Thursday, June 28, 2012

Today I'm watching videos of Nordoff Robbins' work on the effects of music on people

Nordoff Robbins seeks to cultivate music therapy for people who are otherwise non-responsive, but when watching the videos, one of a woman with severe dementia and another with a low functioning autistic boy,  I felt their responses embody what music does to anybody.  As sentimental as it may be, I just felt what they are innocently expressing overtly is a good embodiment of what happens to most people connecting with music - only in their bedrooms, when nobody's home, and the lights are low. 


Jack from Nordoff Robbins on Vimeo.




Kath from Nordoff Robbins on Vimeo.

Monday, June 18, 2012

today i'm reading conversations from former high school classmates on the subject of race and Obama, but really just race.


I changed the names in some sort of attempt of not infringing on privacy, but it was already on Facebook, so I copied it word for word.  This may also be stealing, but today I was just so invested in following conversations that unfurled from two extremely intelligent individuals that I knew in a predominantly white, conservative environment.  Maybe it's different when race conversations of this level come from a personal experience, such as high school, as opposed to the disconnect of public media, however it is, the conversation I think is valuable and pertinent. 


Chad  shared a link.
June 14
the 2012 presidential election will be a referendum on race in america.
How Racist Are We? Ask Google
campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com
Research that compares the use of racially charged search terms with voting patterns suggests that Barack Obama's race lowers his chance of re-election.
Like · · Share

        Dan - I thought the 2008 election was supposed to be the referendum on race. Do we have to have a black president from here on out to prove America isn't racist?
        June 14 at 4:03pm · Like
        Chad - does the successive election of 44 white presidents prove that america is racist? your question is misleading, as it implies that the election of a black person to high office is proof that america is post-racial. america is in fact still very racist...so no, one more term in office isn't proof of anything to me.

        the only significant development in race relations between 2008-2012 is that the racially motivated animus towards obama - partly because of the economy, and partly because of the ubiquitous nature of racism in our country - is more deeply entrenched.
        June 14 at 7:01pm · Like
        Dan -so then 2012 isn't a referendum on race?
        June 14 at 9:39pm · Like
        Dan Other points..
        1) Obama is the 44th President. Does he not count as non-white now? It seems rather petty (read: racist) to say he's not "black enough."
        2) Racism used to be much more extreme than it is now which can account for the majority of the 43(.5?) non-white presidents... but black America makes up 13% of Americans. So we'd expect in a post-racial America that only 1 in 9-10 presidents be black, right? What I fail to understand is the end goal. When can we say racism is dead? What needs to happen? It seems like pre-2008, the line was "well there's never been a black president." Are you saying now there needs to be a 100% black president? Do the next 6 presidents need to be 100% black to compensate for the 43.5 white presidents we've had so far in order to reach 13% of presidents being black presidents? What about other races? What about females? They make 50+% of the population and there's never been a female president.
        3) What if a conservative black was elected (eg Herman Cain or Condoleezza Rice)? Would he/she count in healing the racial divide in America or are they just "uncle toms" or puppets of the white racist cause?
        June 14 at 9:55pm · Like
        Dan- ‎43(.5?) white* presidents
        June 14 at 10:11pm · Like
        Chad- Dan, your play on words is cute, but not really too clever. yes, 2012 is a referendum on race in america. yes, 2008 was also a referendum on race in america. is that clear?

        after rereading my post, i see how you could conclude that i don't think obama is black, as i said the US has elected 44 white presidents in a row. if you read more critically though, you would have noticed that the second paragraph clearly says that the racial animus towards obama has increased over the last four years. do you think that i was saying that the racial animus towards a white president has grown over that same time period? you clearly must have as your entire response turns on that assumption.

        i guess as long as we're talking about construction and grammar, i should probably point out that you read into my comments that obama isn't black enough. i didn't write that, or even get anywhere close to insinuating that. in any event, thank you for giving me a proper education on what petty racism looks like among black folks, it's definitely informative.

        i'll do my best to address all of the logical leaps you've taken in constructing your response. you start by saying in "a post-racial america we'd expect...". i don't have to make any assumptions to see what's wrong with that language, because it's plain on its face. if we were truly in a post-racial america, there's no need to state that we're in a post-racial america. you've fallen into the paradox that so many do, america won't be post-racial until there's no need to refer to it as so.

        secondly, to use your own analytical framework, if whites make up approximately 60% of the population, wouldn't that mean that income, unemployment, incarceration rates, etc...should follow that same distribution? why aren't you criticizing those statistical anomalies? why do you constrain blacks to proportionate representation, and say nothing about the overrepresentation of whites in virtually every facet of american society? should whites be incarcerated more frequently, be disenfranchised more often, give up some of their wealth in society in order to more accurately reflect statistical averages? the questions you've posed are ridiculous.

        third, you ask the question when can we say racism is dead? how about when it actually is? you point to obama as the final nail in the coffin of american racism. obama has great symbolic value in the context of american race relations, but beyond that, his value is only anecdotal. i find it hard to believe that you can actually extrapolate his presidency to mean that american racism now ceases to exist. if you really believe that, you're part of the problem. a colorblind approach only works when you're white. i assure you, while race may not be that important to you, it is to many of us who don't happen to share your skin color.

        further, why do whites get to say when racism is over? there are some other ethnic groups that share this country with you, they may like a say too.

        your next points are only meant to muddy the waters, so i'll answer them succinctly. yes, women are underrepresented. yes, other minority groups are underrepresented. what's your point? do i care about those issues? of course. is this a zero sum game where one can only care about a single issue at the expense of all others? you're qualified to answer that one.

        your final point is pretty interesting. are conservative blacks "uncle toms"? well, i guess it depends on who you ask, but that's what intrigues me. what's intriguing is that you assume that liberal blacks hold conservative blacks with contempt, as if liberal blacks are a monolithic entity. i don't know if you're aware of this, but we hold our own, independent ideas about things. we can actually think for ourselves. the way you framed that question is so simplistic, you surely could've come up with something more sophisticated. also, shouldn't healing the racial divide include all races working together? why is the onus on blacks to heal this nation? i guess if i assume that there isn't an actual racial divide, but only a perceived one, i can see where you're coming from. but accomplishing that would require that i suspend my disbelief, and that i cannot do.
        Friday at 12:04am · Like · 2
        Dan- Your comments raise a couple questions but let's take them one at a time... If the 2012 presidential election is a referendum on race, what's that really mean? Does it mean if President Obama is re-elected, then American racism is dwindling and conversely, if not, racism is still "deeply entrenched" in our society? Isn't that a false dichotomy?

        P.S. I apologize for coming off as trying to play linguistic tricks. I want to understand where you are coming from.
        Friday at 12:23am · Like
        Chad- i've painted with a broad brush. i apologize for diminishing the efforts of many white brothers and sisters towards a more equitable society.
        Friday at 12:23am · Like
        Chad- it means that we'll see how many americans vote against obama mainly because of his race, and not because of differences in political ideology. during 44's first term, it's apparently okay to refer to the sitting president as muslim in a pejorative way, constantly question his citizenship, compare him to hitler, etc...cutting through the b.s., those who say these things about him in public are probably calling him a nigger in private. there's serious racial tension bubbling below the surface of politically correct everyday life here in america. you're perfectly within your rights to make whatever deductions you please from this election's outcome, as i'm free to make my own.

        the way you've framed your question is again too simplistic. i'd agree with you that your statement puts forth a false dichotomy, which i'm sure was the intent.

        if you really wanted to understand where i was coming from you could've just asked. i expect others to have different opinions, and i respect those differences. i appreciate the richness found in different perspectives and schools of thought. but far from trying to engage in a conversation that pushed the dialogue forward, it seems like your only goal was to poke holes in my premise.

        when i address issues pertaining to race in america, it's not in the abstract. a flippant treatment of my personal perspective is offensive because it means that you've already mentally taken the steps necessary to make my perspective subordinate to your own, i.e., you as a white man is going to tell me about what life is like for a black man.

        i'll talk about anything with anyone, but i do my best to do it with respect, and with an appreciation of the dignity of the other participant.
        Friday at 6:22pm · Like
        Dan- I'm struck by this line: "a flippant treatment of my personal perspective is offensive because it means that you've already mentally taken the steps necessary to make my perspective subordinate to your own, i.e., you as a white man is going to tell me about what life is like for a black man."

        First, can I not challenge your thinking as you are mine?
        Second, does that frame every disagreement we may have as racial just due to the fact that I'm white and you're black? And further as a white man, am I, therefore, unable to empathize with the hatred another feels against him or her, whether it be racism, sexism, etc?

        I think these are some of the reasons we can't have a real discussion about race in America. If I disagree, I "don't know what it's like" or I'm speaking out of a racial bias. How can there be any back-and-forth under those circumstances?
        Yesterday at 10:08am · Like
        Chad- of course you can challenge me...when did i say you couldn't?

        "does that frame every disagreement..."? until we both become different races, i don't see how it could be framed in any other way. that doesn't mean that the disagreements must necessarily be adversarial. and i don't think there's anything wrong with approaching the conversations in this way. your experiences as a white male inform your perspective, just as my experiences inform mine.

        yes, you can empathize with others of different races and genders. i didn't see much empathy in your previous comments, though. it seemed like you were basically asking the question of what needs to happen before blacks shut up about race and agree that things aren't that bad anymore. i know these aren't your actual words, but that's what i gathered the subtext to be. if i'm wrong about that please let me know.

        why can't we agree that you don't know what it's like, and start from there? i think that's the problem, that too many of our white brothers and sisters assume to know what life is like for minorities in america. of corse everyone is free to hold their own opinions, but instead of simply holding opinions, ask questions and get the facts.
        25 minutes ago · Like
    Write a comment...

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

In rememberance of a fierce library advocate, a great writer: Ray Bradbury.

- "I spent three days a week for 10 years educating myself in the public library, and it's better than college. People should educate themselves - you can get a complete education for no money. At the end of 10 years, I had read every book in the library and I'd written a thousand stories."

- “Libraries raised me.  I don’t believe in colleges and universities. I believe in libraries.." 
  
- "You must read dreadful dumb books and glorious books, and let them wrestle in beautiful fights inside your head, vulgar one moment, brilliant the next. You must lurk in libraries and climb the stacks like ladders to sniff books like perfumes and wear books like hats upon your crazy heads. I wish you a wrestling match with your Creative Muse that will last a lifetime. I wish craziness and foolishness and madness upon you .... which finally means, may you be in love every day for the next 20,000 days. And out of that love, remake a world."
 
- "My tunes and numbers are here.  They have filled my years, the years when I refused to die.  And in order to do that I wrote, I wrote, I wrote, at noon or 3:00AM.  

 So as not to be dead."