to take me to task for being intolerant simply because I challenged the politician's alleged statements. Aside from the student’s ignorance of the often painful plight of gays and lesbians and political agenda as a proclaimed Republican leader (the politician I challenged is also Republican), what many people wouldn’t know is that the student who challenged me is the son of a prominent community leader who actually wrote a PR IMO back in September 2008 challenging me for my attempt at satire in an August 2008 PR IMO about the potential of the Obama’s ascending to the White House. These correspondences further framed for me the problematic way of seeing that arises when we are challenged because of how different our perspectives are from those of others. While I understand this, and challenge other's views often, I believe that I do it when I see clear disconnects. However, I am not so out of touch that I don’t recognize that others are probably operating from the same motivation. With this in mind I decided to enlist some assistance with the following scenario as a case study we could work from. On “Meet the Press” there was a conversation between David Gregory, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a Latina, to the Supreme Court. In the process of this conversation concern was expressed over Rush Limbaugh identifying her as a racist. Additionally he made these comments: MR. LIMBAUGH: She brings a form of bigotry or racism to the court. I don't care, we're not supposed to say it, we're supposed to pretend it didn't happen. We're supposed to look at, at other things. But it's the elephant in the room. The real question here that needs to be asked, and nobody on our side, from a columnist to a TV commentator to anybody in our party has the guts to ask: How can a president nominate such a candidate, and how can a party get behind such a candidate? That's what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive. With Limbaugh's comments in mind, here is what nominee Sotomayor said: "I...accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. ... Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that wise old men and wise old--and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am...not so sure that I agree with the statement. ... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who wasn't lived that life. ... Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage." In contrast, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito made similar comments that were not taken to task by Limbaugh or anyone else. Those comments are below: (Videotape, January 11, 2006) JUDGE SAMUEL ALITO: When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who, who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or, or because of gender. And, and I do take that into account. Why would Sotomayor’s comments be held to a different standard than Alito’s? What is really going on here? Is this indicative of something larger in our society? How might race, gender, and/or class be playing a part in the ways any of these scenarios are playing out? Oh, and for those of you who actually read the ongoing exchange between me and the father-son combo, was I unfair or intolerant for taking our local politician to task for her comments? If so, why? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.703 2009-05-05T13:41:02Z 2009-05-05T13:43:15Z

How many potential relationships have we not gone after because of “whispering, nudging, snickering, pointing, or gossiping?”

J.W. Wiley In a blog I wrote a month ago titled Interracial/Anti-Social Implications of Dating we covered quite a bit of territory in our discussion on the societal underpinnings of interracial dating. We not only engaged interracial dating, but various types of different dating scenarios. Though I didn’t go into same sex dating in that blog, I recently posted an In My Opinion in the Press Republican (April 28th) on the implications of one of our elected officials criticizing same sex marriage in what I saw as complicated ways because of the problematic language she used. In essence, her critiques/concerns about same sex marriage reflected the same language that people used to prevent her, as a woman, and other now so-called liberated people from achieving their equal rights. One of the conversants in that blog discussion, the never shy, always eloquent Whaler, inspired some intriguing questions from certain statements he made. Though it was in the context of interracial dating, Whaler asserted that “Real freedom from oppression starts within.” Does It? Whaler likes to tease me about what seems to be my default position, which is challenging him about his privilege. The reason I go there so quickly with him, others, and myself, is because it is exactly dimensions of our privilege that prevent us from seeing what others who lack our privilege and yet are oppressed by our actions, see. If we look at relationships again and the oppressive condemnation that our friends and family can leverage about our choices of partners we choose for intimacy, does the real freedom from oppression start from within? Or does real freedom from oppression start from efforts to educate those outside of us about the impact of their judgments/hypocrisy upon us? Yes, many people, many of us have the audacity to want to hold others to standards of actions that we ourselves don’t adhere to. What is that all about? Let’s be real about this. How many of us have been curious about pursuing a relationship with someone who is somewhat outside of the norm of the type of person our friends, family, or associates would expect to see? How many potential relationships have we not gone after because of “whispering, nudging, snickering, pointing, or gossiping?” What would your friends say, in this the year 2009, if you dated someone of a different race? What would your friends/family say if you dated someone of the same sex? How would your peer group respond if you dated someone 10-15 years younger or older than you? Would your friends be able to appreciate your judgment without questioning your taste in dating someone from the other side of the tracks? Would it be a curiosity to your friends if you fell deeply in love with someone who was wheel chair bound? Why does it even have to be deeply in love with someone wheel chair bound? As two human beings, what would your friends think if you just had a hot sexual relationship with someone wheel chair bound? If I were wheel chair bound I would hope that whatever hot sex I was having before becoming physically impaired wouldn’t have to necessarily stop, though it might have to change. Is Whaler correct? Is the key to transcending the limitations on these different relationships freeing our minds? Or, does the key reside in creating an environment, perhaps a society where we can be comfortable enough to free our minds? Since there are communities that are all Black, all Latina/o, all White, all Asian, all Native American, etc. also predominantly gay communities, predominantly middle class communities, nudist communities, etc. is it necessary or worthwhile for bi-racial people to have their own community? Would it make people involved in winter-spring romances more comfortable if they lived in a community where this was the norm? Can I really free my mind if others continue to impact it? What do you think (or am I in your head so deeply at this moment that you actually can’t think until you remove me)? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.688 2009-04-05T18:20:31Z 2009-04-06T04:25:48Z

Is the potential to truly be an individual gone in our society? Has the media (yes, the media again) become the eraser of individual identity? Is it possible that the media has become us and we have become the media?

J.W. Wiley I am mischievously curious as to what you think about the concept of only 35 personality types? Yes, somewhere once I read/heard/subconsciously plagiarized the concept of their being about 35 personality types. Because I am too busy/lazy at present to research any similar concepts/theories, let’s just flow with the fact that there actually are about 35 (or 25, or 45) personality types. If so, the theory suggests that if you “know” these so-called personality types, you can recognize them as they approach you. You can anticipate their thoughts and actions from similar personality types you have previously encountered. In other words, if you are an anthropologist of sorts, a student of people (someone who can get into watching people) who actually somewhat analyzes, albeit veiled or subtle, everyone you meet that you have a moment to focus on, then you have mastered or are well on the road to mastering aspects of human interaction. After all, if you have encountered five people who have reminded you of one another, who all looked somewhat similar, with similar characteristics, similar mannerisms, similar intellects, and you encountered a sixth look-a-like of theirs, wouldn’t you be foolish not to assume certain things? And yes, I know this is an argument for stereotyping/profiling, so where do we go from here? Well, the difference is stereotyping someone around cultural assumptions or negatively doing it around cultural stereotypes is problematic, especially if we aren’t quite sophisticated about those that we are stereotyping. Even when we think we are sophisticated about it, we really aren’t as sophisticated about them as we think we are. Why? Because of the fact that what we don’t know about ourselves prevents us from knowing what we don’t know in others. This much we should know. However, reading someone's personality and personality traits begs the question that you at least took the time to respond to their energy, towards you and others, instead of the infamous "assume." And if you don't know what assuming does, to you and me, then ask someone to break that down for you. If that didn’t confuse you, now consider this. I’m out and about and witness, with a smile I might add, this beautiful brunette approaching me, with hair strategically tossed and parted oh-so right, a glide in her stride, a dip in her hip, future checks that will reflect and match her intellect. She laughs with ease, articulates passionately, confidently, intriguingly, yet can turn introspectively shy in any given moment. Add distinct mannerisms, similar backgrounds, likes and dislikes, and the question for me, and you is, is it true that you can anticipate certain reactions and responses from a look-a-like? Come one now, we all “know” the George Costanza type, also the Jessica Simpson type. While I am not trying to knock these types, how many of us haven’t seen these “types” over and over again. Well, if you know those types from watching them and their distinctness over and over on television and within our society, just ruminate over the possibility that if you had consistent access to a large number of people during your life, it is possible you could continue to see the categories of personalities. These types, this Costanza, Simpson, or whomever the type you have locked in your mind as you read this, that look-a-like is an individual, no doubt, but to what extent? Is the potential to truly be an individual gone in our society? Has the media (yes, the media again) become the eraser of individual identity? Is it possible that the media has become us and we have become the media? Digital cameras, cell phones, the internet, texting with picture messages, Skype, MySpace, FaceBook, Twitter, blogs… Have we all overtly published again and again that limited number of personalities, so that those of us who take time to recognize them can see them coming. Are we also the “them” (a personality type) that others see coming? The intriguing aspect of this theory is the “knowing.” How well do any of us “know” someone, or even ourselves? How much time do we take to ask ourselves truly probing questions about our psyches? For example, right now, give yourself one minute away from your computer to ask yourself... "What are the things that others might consider "obnoxious" about you... and what could you do to change!" Chill for a moment, seriously. Give yourself one minute to reflect on the obnoxiousness you may bring into other's lives. Okay, so, as I mentioned earlier, if we don’t “know” ourselves can we even begin to “know others” when the responses within those relationships are predicated upon what people actually think they know about each other in any given minute? Are we receptive to the fact that one of the ways we get to know others is through exploring the differences that exist between us? As we explore those differences those of us who know how to introspect may discover our reactions to those differences, better helping us discover ourselves. Many of us never tap into this dimension of ourselves because while we center ourselves in most things we do, we still don’t look at ourselves in that center. How can we? We are dysfunctionally preoccupied with how others are looking at us. This “way of seeing” is so reinforced, everywhere, that when someone does succumb to it, and even occasionally introspect, she/he are viewed as bizarre. How bizarre! Do we focus on the fact that even that type of thought or the time it took me to write this blog requires a dimension of privilege that we can easily take for granted. I’m quite thankful for the time I find to write this blog, and the time you take to respond to it!!! I am the 32nd personality, the considerate, introspective educator type with a hint of anxiety and understated self-doubt, who benefits from the courage he luckily continues to find to correct what he sees wrong in himself. What personality type are you? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.675 2009-03-20T13:59:15Z 2009-03-20T14:07:29Z

Isn’t it hard for us to observe that 60 year old woman dating that 40 year old man without prejudging them. That seemingly healthy woman with the paraplegic man must have something sinister up her sleeve because she just couldn’t truly love him, right?

J.W. Wiley A student of mine who knows I teach a class called “Romance, Sex, Love, and Marriage, recently called me to ask me some of my thoughts about interracial relationships. I started first by making sure that he recognized how one dimensional the conceptualization of interracial relationships actually is. What comes to mind when you think about interracial relationships? Be honest, did your thoughts actually gravitate towards a relationship between a Black and White person? If so, why would that have been your thoughts? In America our fixation with interracial relationships may hinge somewhat upon our painful history of slavery and its resulting legacy. When we see a Black man and White woman romantically involved are we looking at them curiously because of the courage they are exhibiting at transcending the judgments of their parents and peers? Perhaps we look at these couples and wonder about their motivations. Is that Black man dating that White woman because he subconsciously devalues Black women and has perhaps subconsciously bought into the myth that the symbol of beauty in America is the White woman. Perhaps that Black man is dating that White woman because at one time in America she was basically likened to the forbidden fruit that tempted Adam in the Garden of Eden, perhaps worthy of a taste but unsure if worth the ensuing consequences. The film Birth of a Nation (critically acclaimed as the Star Wars of its day) exacerbated the problematic dimensions of the Black man-White woman relationship by portraying that potential relationship as being an obsession for Black men. The result of this fixation by Black men to possess a White woman resulted in the suicide by the White woman in that film and ushered in a continuation of the lynching of Black men in society at that time (as well as the decimations of townships like Rosewood, and Tulsa’s Black Wall Street). What of the White man and Black woman interracial relationship? Does it carry a sordid history as well? There are those out there who look at the White man-Black woman relationship and wonder why he married beneath his class standing (since she may have originated from a history of slavery). Others wonder how that Black woman could date/marry someone who, under the auspices of slavery, once had somewhat sanctioned, unimpeded, uninhibited access to her body. James Loewen articulates in his best selling book “Lies My Teacher Told Me, that most Americans are painfully ignorant of certain aspects of American history, our racial narrative being just one of the gross omissions. Is this true, or did you already know why you might hold a dysfunctional preoccupation with interracial dating? Even if an ignorance of America’s racial history isn’t true for you, is it perhaps true for the world that you live in? Where does love come into the equation? Just as a woman who is 5’10 and a man who is 5’7 must really love one another to transcend the scrutiny they will endure because of the unwritten assumption that men should be taller than the women they are involved with, an Asian woman and Latino man who love one another will be put under racial-cultural critique. We already know that we are a judgmental society, correct? Isn’t it hard for us to observe that 60 year old woman dating that 40 year old man without prejudging them. That seemingly healthy woman with the paraplegic man must have something sinister up her sleeve because she just couldn’t truly love him, right? It was in Plattsburgh, NY that I witnessed a half dozen men rise and exit the theater as the love scene from Brokeback Mountain unfolded. It is possible that the 50 year old man dating that 30 year old woman just might actually be two individuals who simply fell in love. So why are you whispering, nudging, snickering, pointing, or gossiping about relationships that might be much more healthy, or grounded in reality than any you’ve ever participated in. Why can’t people just love one another, regardless of our race or differences? Films like Snow Falling on Cedars, A Patch of Blue, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, Joy Luck Club, Save the Last Dance, Mississippi Masala, Coming Home, Children of a Lesser God, and Jungle Fever all portray various dimensions and problems that result from this type of daring dating. Films like To Kill a Mockingbird and Rosewood reveal the hegemonic culture’s and/or society’s historical reaction to even alleged interracial interludes. If you’ve seen any of these movies, what was the problematic moment for you within the film that framed our inability to accept differences? Are there any other films that come to mind for you where people just couldn’t get past their preconceived notions or succumbed to their socialization? Does the history of interracial relationships change now that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, has publicly proclaimed that he is the offspring of an interracial relationship? Does President Barack’s bi-racial status or any Black person’s for that matter, even matter when they look Black? And if President Obama is Bi-racial and should technically not be considered Black, then wouldn’t his marriage to First Lady Michelle itself be considered Bi-racial as well? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.661 2009-03-02T13:43:36Z 2009-03-02T23:20:47Z

Yes, people do change their perspectives in significant ways at certain points in their lives. Saul, a persecutor of Christians, traveling along the road to Damascus where once he arrived at his destination was going to put a hurting on more Christians, had an epiphany and converted to Christianity, symbolically changing his name to Paul. Our soon to be visiting hate monger appears to have had a similar epiphany, except he has gone from defending the underrepresented to hating them.

J.W. Wiley Recently previous SUNY Plattsburgh student body president, commencement speaker, Chancellor Award winner, and current CDPI graduate assistant Angel Acosta (quite the accomplished young man, isn’t he) and I had the pleasure of addressing Plattsburgh High School’s student body. I was quite flattered when approached by teacher Tony Perez and asked to engage their student body on the possibility of a visit this week from an infamous hate monger and/or his hate harassing crew, hate mongers who also have plans on visiting SUNY Plattsburgh as well. I asked Angel to join me in engaging the students because of how quick witted and creative he is, and how passionate he is about social justice. Also, since it was the day before Black History Month ended, I thought his now rather large afro might assist the audience in pausing for that cause, a reaction that my shaved head doesn’t appear to generate. I mean growing an afro is a statement in itself, though people shouldn’t think that all afros make the same statement. When I had mine, back in the day, it was about Black pride, style, and making me taller. Hate mongers attempt to make statements as well, though they often make more statements about themselves than they may consciously realize. The hate mongers scheduled to visit our community do this often, and have attempted to generate a reaction from the Plattsburgh community before when a few years back they came to town to antagonize our previous mayor because of their disagreement with his identity.Whether these hate mongers are authentic in their overt disdain for people who have an identity that they don’t agree with is quite intriguing to consider. If it is true, as an internet site claims, that the leader of the hate mongers once was a successful, award winning civil rights attorney (http://www.cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/stories/080394_phelps17.shtml), then it is even more intriguing to consider the possibilities of his actions and our response(s) to them. Yes, people do change their perspectives in significant ways at certain points in their lives. Saul, a persecutor of Christians, traveling along the road to Damascus where once he arrived at his destination was going to put a hurting on more Christians, had an epiphany and converted to Christianity, symbolically changing his name to Paul. Our soon to be visiting hate monger appears to have had a similar epiphany, except he has gone from defending the underrepresented to hating them. It is conceivable that some significant event in his life may have motivated a shift in his ideology, perhaps out of self preservation. Considering he was disbarred from legally practicing law in Kansas, and subsequently from practicing law at the federal level as well, it is difficult to not view his hate mongering as a pathetic way to pay the bills. Another possibility is that his Civil Rights efforts were actually about paying his bills and he really could care less about the people he was defending. One last possibility that comes to mind for me is that he is simply a very sick person who has been sick for sometime, yet is lucid enough to articulate a position to others that is attractive enough for them to come on board and assist him in promoting hate. Do you have any theories/thoughts on his actions? Whatever may be the case for his motivation, one thing is for sure, people have choices on how they see this hate monger and how they respond to him. I often tell the story of a personal epiphany I once had when speaking to my African American Culture course at SUNY Plattsburgh. I was engaging my students on the legacy of lynching that so-called Negroes had to endure for decades in this country and entered into the contemporary tale of James Byrd, the Black man who was dragged from the back of a pick-up truck by three white supremacists in Jasper, Texas. In the middle of telling this tale it occurred to me that the anger I had always had difficulty managing when speaking about this type of hateful action, anger aimed at the perpetrators, was misguided. Yes, they needed to be apprehended. Yes, they needed to be incarcerated, perhaps for life, perhaps even executed to ensure that they could never perpetrate such a crime again, unless of course they could somehow transcend recidivism, which necessarily could be guaranteed, which is probably not possible. One could even make an argument that their families should pay for the trauma they brought on the Byrd family and that community with their heinous crime. But my anger at the three murderers, an anger that flirted with becoming hatred, was as misguided as our anger/hatred for the hate mongers who are poised to enter our community with their venomous mission to ridicule and demonize people whose identities they don’t agree with. My anger wasn’t serving me well when I aimed it at these three men who were so filled with hatred that they demonstrated their hate by brutally ending the life of another. My anger needed to be aimed at the educational system that contributed in creating them. It isn't far fetched to entertain the thought that if we had conversations with our children at young ages that helped them to see the differences that exist between us many of the hate crimes that take place might not! Angel and I challenged the Plattsburgh High School students and staff to be wary of hating the haters. More so, we challenged our PHS audience to make a statement about their sophisticated way of seeing. They have the ability to recognize that none of these haters emerged from the womb during their birth hating this world and its inhabitants. They were either taught to hate or are somehow sick enough to not have the ability to love. In either case, what statement is made about us, what does it reveal about us if we lose our perspectives and begin to hate the hater? Our hating the hater is not far removed from being angry at an infant who is incessantly crying. It makes no sense. When the hate mongers arrive what we really should be doing is staying away from them, far away. They are undoubtedly either quite sick, or deviously calculating. Either way, they don’t deserve a moment of our time. And more than anything else, while we are earnestly trying to not succumb to hating the hater, we should also be conscious of the statements we make about ourselves when we do succumb to hating someone who is obviously quite sick. The PHS students impressed us with their energy, maturity, and wisdom on this subject. Angel and I left their auditorium feeling quite pleased with the conversation we had with them. At SUNY Plattsburgh we are also preparing for various discussions along similar lines. The Center for Diversity, Pluralism and Inclusion is hosting this Wednesday at 4:00 in Hawkins Hall’s Krinovitz Recital Hall, our spring semester Faculty Panel Discussion on the topic “Inflammatory Rhetoric: Building an Ethical Community Response,” in anticipation of their visit. It will feature University Police Chief Arlene Sabo, Anthropologist Dr. Richard Robbins, CDPI Asst. Director Deb Light, Communications Dr. Justin Gustainis, Political Scientist Dr. Daniel Lake, and will be moderated by Dr. Thomas Moran. Aside from the fact that you just witnessed one of the most shameless plugs for an event, on some bizarre level, we owe the hate mongers thanks for serving as the catalyst for community conversations. What are the statements that come to mind when you think about hating haters? What are your thoughts? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.646 2009-02-16T14:59:03Z 2009-02-16T15:08:30Z

Should we allow storytellers to tell stories that they are culturally distant from?

J.W. Wiley Recently Clint Eastwood has been praised / assailed for a film he made (Gran Torino) where he ventures into somewhat foreign territory to tell a tale of one man’s xenophobic excursion through a culturally diverse neighborhood. While I would like to laud Eastwood’s efforts, especially in light of other stories he has recently told that provided insight into underclass realities (the plight of the 18th Century Western prostitute in Unforgiven the plight of women in a man’s sport in Million Dollar Baby), he missed the mark for me considerably. His story is of one man’s perspective on a burgeoning Hmong culture within a context of that man’s refusal to succumb to white flight (a phenomenon whereby Whites depart from once racially White communities as those communities begin to become more racially diverse). Where the story fails for me is in its overtly banal use of stereotypes. Now, I am definitely averse to cavalierly dismissing stereotypes, recognizing that they originate from somewhere real and therefore do occasionally have merit. However, wanton use often reveals the users lack of sophistication with the subject matter. Having said all of that, what I am wondering is this: Should Eastwood have even attempted to tell this story of a aging White male’s difficulties transitioning into relationships with a new culture that he already has a bias towards? It is the same old discussion that took place with Spike Lee’s frustration with Debbie Allen enticing Steven Spielberg to direct Amistad, and Alice Walker’s green lighting Spielberg to take on The Color Purple. Woody Allen, to advance his stories would often appropriate marginalized cultural groups in a stereotypically inclusive-systematically exclusive manner. Should we allow storytellers to tell stories that they are culturally distant from? Is it appropriate or artistically responsible for storytellers to bastardize images of people that they know nothing about and haven't thoroughly researched? I remember when I first arrived at SUNY Plattsburgh and two of my colleagues, Dr. Amy Bass and Dr. Tracie Guzzio were both teaching with a research interest that delved into the African American experience. I, a Black man, benefited greatly from these two talented White scholars when the time came for me to teach my version of African American Culture. However, there are purists who insist that Whites shouldn’t be teaching African American anything, heterosexuals shouldn’t be teaching Queer Studies, etc. Is this throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Don’t people outside of certain cultures have a perspective on those cultures that is worth hearing? While the risk is always run that “The Spook Who Sat By the Door” will emerge, with this outsider learning the ways of the differing culture and then using what they learned against the culture that taught them (Is anyone thinking of the Afghanistan Mujahideen?), it isn’t the best strategy to prematurely dodge bullets from a gun that hasn’t been fired, is it? I once addressed a Gay-Lesbian group by prefacing my remarks acknowledging that as a heterosexual male my perspective was limited as to the lived realities that Gays and Lesbians must face. Later, as I left that moment I was informed that the advisor to that group used my preface as an indicator to these impressionable young women and men that I was homophobic. While I was blown away by how the advisor manipulated my words to advance an agenda, I also wouldn’t have done anything different. If I had addressed that group and not put out there a preface of my limited perspective, I would have come across as obnoxious, so on some level I couldn't win. What do we do when we (artists, teachers, neighbors, lovers, colleagues, humans) dare to enter forbidden or not often traveled territory? What are your suggestions about things we should do? What are your observations or stories about those moments when we dare to do the daring? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.635 2009-01-29T12:37:48Z 2009-01-30T13:53:58Z

And for those of you who don’t agree with my assertion that African American culture today is a response to slave culture, why does Obama embrace his blackness over his whiteness when he self-identifies (read Dreams From My Father” to really experience what I am talking about).

J.W. Wiley What is the conversation about race that takes place when only Latinos, only Whites, only Blacks, only Asians, or only like ethnicities are alone in their conversations? Let’s not kid ourselves, when men are alone, or women are alone we know how the conversation differs without the other gender in the mix. So, why would it be any different in terms of race? As a matter of fact, it would be even more dysfunctional because across gender lines there is love for our sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers, girlfriends and boyfriends. Across racial lines we often don’t see a connection, which prevents us from loving one another, and instead exacerbates our hatred or inconsideration for one another. People want to deny our preoccupation with race, though undeniably talking about race is more often than not, problematic. Just recently I received an email, along with many others, about an article in the Press Republican that reported on the conviction of the child rapist in Plattsburgh. The author stated he was “very offended to see that under the headline that said "Child rapist gets 10 years to life", it was also stated, "Puerto Rican man convicted of abuse and rape of young girls in the area." The author’s concern was that the ethnicity of the rapist wasn’t germane to the topic at hand. The author also pointed out that on the same day another writer wrote an article that stated that a “Peru man gets 12 years for abuse." In this article the writer did “mention the person's name but no where in the article does [the writer] mention his ethnic background and rightfully so.” Was this deliberate collusion on the part of one writer versus the other? Of course not, (and I can say that because I know many of the writers for the Press Republican, as well as the management and know that) the paper wouldn’t deliberately put out such a problematic message. However, did the writer perhaps misstep in engaging the details? Is there inconsistency in the way stories are reported from one writer to the next? Perhaps we can evolve beyond these awkward situations with more dialogue on race. Perhaps we can transcend our uncomfortable feelings trying to articulate the chasm of differences by exposure to others that originate from these different communities. Perhaps a solution to this problem could be the Press Republican and other local companies joining the ranks of other businesses, organizations and companies and introducing its employees to diversity and social justice education as well. In this rapidly changing world of ours is anyone beyond the challenge of becoming more educated about the differences that exist between communities. As an educator in this field, I continually learn so much from one engagement to another. Is all this commotion an overreaction? Not if you are a member of a community and feeling devalued or disrespected. Have you ever been grossly in the minority in terms of some aspect of your identity and felt that way? The saying “just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean you aren’t being chased” could be quite applicable in this situation. I remember years ago having to address the Press Republican’s printing of the N-word in a letter to the editor (October 2002) when I knew the B-word, or C-word would not have appeared in print. Would the N-word have been printed in a newspaper if that newspaper had a staff that was all Black? Frankly, it is hard to answer that question because of the wide array of ideologies that pervade our society. However, the more diversity (in this case racial) that exists within any conversation would enhance the possibility of differing sensibilities being considered. Yesterday I had my first class meeting of the semester for my African American Culture course. I entered this class with a completely different sensibility than ever before, greatly influenced by the Obama presidency. The other seven previous times I have taught this course I have structured it around the fact that African American culture today is still responding to the aftermath of slavery. You can see the aftermath of slavery in Black paranoia, disdain for interracial dating, hesitance or disinterest in voting, use of the N-word, an overt preoccupation with physical prowess (sports and entertainment) as opposed to academic enterprises, etc. How my approach to engaging current day Black culture will be affected by the ascent of a bi-racial man to the presidency is uncertain to me at this time, since I really haven’t fully processed the various dimensions of this reality. And for those of you who don’t agree with my assertion that African American culture today is a response to slave culture, why does Obama embrace his blackness over his whiteness when he self-identifies (read Dreams From My Father” to really experience what I am talking about). Have race relations changed? Should our ability to elect a so-called Black president be seen as an indication that we really have advanced in our ability to look beyond race? Or is it like the old saying “even a broken clock provides accurate time twice a day.” Tell me what you think? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2009:/weblog5//5.629 2009-01-21T13:02:43Z 2009-01-21T13:19:06Z

Yes, while I have lived in this country knowing it is one of the best places to live in the world, what I call American hypocrisy has always affected any notion of American democracy for me.

J.W. Wiley I would imagine that January 20th, 2009 was a very intriguing day for many Americans. I found myself in SUNY Plattsburgh’s Yokum 200 lecture hall with more than 300 people observing/participating in the inauguration as best we could. I found myself fascinated by the pomp and circumstance of the day. It was nice seeing whole families seated to witness the historic event of our nation’s first racially underrepresented leader sworn into office. It was moving watching so many people transcend stereotypical behavior and embrace President Barack Obama and his family, though sometimes at the unfortunate expense of ridiculing the outgoing administration. It was ironic that Obama has put forth quite a bit of effort in attempting to not disparage the previous administration and yet many Obama supporters have not followed his lead. Yes, thoughts of the previous administration's decisions are painful for many to reconsider and the consequences dire as well. But it is hard to believe that the Bush administration deliberately tried to implement unjust policies upon any segment of the American populace. Is there someone out there who disagrees with this assertion? I can't help but think that many of Bush's decisions/choices were an extension of his experiences or lack thereof, including his cabinet choices. Even though #43 was the son of a president (#41) it doesn't mean that his world view was as sophisticated as varying constituents might have hoped it would be. I guess it might be necessary to define exactly what sophisticated might mean relative to various groups. For the first time in a long time, too long to remember, I actually sang along in the national anthem, with my hand over my heart, with pride. I didn’t really sing because I couldn’t get the words out since my voice was trembling from my being overwrought with emotion. I could only look forward or run the risk of people seeing my eyes flooded with tears. Yes, while I have lived in this country knowing it is one of the best places to live in the world, what I call American hypocrisy has always affected any notion of American democracy for me. Yesterday that all changed and I found myself wanting to become a better citizen, a valued resource in the changing society in which Obama is challenging all Americans to participate. I am curious as to what you may have also noticed, thought, or did that may have been somewhat out of the ordinary as a result of this day in American history. What is your story, observation, or commitment to change as we enter the Obama era? What are/were some of the various historical markers that were altered or established as a result of yesterday’s inauguration? While some continue to want to frame this election as not necessarily racially significant, was it for you and if so, how? If not, why not? What are some of the things that you believe may occur as a result of this election that may not have occurred if Obama had not won? Is there a precedent to this president?