060: More thoughts on The Grand Canyon State -- or as I call it, the Crazypants State.
So I've been trying for weeks to compile a decent journal entry about all of the recent events in Arizona, but so far all I can really boil it down to is, "Fuckdamnit Arizona, really?" But today there have been some new (positive) developments, so here's going to be a long explanation of feelings as well as just what it all means (to me.)
So as we already know, my feelings didn't just come out of nowhere. But hey, I have gained new feelings, about new things! Forgive me if things don't make sense, and feel free to ask me if I need to make something clear.
So following SB 10170, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed into law HB 2281, which seeks to ban Mexican American studies and other ethnic studies classes in K-12 public and charter schools.
I'll let you have a moment to read that sentence again, because goodness knows I needed to a few times before I understood that yep, that totally just happened. The (crazy-land) logic is that these classes amount to "ethnic chauvinism," "hateful speech," and "sedition."
The law prohibits any school or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses or classes that:
* Promote resentment toward a race or class of people;
* Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group; or
* Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals
So their idea is that learning about one's ethnic heritage will make them angry at white people. I do not know how they arrived to that conclusion; I am not sure Evel Knievel would have been able to make that jump! Honestly, can someone explain to me how learning about one's ethnic background will promote resentment? I do not see how teaching the history and diversity of American culture amounts to hate speech! If anything, oh, I don't know, I would think that it would promote understanding and tolerance. Because honestly, do you know what I think "promotes resentment towards a race or class of people?" Using one's power to try to erase cultural heritage and history, just because one is afraid of it or because they do not deem it worth learning.
Granted I can only speak for myself, but when I was learning history, my response was never to be angry for what was done in the past. Sad and disappointed maybe, and hoping that people learn from it and progress, but it never evoked anger or hatred in me -- especially not for ethnic groups of the current day! Anger seemed like a wasted emotion -- what was done was done, it didn't happen to me, there's no point in holding people who aren't responsible accountable, and hopefully we would continue to learn and change for the better. What did make me angry though was all the things I wasn't being taught! All of the things I would find either on my own, or I would have that one teacher who thought "you know what, students should know that the Mexican Repatriation Program actually happened." It made me angry that we weren't being taught these things because they made our country (or others) look bad. Because how are we supposed to learn from our mistakes if we pretend they never happened, and don't educate the younger generation?
Frankly I think this ban is stupid. Because in a way the entire history of the United States is ethnic studies. The cultures and histories of various races and ethnicities -- as well as their interactions -- are what make this country's history what it is. So where is the line drawn when Arizona lawmakers want to distinguish what students should and shouldn't learn? Do students not get to learn about slavery, because that may "promote resentment?" Do they get to learn about what happened to the Native Americans? What about Japanese-American internment camps during World War II? And that's only naming some of the more negative aspects of American history. What about the positives -- will students get to learn about things like the Harlem Renaissance, or does that qualify as "advocat[ing] ethnic solidarity"? Will future generations of Americans learn about any of the contributions made by non-whites, or will they be ignored because some past actions are considered too embarrassing to teach?
I honestly don't know too much about what actions are being taken to reverse this bill or what kind of progress is being made; I'll probably be googling that all of tomorrow. But the whole situation in general just makes me very very sad. Fortunately the ban doesn't apply to universities -- though it was said that they're going to try to extend it to universities. I hope it doesn't happen -- my school is a state school, meaning it would have to comply or get funding pulled. Private universities would not be affected.
Oh and here is an article I like about the subject.
--
So another issue, which while it is not an official "law," is still rather troubling. Arizona is essentially telling school districts that if a teacher has an accent, they are not allowed to teach English. Something I learned while reading about this is that during the 90s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as a part of a bilingual education program. That's cool, that makes sense to me. Then in 2000, a law was passed that mandated that English be the only language of instruction (aside from foreign languages of course.)
What I object to in this movement is the idea that an accent = bad grammar, or a poor grasp of the language. Because it doesn't mean that. Granted this is my experience, but do you know who I tend to find are the people with the best command of the English language? People who have actually studied it. Growing up with a language and being fluent in it doesn't at all make you qualified to teach the grammar/structure -- using my Spanish as an example... I could not tell you why I phrase things the way I do in Spanish. I couldn't tell you say... why I used 'por' instead of 'para' or why I used a certain conjugation of a verb, I just know it's correct (let's assume I'm right and not screwing it up for the sake of the argument.) Having an accent doesn't make you unqualified to teach -- now, if say, the person clearly did not understand the structure of the language, then they shouldn't be teaching it.
Though I am kind of torn on the comprehension argument. I mean, I get that accents can be hard to understand at times, and that not understanding your teacher makes learning difficult, but the line needs to be drawn carefully, evaluated case by case, not just a large sweep of "no accents!" And it's especially troubling I see something like:
State auditors have reported to the district that some teachers pronounce words such as violet as "biolet," think as "tink"
Because at the risk of sounding like a jerk: that sounds like a personal problem, if you can't understand those words, because they're close. It sounds like your own problem if everything must be perfectly pronounced for you and you can't handle an accent that isn't that difficult to understand. I kind of have been staring at this paragraph for the past 20 minutes being unsure what to add, so I guess I'll move on.
--
This is a very sad story. A sad story that has a happy(ish) ending, at least. Because this is the kind of thing you imagine would have happened 50 years ago, not two months ago.
For those who don't want to click, quick summary: School has a mural of children who attend, this includes Latino and black students. First let me state this is an elementary school. Racist creeps are not happy at children of color being painted, and drive by screaming racial slurs. At elementary school children. School principal responds by demanding the artists literally whitewash the mural by lightening those kids' skintones.
Yeah.
And as if that wasn't horrifying enough on its own, there are quotes like this:
Wall [an artist] said school Principal Jeff Lane pressed him to make the children's faces appear happier and brighter.
"It is being lightened because of the controversy," Wall said, adding that "they want it to look like the children are coming into light."
Oh is that what we're calling it now? Classy. Later the principal would have the balls to say that it was 'fixing shading' and done from an artistic view rather than anything to do with race. Right.
City Councilman Steve Blair spearheaded a public campaign on his talk show at Prescott radio station KYCA-AM (1490) to remove the mural.
In a broadcast last month, according to the Daily Courier in Prescott, Blair mistakenly complained that the most prominent child in the painting is African-American, saying: "I am not a racist individual, but I will tell you depicting a black guy in the middle of that mural, based upon who's President of the United States today and based upon the history of this community, when I grew up we had four black families - who I have been very good friends with for years - to depict the biggest picture on that building as a black person, I would have to ask the question, 'Why?'"
I have a question for you Blair. Why the hell not? And really? I have black friends? That's your "I'm not a racist" defense? Also way to not notice that kid was Latino. (The good news is he lost his job as a radio talk show host, and his resignation as Councilman is being called for.)
Though of course the most horrifying aspect of all is when you realize that in response to crazy people screaming racial slurs at children from their cars, school officials decided that caving in to the racists' demands was the best course of action. That is absolutely tragic to me, because I for one was hoping that in this day and age response would be "Fuck no, you lunatics. Get the fuck out of here with your racist trash."
BUT THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THE MURAL HAS BEEN RESTORED TO HOW IT SHOULD BE. Let me tell you how I am happy one of these stories so far has a happy ending. It gives me hope for the others. But the entire thing is just still really heart-wrenching because God, what an experience for those kids.
--
This last one is a law -- a super unconstitutional law. There is no way this is going to stick.
Arizona wants to deny birth certificates to children born to parents who are not U.S. citizens. I should be mature but all I really want to do is type a paragraph of LA LA LA UNCONSTITUTIONAL LA LA LA. I just. I don't even know how to make this any clearer. If you are born in the U.S. you are a U.S. citizen. Period! End of story! WHY DO THEY EVEN THINK THEY CAN DO THIS? Arizona lawmakers, for people who insist that you're 'doing everything you can to protect the rights of native Arizonians' or whatever, you sure do a heck of a job ignoring their constitutional rights.
I'M NOT EVEN DIGNIFYING THIS WITH ANOTHER PARAGRAPH OF ANALYSIS.
--
There's no intro to this in my LJ-cut because this isn't at all sanctioned by anyone of authority thank God. If anything they're actually opposing this, but it doesn't change the fact that Neo-Nazis are patrolling the Arizona desert now. Guys I just, I can't even. I know every state has its crazies but it was pretty bad timing when I found this article, I guess.
--
BUT.
BUT BUT BUT.
GOOD NEWS EVERYONE.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has blocked the most objectionable parts of SB 1070. The things that are out are the part where police can ask you about your status and demand to see your papers, and warantless arrests are out. Pretty much, the teeth of thing thing are out, which is awesome. I mean, I wish the whole thing had been tossed but I will take this victory for the moment. Especially since lawmakers and Joe Arpaio don't want to let this thing die.
Gov. Jan Brewer wants to appeal it to the 9th Circuit, because... she's Jan Brewer. As much as I wish that she wouldn't continue wasting everyone's time with this, a part of me does hope it gets to the Supreme Court, just so it can get voted down and no other state can pull this kind of crap ever again. (That is, assuming it'd get voted down, I assume it would because come on.)
And because this entry wouldn't really be complete without an unsettling statement from Joe Arpaio:
"I am not really disappointed about the judge's decision," Arpaio said. "I know what my policies are, and we are going to continue doing what we have been doing."
This pretty much translates to "I have been doing, and will continue to do whatever the hell I want." I probably should write about Joe Arpaio but it is 1:37 in the morning and anything I'd type would probably become incoherent rage after the first paragraph. LET US JUST SAY THERE IS A REASON THAT IF YOU GOOGLE HIM, GOOGLE WILL TRY TO AUTO-FILL IN 'JOE ARPAIO RACIST' AS THE SECOND OPTION.
Man, I should have written this update on 1070 before I wrote about everything else because I have clearly run out of steam.
BUT OKAY. I am going back to Arizona soon! In about two or so weeks! And... I'm feeling okay. I'm insanely unhappy over the state of affairs, upset that it's even happening, but I feel like I can go back. Things are being done -- and those things are starting to show positive results. And honestly, a lot of things aren't going to affect me at all, as my life is pretty centered at my school. But I don't feel targeted or unsafe or anything, which is what it all comes down to. So... yes.
This entry was originally posted at Dreamwidth with
comments.
So as we already know, my feelings didn't just come out of nowhere. But hey, I have gained new feelings, about new things! Forgive me if things don't make sense, and feel free to ask me if I need to make something clear.
So following SB 10170, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed into law HB 2281, which seeks to ban Mexican American studies and other ethnic studies classes in K-12 public and charter schools.
I'll let you have a moment to read that sentence again, because goodness knows I needed to a few times before I understood that yep, that totally just happened. The (crazy-land) logic is that these classes amount to "ethnic chauvinism," "hateful speech," and "sedition."
The law prohibits any school or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses or classes that:
* Promote resentment toward a race or class of people;
* Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group; or
* Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals
So their idea is that learning about one's ethnic heritage will make them angry at white people. I do not know how they arrived to that conclusion; I am not sure Evel Knievel would have been able to make that jump! Honestly, can someone explain to me how learning about one's ethnic background will promote resentment? I do not see how teaching the history and diversity of American culture amounts to hate speech! If anything, oh, I don't know, I would think that it would promote understanding and tolerance. Because honestly, do you know what I think "promotes resentment towards a race or class of people?" Using one's power to try to erase cultural heritage and history, just because one is afraid of it or because they do not deem it worth learning.
Granted I can only speak for myself, but when I was learning history, my response was never to be angry for what was done in the past. Sad and disappointed maybe, and hoping that people learn from it and progress, but it never evoked anger or hatred in me -- especially not for ethnic groups of the current day! Anger seemed like a wasted emotion -- what was done was done, it didn't happen to me, there's no point in holding people who aren't responsible accountable, and hopefully we would continue to learn and change for the better. What did make me angry though was all the things I wasn't being taught! All of the things I would find either on my own, or I would have that one teacher who thought "you know what, students should know that the Mexican Repatriation Program actually happened." It made me angry that we weren't being taught these things because they made our country (or others) look bad. Because how are we supposed to learn from our mistakes if we pretend they never happened, and don't educate the younger generation?
Frankly I think this ban is stupid. Because in a way the entire history of the United States is ethnic studies. The cultures and histories of various races and ethnicities -- as well as their interactions -- are what make this country's history what it is. So where is the line drawn when Arizona lawmakers want to distinguish what students should and shouldn't learn? Do students not get to learn about slavery, because that may "promote resentment?" Do they get to learn about what happened to the Native Americans? What about Japanese-American internment camps during World War II? And that's only naming some of the more negative aspects of American history. What about the positives -- will students get to learn about things like the Harlem Renaissance, or does that qualify as "advocat[ing] ethnic solidarity"? Will future generations of Americans learn about any of the contributions made by non-whites, or will they be ignored because some past actions are considered too embarrassing to teach?
I honestly don't know too much about what actions are being taken to reverse this bill or what kind of progress is being made; I'll probably be googling that all of tomorrow. But the whole situation in general just makes me very very sad. Fortunately the ban doesn't apply to universities -- though it was said that they're going to try to extend it to universities. I hope it doesn't happen -- my school is a state school, meaning it would have to comply or get funding pulled. Private universities would not be affected.
Oh and here is an article I like about the subject.
--
So another issue, which while it is not an official "law," is still rather troubling. Arizona is essentially telling school districts that if a teacher has an accent, they are not allowed to teach English. Something I learned while reading about this is that during the 90s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as a part of a bilingual education program. That's cool, that makes sense to me. Then in 2000, a law was passed that mandated that English be the only language of instruction (aside from foreign languages of course.)
What I object to in this movement is the idea that an accent = bad grammar, or a poor grasp of the language. Because it doesn't mean that. Granted this is my experience, but do you know who I tend to find are the people with the best command of the English language? People who have actually studied it. Growing up with a language and being fluent in it doesn't at all make you qualified to teach the grammar/structure -- using my Spanish as an example... I could not tell you why I phrase things the way I do in Spanish. I couldn't tell you say... why I used 'por' instead of 'para' or why I used a certain conjugation of a verb, I just know it's correct (let's assume I'm right and not screwing it up for the sake of the argument.) Having an accent doesn't make you unqualified to teach -- now, if say, the person clearly did not understand the structure of the language, then they shouldn't be teaching it.
Though I am kind of torn on the comprehension argument. I mean, I get that accents can be hard to understand at times, and that not understanding your teacher makes learning difficult, but the line needs to be drawn carefully, evaluated case by case, not just a large sweep of "no accents!" And it's especially troubling I see something like:
State auditors have reported to the district that some teachers pronounce words such as violet as "biolet," think as "tink"
Because at the risk of sounding like a jerk: that sounds like a personal problem, if you can't understand those words, because they're close. It sounds like your own problem if everything must be perfectly pronounced for you and you can't handle an accent that isn't that difficult to understand. I kind of have been staring at this paragraph for the past 20 minutes being unsure what to add, so I guess I'll move on.
--
This is a very sad story. A sad story that has a happy(ish) ending, at least. Because this is the kind of thing you imagine would have happened 50 years ago, not two months ago.
For those who don't want to click, quick summary: School has a mural of children who attend, this includes Latino and black students. First let me state this is an elementary school. Racist creeps are not happy at children of color being painted, and drive by screaming racial slurs. At elementary school children. School principal responds by demanding the artists literally whitewash the mural by lightening those kids' skintones.
Yeah.
And as if that wasn't horrifying enough on its own, there are quotes like this:
Wall [an artist] said school Principal Jeff Lane pressed him to make the children's faces appear happier and brighter.
"It is being lightened because of the controversy," Wall said, adding that "they want it to look like the children are coming into light."
Oh is that what we're calling it now? Classy. Later the principal would have the balls to say that it was 'fixing shading' and done from an artistic view rather than anything to do with race. Right.
City Councilman Steve Blair spearheaded a public campaign on his talk show at Prescott radio station KYCA-AM (1490) to remove the mural.
In a broadcast last month, according to the Daily Courier in Prescott, Blair mistakenly complained that the most prominent child in the painting is African-American, saying: "I am not a racist individual, but I will tell you depicting a black guy in the middle of that mural, based upon who's President of the United States today and based upon the history of this community, when I grew up we had four black families - who I have been very good friends with for years - to depict the biggest picture on that building as a black person, I would have to ask the question, 'Why?'"
I have a question for you Blair. Why the hell not? And really? I have black friends? That's your "I'm not a racist" defense? Also way to not notice that kid was Latino. (The good news is he lost his job as a radio talk show host, and his resignation as Councilman is being called for.)
Though of course the most horrifying aspect of all is when you realize that in response to crazy people screaming racial slurs at children from their cars, school officials decided that caving in to the racists' demands was the best course of action. That is absolutely tragic to me, because I for one was hoping that in this day and age response would be "Fuck no, you lunatics. Get the fuck out of here with your racist trash."
BUT THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THE MURAL HAS BEEN RESTORED TO HOW IT SHOULD BE. Let me tell you how I am happy one of these stories so far has a happy ending. It gives me hope for the others. But the entire thing is just still really heart-wrenching because God, what an experience for those kids.
--
This last one is a law -- a super unconstitutional law. There is no way this is going to stick.
Arizona wants to deny birth certificates to children born to parents who are not U.S. citizens. I should be mature but all I really want to do is type a paragraph of LA LA LA UNCONSTITUTIONAL LA LA LA. I just. I don't even know how to make this any clearer. If you are born in the U.S. you are a U.S. citizen. Period! End of story! WHY DO THEY EVEN THINK THEY CAN DO THIS? Arizona lawmakers, for people who insist that you're 'doing everything you can to protect the rights of native Arizonians' or whatever, you sure do a heck of a job ignoring their constitutional rights.
I'M NOT EVEN DIGNIFYING THIS WITH ANOTHER PARAGRAPH OF ANALYSIS.
--
There's no intro to this in my LJ-cut because this isn't at all sanctioned by anyone of authority thank God. If anything they're actually opposing this, but it doesn't change the fact that Neo-Nazis are patrolling the Arizona desert now. Guys I just, I can't even. I know every state has its crazies but it was pretty bad timing when I found this article, I guess.
--
BUT.
BUT BUT BUT.
GOOD NEWS EVERYONE.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has blocked the most objectionable parts of SB 1070. The things that are out are the part where police can ask you about your status and demand to see your papers, and warantless arrests are out. Pretty much, the teeth of thing thing are out, which is awesome. I mean, I wish the whole thing had been tossed but I will take this victory for the moment. Especially since lawmakers and Joe Arpaio don't want to let this thing die.
Gov. Jan Brewer wants to appeal it to the 9th Circuit, because... she's Jan Brewer. As much as I wish that she wouldn't continue wasting everyone's time with this, a part of me does hope it gets to the Supreme Court, just so it can get voted down and no other state can pull this kind of crap ever again. (That is, assuming it'd get voted down, I assume it would because come on.)
And because this entry wouldn't really be complete without an unsettling statement from Joe Arpaio:
"I am not really disappointed about the judge's decision," Arpaio said. "I know what my policies are, and we are going to continue doing what we have been doing."
This pretty much translates to "I have been doing, and will continue to do whatever the hell I want." I probably should write about Joe Arpaio but it is 1:37 in the morning and anything I'd type would probably become incoherent rage after the first paragraph. LET US JUST SAY THERE IS A REASON THAT IF YOU GOOGLE HIM, GOOGLE WILL TRY TO AUTO-FILL IN 'JOE ARPAIO RACIST' AS THE SECOND OPTION.
Man, I should have written this update on 1070 before I wrote about everything else because I have clearly run out of steam.
BUT OKAY. I am going back to Arizona soon! In about two or so weeks! And... I'm feeling okay. I'm insanely unhappy over the state of affairs, upset that it's even happening, but I feel like I can go back. Things are being done -- and those things are starting to show positive results. And honestly, a lot of things aren't going to affect me at all, as my life is pretty centered at my school. But I don't feel targeted or unsafe or anything, which is what it all comes down to. So... yes.
This entry was originally posted at Dreamwidth with
comments.