My Blog Reflects on Visual Rhetorical Theory and Disability Rhetoric and their Connections to Classical and Contemporary Rhetorical Theory
An Inconvenient Truth
Chaim Perelman
Charles Peirce
Cicero
Defining Visual Rhetorics
Do the Right Thing
George Campbell
Kenneth Burke
Quintilian
Roland Barthes
Saussure
Semiotics
Stephen Toulmin
The Basics: Semiotics
Umberto Eco
Visual Rhetoric
Wayne Booth
today
April 2009
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
visited *loading* times
I was at a "party" the other night where a friend of mine commented on the necessity of MLK day: "You know that MLK Day is just a chance to keep black people happy. It's a gimme holiday to pacify them." I, then, proceeded to pick my jaw up off the floor because obviously this friend, first, forgot the significance of King's contributions to all humankind. King was for the equality of all human beings--not just "black people." He's honored because he died to insure that everyone can pursue their dreams, so that all of our children can grow up to fulfill their potential, and because of the unwaivering commitment he showed to his race and his nation. We should all be proud, regardless of race, to celebrate MLK Day and to be connected by mere association as "Americans" with MLK.
Second, I love his idea that "white people" had to just throw "black people" a bone, of sorts. "Here's a holiday for you. Now, be quiet." Because, there's not other reason to celebrate MLK Day. (See point 1.)
And, third, I'm disturbed by the lack of audience awareness going on here. Obviously this friend forgot who my boyfriend is and I would bet that he'd never had made such stupid comments if Marc were standing there, too.
So, I'm reminded here lately of this conversation in regard to the MLK Party thrown at Tarleton State University. I'm enormously disappointed in these students (two of whom Marc taught in Comp I and II) and with some of the responses published in the Empire Tribune. And, I've been thinking a lot about the party and response as it relates to Freud's theory of "psychological projection" as it relates to Foucault's theories on power and authority. Specifically, Freud's theory is that we tend to project our own negative characteristics and behaviors onto other groups of people, typically people who are not in positions of power within society. This is like the white welfare mom looking down and denigrating the Hispanic welfare mom. Both are in similar undesirable financial situations, both are typically scorned by the community at large, but the white welfare mom typically has more "power" than the Hispanic welfare mom because simply because the white mom is white. In regard to Foucault, Foucault argues in many of his books that humans strive for power and humans "obey" because of systems of power already in place. Systems reiterated by other systems. So forth and so on.
As it relates to my friend and these Tarleton students: all of them are in positions where they lack certain authority or power in society. My friend is a "$30,000 Millionaire" who works 40-50 hours a week doing a job that probably isn't something he dreamed about as a child. He lives in a modest community, drives a modest car, but by all standards would be considered "Middle Class." Therefore, my friend has no sizable position of authority in society because he doesn't earn an enormous sizable income--the tantamount marker of power in our society. But, he's white. And, as a white man, he has power afforded him by our society because of his race. He can walk through the grocery store he works in and clerks do not follow him waiting for him to shoplift. He can shop for a cell phone without the clerk asking directly, "Are you going to be able to pay for that?" He can pull over on the side of the road for a second to stretch his legs without a highway patrol officer pulling up behind him and asking to see some I.D. and to check him for weapons. He can live in a community without the Denton County Sheriff's Department knocking on his door searching for a meth lab because a "black and white couple" live there. So, yes, he can exert his authority by "giving black people" their one day a year.
These Tarleton students--not much different. Stephenville is really a rural community with few opportunities for economic or personal growth. They attend a school with a (practically) open admissions policy and a reputation for partying and rodeo. And, by looking at the pictures, they aren't too cute or thin. They are probably the "goober white hicks" that "city folk" mock as "ignorant rednecks who marry their cousins." They are twenty year-old kids, with $50 in their bank accounts, and a gas gauge on empty. For argument's sake, they have relatively little authority in our society. But, they can make fun of black people and black culture and call it "free speech." They can have a party and "represent" black people with their toy guns, bandannas, 40 oz. malt liquor wrapped in brown paper bags, fried chicken, bbq ribs, and Aunt Jemimah syrup and call it "innocent fun." Because, at least they are white. At least they have that position of authority upon which to position themselves.
And, it's the "power" aspect of this that seems to have gone overlooked to some critics in Stephenville and my "friend." Sure, black students can have a party where they play bad country music, wear overalls, drink Keystone Light beer, and smoke Virginia Slim cigarettes. But, because of the position of authority that exists in our society, there is imbalance of power. And, that is why it is offensive. Because people use these stereotypes and "markers of black culture" to justify bigotry, racism, and discrimination. And, by having such parties where "black people" are mocked and denigrated only reinforces such positions of authority and power.
Perhaps, it would have been more recognizably offensive if the students were dressed up in "black face"?
Perhaps, we could have a KKK party, complete with hangman's noose, white robes, and burning crosses? (You think I'm joking--a friend actually suggested one of these would be "fun." Seriously.)
Maybe a "Holocaust survivor" party where some dress up as Nazi soldiers and others as emaciated Jews? Maybe paint dark circles under our eyes? Draw in the outline of our rib cages to make us appear malnourished? Or, would that be crossing the line?
