For class Feb. 7, you'll be finishing Hunger of Memory. As you do, keep in mind the various themes we considered in class on Jan. 31, applying them to and testing them against the rest of the book. Some of these included the relationship between the personal and the political, intersections of and boundaries between ethnicity and class, various kinds of capital including social and cultural as well as economic, the significance of language, the role of naming and interpellation, and categories Rodriguez will and will not describe himself as belonging to (yes: middle class and male; no: Mexican American and, as Carter points out above, homosexual). Please post at least twice before noon on Feb. 7, preferably on two different days and preferably responding to at least one other comment, further developing the themes we have discussed with regard to the second half of Hunger of Memory.
Richard’s relationship with the politic becomes clearer towards the end of the book. Fort he first time I see him really explain something without prejudice and disgust towards his own race. He argues that “affirmative action, finally, did not take seriously the educational dilemma of disadvantaged students….The revolutionary demand would have called for a reform of primary and secondary schools” (162). This is certainly a valid point because if people who are not qualified to enter big colleges enter them because of affirmative action, then it is unfair to those white disadvantaged students. An institutional reform would end up helping white and nonwhite, hoping that colleges would accept people based solely on merit.
On the other hand, Richard also keeps looking at Mexicans with disdain and does not consider the nonwhite. I can understand why he feels different and I can understand that there are great boundaries between classes and that in this country, there is a big problem with stereotypes. But I can’t really understand the way he looks down at people of his own race. When he goes on to do construction work and he first tries to talk to the Mexicans and then stops when he realizes vulnerability: “Depressed by their vulnerability. Angry at myself. The adventure of the summer seemed suddenly ludicrous. I would not shorten the distance I felt from los pobres with a few weeks if physical labor. I would not become like them. They were different from me.” Maybe he feels like this because on the back of his mind he knows that he could have ended up like them. But still I think that what he says is disgusting
"With a bar of soap, I fashioned a thick ball of lather. I began soaping my arms. I took my father's razor out of the medicine cabinet. Slowly, with steady deliberateness, I put the blade against my flesh, pressed it as close as I could without cutting and moved it up and down across my skin to see if I could get out, somehow lessen, the dark."
When reading the second half of the book, I came to understand the reason why Richard decided to wholly assimilate into the American culture, and completely reject his Mexican background: It was a result of inferior feelings brought upon by his parents, namely his mother. He gives countless examples as to how she would always make comments about his dark skin, and about how he wouldn't physically fit in with los gringos. It appears though that by doing this, she bit off her nose to only spite her face; As her children got older, she was no longer able to relate to them in any way, not even in language. Sure they may have achieved the dreams she wanted them to, but definitely paid the price for it.
I really think Richard brings up a good point about people using the race card as a scapegoat for the problems with the "lower classes". No one usually considers the fact that a person is socially disadvantaged because of their actual position in society rather than the result of their race. Sure discrimination may make it harder for certain races to advance, but that's why we need social reform in the sense of helping the lower classes as a whole, instead of trying to make it an issue of helping particular races.
This way everyone, including whites, is at a fair playing field, or at least as fair as it can get. As he also points out, sure under affirmative action nonwhites were receiving college degrees, but they were still being forced to do menial labor. So in all reality, sure they could say they had a college degree, but then that's where all of the help from affirmative action pretty much ended.
I like what Valentina had to say in her previous post. "He argues that 'affirmative action, finally, did not take seriously the educational dilemma of disadvantaged students?.The revolutionary demand would have called for a reform of primary and secondary schools' (162). This is certainly a valid point because if people who are not qualified to enter big colleges enter them because of affirmative action, then it is unfair to those white disadvantaged students. An institutional reform would end up helping white and nonwhite, hoping that colleges would accept people based solely on merit." It is not that anyone is against affirmative action because a disadvantaged group is being "helped." It is the fact that in the process of helping them, other groups, like the whites, are being discriminated against. When a white and nonwhite are equal and apply to college, the affirmative action would chose the nonwhite to add diversity. And in some instances when affirmative action gets a person into a school that is possibly to difficult for them, the grades and degrees are handed out on a less strict set of guidelines. This does not help them towards the original goal. I think that Richard is very intelligent for looking over the fact that he could be helped so much, whether based on true merit or not, yet he recognizes the fact that in "helping" him, others are being disadvantaged.
I also picked up on the quote about the laboring Mexicans as Valentina did. "The adventure of the summer seemed suddenly ludicrous. I would not shorten the distance I felt from los pobres with a few weeks if physical labor. I would not become like them. They were different from me.? I think this encompasses a lot about what he has taken in about his culture and why he thinks the way he does. He is Mexican which is a straightforward fact. He is able to see though that it is experience and the culture in which you grow up and develop and not just the country you come from or the color of your skin. He is able to recognize that he is closer to the educated whites than the uneducated Mexicans. This must have been one of the biggest turning points in his life and in his thinking.
As Tiffany said, I can understand more why Richard decided to assimilate so much into American culture after his mother tells him that he is going to look like los pobres if he gets too tan. One thing that I noticed afterwards, was that at some point he overcomes this self-consciousness about his complexion and he comes to understand why his mother was so afraid of him getting dark: “I do not blame my mother for warning me away from the sun when I was young. In a world where her brother had become an old man in his twenties because he was dark, my complexion was something to worry about. ‘Don’t run in the sun’ she warns me today. I run” (148). He thinks that what separates him from them is his education and that he will never be like them because of that. This is why his skin color becomes trivial to him.
But even though he is aware of how privileged he is, he still feels uncomfortable with being called a Chicano. I think that part of this is the influence that American culture has had on him: “minority became a synonym for socially disadvantaged Americans” (156). I can understand him to some degree, but there are still things about him that I cant quite put together.
As Valentina and Kristen have already discussed, Rodriguez’s political views on affirmative action is something that is at the core of the autobiography. “The truth was summarized in the sense of irony I’d feel at hearing myself called a minority student: The reason I was no longer a minority was because I had become a student” (157). Being referred to as a minority in an academic setting was something that alienated Rodriguez and brought him back to being that child that had not yet assimilated into American society. Much like Rodriguez, I also feel that after he was able to capitalize on the same level of education that American middle class children receive that he was no longer an academic minority. Giving special preferences to students based on their race is something that just draws a greater separation between the races. It creates an “us and them” society. Calling people of color minority students and offering them more help in a way makes them feel like they are inferior, as if they are not able to academically achieve the same goals as their white classmates without the extra push.
I agree with Rodriguez that those that need the greatest amount of help are those that come from disadvantaged neighborhoods where the education is mediocre. This should not be an issue of race rather it should be an issue of helping those that economically disadvantaged and thus grow up to become academically disadvantaged
I really like something that Francis pointed out, "Giving special preferences to students based on their race is something that just draws a greater separation between the races. It creates an ?us and them? society." Understandably, the government is trying to give equal opportunity to the races by giving the "underprivileged" races the chance to receive a better education. In doing this, although it may not be realized at first, is that they are in fact separating the races. Also, not only are they giving more opportunity to these groups, but they are taking away opportunities from the whites. Also there is no affirmative action-type reform to help give more to the lower class whites. There should be no set-up like this, I believe. Individuals should be judged based on their merits and personalities, not on their race, religion, or stereotypes.
I will start by saying that I am not trying to defend Rodriguez or affirmative action ( because I feel neither should need defending). I wll try to stick to stick to the text and to the comments of other students without making it personal and thus getting agitated.
Here is how I view Rodriguez. Well into the book he still uses the term "los gringos" and still sees himself as separate from them. However, He cannot be like the mexicans he comes into contact with. It is like a box with three compartments. The first is los gringos. The second is himself.The last is the Mexicans. Instead of having a venn diagram, in which he can identify with both groups and within that find himself, He boxes himself in these labels and rigid structure that he himself did not create! He trades in the words "scholarship boy" just to become "minority student". Accepts both labels yet later says concerning "minority student" it was wrong to accept.
As someone who has accepted both these labels even at NYU, I have to say I feel sort of bad for Rodriguez. It's almost as if he is beating himself up with a bat that he thought he made himself only to find out its been passed down for generations. The end is absolutely touching. His father asks him if he's going home now too... Where is that home for Rodriguez? Is it the home of soft intimate spanish sounds of his boyhood? Is it the american catholic church? or Can he find it within himself?
It' s so angst-ful! He has the saddest case of double consciousness...
Like Valentina, I also thought that Rodriguez’s comments about “los pobres” were a bit much. Sure he would never be like them; los pobres lacked the education that Rodriguez had been privileged with but that was no reason to see such a great gap between him and los pobres. In assimilating into mainstream America Rodriguez completely lost touch with his own race and I find that quite problematic. It almost seemed as a mockery for Rodriguez, a college educated middle class man, to go out and try to do the work of the poor, the people he saw himself so distant from. I find that Rodriguez created a greater degree of separation than there actually existed. I don’t really see why he felt so awkward in speaking to the Mexican construction workers. They were people that were alienated from society and Rodriguez instead of trying to close the gap, trying to not make the Mexican workers feel as he felt as a child; all he did was continue the cycle of alienation.
For Rodriguez the construction job was an experience which he could not totally understand because it was something temporary, it was not his only option as was the case for many of the people he worked with during the summer.
"The policy of affirmative action, however, was never able to distinguish someone like me (a graduate student of English, ambitious for a college teaching career) from a slightly educated Mexican-American who lived in a barrio and worked as a menial laborer, never expecting a future improved. Worse, affirmative action made me the beneficiary of his condition" (pg. 161-62).
With effect of the affirmative action, though minority groups will have increased chances in getting into college, the class structure within these minority groups plays an important part in the selection of those minority students that will be accepted to college. Those who come from poor neighborhoods and rank on the lower class most likely didn't receive an adequate education to succeed in College. Not only that, because of their conditions, they are put aside and rejected by Admissions, giving an upper hand for the more socially advantaged minority students.
"One day I listened approvingly to a government official defend affirmative action; the next day I realized the benefits of the program. I was the minority student the political activists shouted about at noontime rallies. Against their rhetoric, I stood out in relief, unrelieved. Knowing: I was not really more socially disadvantaged than the white graduate students in my classes. Knowing: I was not disadvantaged like many of the new nonwhite students who were entering college, lacking early schooling" (Pg. 157).
Another problem Richard finds in the flaw of the affirmative action program is the unequal balance it sets off for White students. Focusing so much on "minorities" and trying to promote diversity and equality, the program instead creates a shift where White students become the disadvantaged. As someone pointed out, this causes an even greater distinction between races because now, the term "minority" will become reinforced and separate themselves from the Whites, etc.
Responding to the summer that Richard took up the construction job, I thought that it was an important experience in his life. Richard's reaction that the Mexican or "los pobres" were "different" from him was an obvious answer. In the unfair world he lives in, he has the advantage over the Mexicans whether he likes it or not. When Richard's father says that his son will never know what real work is, Richard agrees. "I will never know what he felt at his last factory job. If tomorrow I worked at some kind of factory, it would go different for me. My long education would favor me. I would act as a public person-able to defend my interests to unionize, to petition, to speak up- to challenge and demand. (I will never know what real work is.) I will never know what the Mexicans knew, gathering their shovels and ladders and saws (Pg. 149). I see a lot of truth in this because though he may experience the same jobs as his father, the Mexicans, los pobres, he will always be different from them in that he possesses an education that doesn't exist in the others. We accept this separation, once we step into college, and by graduating from college, we seal the deal and have something that makes us different from, for example, our parents who never had the opportunity to go to college. Richard's realization of this allows him to move forward and use his education to his advantage.
In response to Valentina and Kristen's comments about his feelings that elementary education reform would do more for the disenfranchised reaching higher education, I would say that, in his view (and my admittedly limited one) it is not only unfair to the underprivileged whites who are barred from the same opportunities as their nonwhite peers based solely on their skin color, but it is also unfair to the underprivileged minorities who, shunted through bad schooling for thirteen years, are flung blinking into the higher education they are in no way prepared for, leading to poor performance and a large percentage of dropouts, they feel responsible for their poor performance and are depressed. I'm not entirely sure where I meant to go with that. Perhaps that Richard Rodriguez seems to imply that aside from not actually helping minorities succeed in higher education, Affirmative Action increases the feeling among minorities, who have themselves tried and failed at higher education, that such paths are closed to them. But I feel like that would be presumptuous. Please forgive any spelling errors in "privilege" and "presumptuous," I'm kind of tired.
"elementary education reform would do more for the disenfranchised reaching higher education, I would say that, in his view (and my admittedly limited one) it is not only unfair to the underprivileged whites who are barred from the same opportunities as their nonwhite peers based solely on their skin color, but it is also unfair to the underprivileged minorities who, shunted through bad schooling for thirteen years, are flung blinking into the higher education they are in no way prepared for, leading to poor performance and a large percentage of dropouts, they feel responsible for their poor performance and are depressed. I'm not entirely sure where I meant to go with that. Perhaps that Richard Rodriguez seems to imply that aside from not actually helping minorities succeed in higher education, Affirmative Action increases the feeling among minorities, who have themselves tried and failed at higher education, that such paths are closed to them. "
First of all, I would like to say that even when affirmative action was in place it never made any significant changes in higher education ( percentage wise)." To clear up common misconceptions about AA, here are some facts:
-Quotas are illegal and are not applied as part of AA: universities are not allowed to have strict requirements or slots for particular races or gender
-AA is generally applied when two candidates of equal merit are compared, so unqualified minorities are not stealing spots of more qualified white or Asian individuals. Only when two applicants have the same qualifications will the one from a historically-disadvantagedgroup be accepted over the other.
-Affirmative action applies to more than racial minorities: women, veterans, low-income individuals, geographic minorities (think: North Dakota), homosexuals, those with disabilities, immigrants (of all ethnic and racial backgrounds), to name a few.
-Representation of women and minorities (e.g., African-Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans) in academia and the workforce is still very low. In fact, in some fields (such as the sciences) the demographics have slumped back down to their early 1970s levels, or worse"...and they have begun to employ some AA type strategies.
I am all for AA strategies based on income because when it comes down to underprivileged in America that usually economic not race wise. Oh course there is some thing called "white priviledge" but that is another discussion entirely ( which you can see this link for info http://classes.nyu.edu/courses/1/K45.1444.001.FA06/content/_1805991_1/whitepriv.pdf or email me for an attachment) I agree with Miles and Kristen and Rodriguez with the whole idea of elementary education reform. There are several people who were placed places where they were not qualified to be. Did you know that at NYU the Higher Education Opportunity Program ( also known as HEOP) has a pre-freshman summer program for all students who are underpriviledged? I would like to believe that underpriviledged means economically but in the U.S race and economics are joined at the hip. However, just because they dropped out does not mean that the opportunity was offorded to everyone.
Just because Richard felt that he was privileged doesn't mean everyone else was."One day I listened approvingly to a government official defend affirmative action; the next day I realized the benefits of the program. I was the minority student the political activists shouted about at noontime rallies. Against their rhetoric, I stood out in relief, unrelieved. Knowing: I was not really more socially disadvantaged than the white graduate students in my classes. Knowing: I was not disadvantaged like many of the new nonwhite students who were entering college, lacking early schooling" (Pg. 157). His experience is his experience it doesnt make anyone else's less valid. He also uses the phrase SOCIALLY disadvantaged. There are many other forms of disadvantages. I don't feel he should take his experience and make it a stamp/ poster for anti AA campaign.
I don't mean to get agitated but AA is just one of the issues which makes me put on a defensive stance especially if it looks like " everyone" is agreeing with Rodriguez. However, Rodriguez has his reasons for believing what he believes and I have mine. Just like your opinion doesn't make mine less valid. AA was a concession, a reparation of sorts that the gov't made to the people ( but it didn't change the institution of education). Educational Reform should've been Rodriguez focus if he was to be revolutionary.
Maybe Rodriguez was tired of being "minority" or "scholarship boy" and felt that other people thought he didnt deserve to be where he was. AA didn't not consider his "educational dilemma" but his social dilemma as well. His inability to be accepted or validated because he was different. He was just there ...educated but not "american"... mexican but not "ignorant"...He was just disconnected within himself...If you don't know who you are or where you are going, how is it that you can truly become revolutionary?
"AA is generally applied when two candidates of equal merit are compared, so unqualified minorities are not stealing spots of more qualified white or Asian individuals. Only when two applicants have the same qualifications will the one from a historically-disadvantagedgroup be accepted over the other."
Quite honestly this statement completely contradicts itself. It claims that "minortities are not stealing spots" from more qualified candidates, but at the same time says that if necesarry, it will look at whether or not the person belongs to an "historically-disavantaged group" as a determining factor.
I agree that educational reform from the elementary to the secodary levels is necessary if we're ever going to establish any sort of common ground for all who seek a collegiate career, but think it's a bit naive to think that ethnicity or social background has nothing to do with determining who is or isn't given this opportunity. I agree that if Rodriguez really wanted to be Revloutionary, he would have focused on supporting educational reform. However I don't think his aim was to be revolutionary; rather like I said before I see his views being revolutionary in the indirect sense that they do indeed cause people to form a dialogue about said issues, thus slowly and surely leading to some sort of action to eventually being taken.
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
