No one's any bigger if they use the word "n*gger"

Several months ago, there was a lot of publicity criticizing the latest celebrity to go off on a "N-word" rampage. Since all those happenings sort of jumble together, I got to thinking about some underlying issues.

Now, before I explain my thoughts, let me just acknowledge that I do not deem it appropriate in any context to use the "N-word," except perhaps for carefully planned lessons on history whose sole purpose is to educate in a neutral way. Personally, I wouldn't use the word in my everyday life (n*gger) or with friends (n*gga); I also don't listen to music that uses those words (not necessarily because of that word -- it's just not a favorite of mine).

But what I'm wondering is, is it ever "okay" to use that word? I'm not saying I would, but it's common knowledge that people -- many of whom are of the African-American persuasion -- refer to each other as "n*ggas."  Is it okay if they say it?  Along the same lines, is it okay if someone of a different race says it, even if it's meant in the same context (a la "homie," "pal," "buddy," etc.)?  When does it shift from being acceptable to being racist?

In addition to the word's usage in conversation, I'm wondering about the rules of song.  For instance, the "N-word" comes up frequently in music, oftentimes in rap.  If you slap a "Parental Advisory" label on the album cover, does that excuse the language inside the case?  If someone (again, either of the same or different race) is listening to the album and sings/raps along to the music, what about that?  It's not technically their words. It's like telling a story and saying, "And then the guy called the other guy a n*gger."  If you're quoting someone else, does that have any effect?

Even South Park tackles the subject, as seen in this parody of Wheel of Fortune.

---
It seems my thoughts are more questions, in an effort to understand where people draw lines and make judgments.  I'm curious to know what you all think and, hopefully, we can get an interracial dialogue going so shed some clarity on the issue.

the United States of Abhorrence

People on their high horses are due for a reality check.  Similarly, America is, too.  Yesterday, the US of A celebrated their 234th birthday, but what does that even mean?  Okay, so on July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed...by Americans.  Nearly three centuries earlier, in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, which ultimately led to the untimely (would it ever have been timely?) eviction of the Native Americans who already occupied the land.  Now, I was never so great at history, but if you just go up to a random house and kick out the people who live in it, only to claim it as your own, does that actually make it your own?  Does that mean you get the right/privilege to make the household decisions and that, when telemarketers call, asking for the head of the household, you can rightfully answer, "Yes, I am [s]he"?

While our independence from England itself is a pretty monumental event -- one that deserves recognition and pride -- I'm not so sure the rest of it does.  Consider it a reverse Robin Hood, if you will -- rather than stealing from the rich to give to the poor, it seems that the US of A took from the poor (who may, in fact, have been rich with resources), asserted their independence from the rich, and showed no grain of appreciation for the "tramplees" [those who are trampled upon], without whom the US wouldn't have had land to rest their weary egos.


If you're the coach of a youth basketball team and your team cheats, ending up with more points on the scoreboard than their fairly-playing opponents, who actually deserves the praise?  Will you continue to celebrate the anniversary of the win-by-cheating annually, with federal holidays, fireworks, and rampant celebrations?  Or will you teach your kids a lesson so that history doesn't repeat itself and they can try to make amends for the past and adopt better practices for the future?

What say you, members of the jury?  Is the USA founded on principles of cheating and destructive egoism?  What exactly are we celebrating, then?

Happy Birthday, with or without the tamales

People have asked me what I'm going to "do" for my birthday, if I'm going to plan a party or have some wild and crazy event in my honor.  The simple answer to that is "no."  Frankly, I'm just not interested this year.

When I was in El Salvador last year at this time (where my community, living on very few financial resources, threw me a surprise party (which -- don't tell -- I knew about from the day before)), I had a conversation with a 14-year-old girl named Elsi on her birthday (July 3), two days after mine.  There had been all this commotion in the community about my birthday (July 1), a date when people had given me a party, cards, cake, and love, and when I asked Elsi [pictured, left and right, with the dough to make tortillas] what she normally did for her birthday, her response was, "Maybe I'll get a card and maybe we'll eat tamales."  Tamales are a pretty common food to eat down there but, according to Salvadoran standards, they're not an everyday snack -- they're just too darn expensive (less than $2, I think).

Experiences like this are very grounding because it serves as a slap-in-the-face wake-up call that birthdays are merely the days when your age number changes.  You don't turn a year older -- it's just the day after the one before it.  Why do people even give presents on that day?  Congratulations -- I didn't think you'd make it 'til today and you have, so well done!  Bravo!  Maybe it's the opportunity to celebrate someone's life, in which case the birthday boy or girl becomes the person of honor for the day.  In this day and age, many people who are monetarily gifted might spend upwards of $100,000 on a party, thus bestowing upon themselves the authority to act as king or queen for the day.  In a place with few financial resources, however, it might not even mean a tamale.

What does this say about the people who only know how to celebrate by "doing something"?  Asking if someone is "doing something" for his/her birthday would suggest doing something out of the ordinary that would, consequently, count as "something."  My take on it is that one should "do something" every day so that, come birthday time, what one actually does is "nothing."

People often say, "it's the thought that counts."  I disagree.  It's the action.  I'm not saying that someone has to shell out lots of money -- or even any money -- to show their appreciation of somebody or to celebrate something.  But it's people's individual ways -- with respect to their everyday practices -- that reveal their true intentions.  Personally, I think people should adopt a well-intentioned mentality every day of the year.  Then, on the anniversary of their birth, they can merely sit back and reflect contentedly that they have lived every day of the previous year to the fullest.  They can be proud that every day has meant something because they have done something every day, raising the default bar so that something has become the new nothing.  I guess, then, when people ask what I'm doing for my birthday, it's with the something-nothing in mind.  So, to that, I say that this year, I'm just going to keep doing what I've been doing so that by the time my last birthday has rolled around, my collective days of doing nothing will have inspired others to turn "somethings" into "nothings" and will have left a lasting mark.**

**(Coincidentally enough, had I been born a boy, my name would have been Mark.)

Could you pour some sugar in my World Cup?

World Cup fever is upon us and the 2010 games are under way!  Just from watching the games and from seeing the fullness of the stadiums (stadia?), it's easy to tell how much pride people have for their home country as well as for the sport of soccer, football, fútbol, futebol -- whatever you want to call it.  While the World Cup is, indeed, a competition, it brings out such profound emotion among its players, fans, and even non-fans.

As I sit glued to the TV, watching the players from these 32 countries compete against each other, I realize that they are all motivated by a common goal (no pun intended).  Several months ago, I wrote a blog about judging people and the idea that members of countries with few financial resources choose to spend their money on soccer jerseys and not something more conducive to helping their communities to prosper (that being according to the American perspective on what it means to "prosper," of course).  Well, in seeing the hope and the group unity that is awakened by the World Cup makes me wonder whether the World Cup could achieve more than simply determining the winner of a soccer tournament.

Current events have us shaking our heads at the BP oil spill or at natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, etc.) or wars, but we as a community -- a global community of more than 6 and a half billion people -- have the power to overhaul the greater school of thought among us.  In other words, look how soccer brings together many of those people.  Everyone is excited and hopeful at what the competition brings and wants their country's team to advance to the finals.  Could it be that the World Cup is a microcosm of the world at large?

You have your die-hard fans (patriots), your fans who don't control their rage when the final whistle is blown (extremists), your team captains and coaches (leaders), your followers (law-abiding members of society), your referees (law enforcement), your yellow cards and red cards (citations/jail), and your uniforms (passports) as a means of identification.  (Naturally, there are also those who couldn't care less (the innocent bystanders/civilians).) Even though 31 teams ultimately end up feeling the pangs of defeat, everyone comes together to celebrate the sport and the fact that everyone exists on a level playing field (again, no pun intended -- well, maybe only a little bit intended), despite the fact that every country's background is vastly different from one another, with some that boast more opportunities, privileges, and resources, financial or otherwise.

Many people have established non-profit organizations centered around soccer as a peacemaking activity (like Grassroot Soccer), but I think perhaps these noble entrepreneurs haven't taken it globally enough. They might set up shop in a small African village or in an off-the-beaten-path Latin American community, but we need something more far-reaching...Then again, you can't create change without a starting point, something small-scale to expand into something more widespread.

I guess my point is this: soccer has the power to bring the world together. Why not take advantage of that so that everyone can wear their respective jerseys but play for the same team?  Is that too much to ask?  Coaches, fans, and players all working together? It all starts with the kickoff...

The Heinz dilemma...is there a right answer?

"In Europe a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2000, ten times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said "No." The husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have done that? Why?" [Kohlberg, 1969, p. 376]

The "Heinz" dilemma was created by American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987), known for his theory of stages of moral development.

What do you think about Heinz's actions?  Items to consider: spousal relationships and obligations, property rights

Reflection on language learning

On February 10, 2009, my teacher gave my class 15 minutes to "reflect" upon language learning.  Now, it's not easy for me to  simply "reflect" on command but, for whatever reason, this time I managed a draft of something. Let me know what you think.
-----------

In language learning, there's a point where everything just "clicks."  Thinking no longer occurs in English but, rather, in the target language (for me, anyway).  When I studied Spanish, it came pretty easily to me.  My last year of college, I took a course on all things Don Quixote, which included reading the 1,000-plus page book.  While I loved reading that book, I struggled with it.  A lot of the language was antiquated and there were so many nuances to get.  Fortunately, because we discussed the book so extensively in class, I believe I was able to absorb most of those nuances (I don't think it would ever be possible to get all of them).  Had I not taken the class, however, I know I would have missed out on a lot of the book's subtleties.

When I studied Arabic, I didn't reach the "clicking point" before I had to put the language aside.  It was difficult and, though I kept working at it, the time that was necessary to devote to it became too great and I had to put it aside.

Guiding principles: It's better to understand a few items really well than to have a satisfactory comprehension of a broad range of material (with respect to language learning), although depending on the concept, that could be arguable. [Note: I'm not sure if this last part is just notes from the class or part of my response.  In either case, I agree with the message.]

-----------

What makes a good teacher?

The other day, as I was cleaning out old graduate work (since, being a Master now, I don't need any of it!), I came across a few items I drafted in class that I thought I would share.

I wrote this first item on October 2, 2008.  I had five minutes to free-write about what makes a good teacher.  This was my response:

A good teacher is someone who not only makes his/her students feel comfortable in the classroom but who also encourages students to participate actively.  Thus, the classroom environment becomes one in which, regardless of outside circumstances, everyone is an equal member of the class and has the opportunity to contribute as much as anyone else.  A good teacher strives to achieve this goal, while at the same time not letting the students forget where they come from.

-----------
What do you think makes a good teacher?  Are there different criteria for a teacher by profession and a teacher by nature?