We’re learning right now about residential segregation and gentrification and how race plays into these things. We’re going through everything from heavy theorists like de Certeau and Lefebvre (still haven’t made sense of that dude) to more concrete (and better appreciated) writers and activists such as Dr. John A. Powell – and he actually had something magnificent to say in his speech Regionalism and Race that I’d like to highlight though I’ll just go ahead and attach the PDF:
He said that the problem isn’t that people are looking at history and trying to learn from it, the problem is with whose interpretation of those lessons we’re choosing to accept and follow.
And I just thought that was amazing! Because the clarity of that truth is just stunning. People are looking at the cyclical poverty of minority groups in cities and they look at the predatory lending that went on to systematically shaft them there – and instead of saying, it’s because of predatory lending practices they say it’s because of the people getting the loans! Then the solution becomes to simply stop lending to poor minorities rather than to cease and attack predatory lending(ers).
I earned an A on my presentation – which is kind of astonishing to me considering I think it’s one of the worst I’ve ever given. My information was fine and as exhaustive as one could expect out of a ten minute sound byte but I just let myself get so flustered and harried; you wouldn’t have recognized me, especially not after the victory that was Monterey.
And while I am perversely enjoying the weekly 2 page papers where we discuss a case study of our choice or personal urban experience to analyze under the scope of the week’s readings, I’m having trouble getting my head around the relevancy of a lot of this more involved theory. Many of these academics seem strictly concerned with defining terms like “space” and “time,” which I’m beginning to realize must be where Clinton got the idea for his “define ‘is’” argument.
However, I will say that this week’s presenter – Syeut, a sweet girl from Singapore who’s studying economics (I’m pretty sure) in London – presented on the forced residential and economic diversity integration practices of Singapore. And if these government practices weren’t completely unconstitutional, I’d vote for them immediately. Basically, since Singapore is essentially a migrant population and is so densely populated for such a small country, they have worked it so that (basically) everyone lives in these large, compact high rise apartment complexes. Within these complexes they have quotas requiring a certain percentage of each major and minority racial group of the nation. They also contain apartments of varying sizes scattered throughout in order to appropriately integrate people of varying economic statuses.
And while this has worked very well for them, keeping their schools nice and generally well funded, keeping riots and detrimental prejudices to a minimum, it has also made things difficult for people on the up-and-up who are interested in buying houses or larger flats because of how difficult it can be to resell their current abodes given the quotas. And while you (as I have done) may poo-poo on this setback as small potatoes compared to the apparent social advantages, it’s also completely anti-mainstream American way and our desperate love to our right of property. And while that word “property” can sound immoral in peculiar ways when compared with these other boons, it’s nothing to poo-poo on either. After all, wasn’t the right to property and economic prosperity just as strong a motive for our settler ancestors’ migration as religious freedom? (We won’t get into the torrent of feelings I harbor for their migration here.)
But anyway, I just thought it was a great conversation and case study that I’m glad to now be a part of. Who knew I’d become interested in the residential regulations of Singapore?
Anyhoo, it’s still lonely here but I’m slowly becoming hardened against it, writing a lot more letters than I normally do at school, and that helps (I like to fancy myself as something of a jumper into the letter-writing conversation stylings of the Beats though I’m, admittedly and obviously, nowhere near so cool). And I would still rather be at home just working on the GRE and my honor thesis at my leisure, but all learning is important, right? ... (right?)
I just had dinner with a cousin of mine who is big in the foreign affairs world – just got back from Israel and now he’s on his way to Pakistan – and he’s a wonderful, wonderful guy but it’s frustrating sitting there and having little to nothing to contribute as to the state of the American economy in connection with Pakistan politics given my miniscule knowledge about the complexities of both and then to be kind heartedly and well intentioned-ly grilled about why on earth I’d want to pursue studies in English and American studies when obviously math and science and politics make more sense and are expanding in academic arenas rather than downsizing or stagnating – it’s frustrating in that you can’t really argue that you hope to help get English and American studies programs expanding again because then you just get “the look”.
I tell you what, they wean you on the “you can do anything you want when you grow up” and then they slap you with unintended discouragements and reasons why you shouldn’t want to do that – even though you’ve already gotten to the business of growing up! Oy vey, I tell you… It’s just frustrating to be constantly followed by this specter of What If by people who’ve already made their place in the world. I’m working hard and doing the little extra’s and I’m interested in learning and contributing rather than in simple degree earning as a plus sign in the equation to a bigger paycheck. Of course, I have no delusions about getting rich off a History or American Studies PhD! Who would?
And then I ran into a professor from SU, believe it or not, right there on Broadway. I won’t name names because I wanted to cry after this run-in. It’s a professor I adore and respect very much, but who decided that that was the appropriate time to tell me that she didn’t think I should pursue American Studies over something like English because it just didn’t make any financial sense to enter into a field of study that’s currently downsizing. She essentially told me don’t follow this interest because no one will hire you.
What makes her think that professor-hood was the only thing in the world I was hoping to achieve? What makes her think that no one can get hired in a separate field with an American Studies degree? Look at our Communications department! Dr. Tahm and Dr. Bednar – both American Studies degrees. And what if I wanted to be a literary agent or a museum curator or a high school teacher or a flat-out writer or a critic or drop it all and open up my own dessert shop called Katie’s Confectionary? It’s just…why should I have to so constantly justify what I’m passionate about to all of these successful, well-educated people who all went about getting where they are by different, crazy routes that certainly their parents and teachers wouldn’t have recommended? I know things will be hard, I know we’re in a difficult economic time and that grad schools are filling up and jobs are blipping away – I’m not, and most of my colleagues at SU are not somehow blind to all of these things.
We’re trying and we want to be a part of the conversation.
And I understand wanting to help us into the safer options, take care of us and help us to take better care of ourselves, but there’s a point when that turns into flat discouragement.
Where’s the balance? How do we strike all the right balances? From helping each other versus hurting each other, from improving our neighborhoods to racist gentrification, how do we know where to go and when to stop?
Sorry to be so long winded and convoluted, but what can I say? I’ve been spending too much time with myself.
Ciao for now neighborinos
No comments:
Post a Comment