Author: Symone Ryans

In this week’s reading Who Gets to be Afraid in America? I found this article very interesting and quite frankly emotional. It became hard to read this piece from an academic perspective and not bring in my personal experiences and feelings about the subject matter. Being a black woman and remembering my own reaction when Ahmaud Arbery was killed in 2020 reading this article brought up feelings that I forgot that I had. But these forgotten feelings are ones that I know well, I do not think of this article as a wokeist agenda but rather a lived reality of many black Americans. Throughout my time in this course, I have learned and explored viewpoints and academic tools that might not align with my own but have still tried to understand them and see their point of view, but when looking at this article in relation to the course I am struggling to understand the connection to the intellectual class. Is the connection between the author and how they fit into the intellectual class or the subject matter that they are writing about? After reading this piece I went back to the syllabus to see where it fit into that and when I saw that the author was a professor at BU I thought that the connection could be because our two schools are very similar in style of teaching. Anyone can correct me if I am wrong or blinded by personal feelings and emotions but I did not find that this article was pushing the author’s viewpoint into an academic setting as I viewed it as an opinion piece and not something that was intended to be used as an academic tool. 

When tying back to the title of the article, I think that anyone can be afraid in America based on any social identifiers but from a sociological perspective, functionalism works best here to see how functions and conversely dysfunction that are a result of racism. From a functionalist point of view, the death of Ahmaud Arbery is part of a system of modern racism that functions to allow a dominant group to hold power over another resulting in the death of the subordinate racial group. 

A few questions that I have in relation to this article:

Is there a case in which people who are in a dominant group, not just related to race, truly feel afraid in America? Or is this just a feeling for ones who are in a minority?

“When white men murder men like me, they call it self-defense. And they are believed. When men like me defend ourselves against violent white men, they call us the aggressors. And they are believed.” In relation to this quote from the article, does the language that we use to describe others and stereotypical ideas of them perpetuate acts of violence?

In this week’s reading White Fragility, the patterns that are laid out about why it is difficult for white people to understand racism as a system and in terms of lead to white fragility are ones that I wanted to look at further. One of the patterns that I found the most interesting was individualism. The concept is that white people are taught to look at themselves as individuals and not as a racial group hence why it becomes easier to deny that racism is a system. When racism becomes an individual problem the conversation then shifts to the rhetoric of “well I am different, I am not racist” rather than understanding that racism is not a micro problem it is a macro issue. I do not think that the author is trying to state that every white person feels like this or that they should take responsibility for the actions of other white people. Still, I do think that the further white people move away from individualism and understand the past actions of the white race, and know that these actions have shaped our society today. Often times people are very quick to defend themselves in times when they are called out for a racist act and this goes into the notion of white fragility and how with forms of discomfort involving race there is a pushback from people who have white fragility.

Another reading that I wanted to note is Call Out Ableism. I think this project is very important for people to understand and self-reflect on. The dictionary part of the website was one that I found interesting I have not heard of some of the terms before and being able to read them to make sure that I can do what I can to be an ally for this community is important to me. I think that now more than ever people are more aware of being ableist and what they say especially when not politically correct. But there are still people who use these derogatory terms quite often, on Bucknell’s campus I hear people say these terms shamelessly every day in a sense of malintent and as a joke, but nevertheless, it is a problem. Being an ableist is something that I do not understand, if someone has a disability whether visible or not it is not something that anyone else has the right to speak on, make fun of, or take advantage of. Ableism is like any other ism (in a slang sense) that is an oppressive discriminatory attitude or belief. Often times people who have disabilities are left out of marginalized groups and their struggles may not be seen as valid as something like racism or sexism. This project brings awareness to that and provides a source of education and also allows people in this community to speak their truth and regain power in this relationship with ableists.

When thinking about identity politics, I had not heard langue used in an academic setting and honestly thought it was something that the media and politicians made up in the past decade to polarize the country more and to stop any bipartisan agreement. When reflecting on our class discussion on identity and how it is unstable I wanted to compare that to identity politics. Because your own identity outside of social identifiers is unstable but within those identifiers, it is fairly stable and it does change how you think about politics especially when your identity is at stake in those debates. In this reading Mitchell does note that when thinking of this unstable identity it is more along the lines of a radical relationship, he states in part one “More importantly; the relationship is of a specific type, with discernible religious overtones: the unpayable and permanent debt one kind owes another”. When identity takes on this radical unstable relationship the unpayable debt that Mitchell brings up changes the relationship one identity has with another. Putting this in the scope of politics I do think that when identity politics becomes unstable or radical then this sense of permanent debt feeds into a mindset that there is always a lesser group, feeding into the idea of polarization and in the context of the US government the lack of bipartisan agreement because both parties have members of the radical and unstable sector of identity politics.

This week’s reading was one that I found very thought-provoking and made me self-reflect on what I thought of as true and what values are in relation to others and the world. While I did not self-reflecting a part of the reading that I had trouble understanding is at the bottom of page 20 to the top of page 2. When looking at truths and what can be claimed as a personal truth or as Mitchell says “my truth” he brings up an example of what can’t be true and the limits truth has. In one of these examples, he states that one can not choose to be a gender that they were not born as, and even after transitioning it is still not true that they are the gender that they identify as because at a genetic level he claims that there is no such thing as transgender. I found myself questioning this extensively because I do know transgender people and to say that they do not exist I find a very problematic and frankly transphobic comment. I understand that Mitchell is looking at this on a genetic level but gender and sex are two different things, and this might be a very new concept that has not caught on completely, but gender is a social construct and it is fluid and a spectrum. Sex is what is assigned as birth and it is a binary unless someone is intersex. I also found it interesting that he paired that comment with the idea of being transracial. I understand why he might try to compare the two to prove a point but they are drastically different. Gender is an internal sense of self, race is not. One can not inherit gender, unlike race. Race is also not just physical differences but it holds very strong social connotations like a culture where gender has no culture.

As I am writing the book review on this novel I wanted to keep my personal opinion and beliefs out of the review and use the blog as a place to voice those opinions so the review can be a way to flesh out the ideas, concepts, and quality of the writing. In our talk with peter wood about his novel 1620 and the response to the 1619 project, I asked him a question about the use of the word dehumanization in relation to slavery. Wood brings up that dehumanization can only go so far. This is a concept that I am confused by because I have always thought of slavery in the united states as a complete dehumanization of black enslaved people mainly because of how history has taught the concept and how slavery has manifested itself in other forms later in history. Wood points out what he says are contradictions in the 1619 project but I was more confused by his analysis and pushback of the project. While I have no problem with the critical analysis of the text some of the language and rhetoric behind what Wood is saying I do have problems with. Something that I struggled to understand is when he states that our constitution and laws should be colorblind. That is a very harmful viewpoint when it comes to race. The historical context of being color blind plays into race-neutral language with helps perpetuate the idea that if everyone is equal in the eyes of the law then there will be no race-related issues. The problem with this narrative is that based on the history of our country. People have been sorted and judgments have been passed based on race so having a colorblind way of looking at society would actually do more harm than good. Wood says that the reason he thinks being colorblind would be the most beneficial is because “our society should strive for the common good, which is best achieved by treating one another as individuals, not as representatives of identity groups.” This way of thinking in my opinion is not possible because when one’s entire existence has been based on that they are inferior to others because they are black then it is impossible to ask black people not to be representatives of an identity group because in our society that has been the majority of their identity. Wood does state that the concept of race will not disappear anytime soon so he does acknowledge that his idea of being colorblind is not easily achievable just based on how our society is structured. I do commend him for not wanting to have race be fundamental in terms of how people are treated in society the only thing is the concept of equality versus equity. Because we have not always treated people the same we can not start that now because of the systemic issues that have risen. 

A few questions that I would like to pose are: Does Wood see any benefits from the project or solely critiques? In what ways is postmodernism effective and harmful in the 1619 project, if at all?

In our conversation with Gad Saad, there were many things that I questioned in the reading and in the conversation. As a critique, I thought that while he is very smart his reading and answers to questions used condescending language. I personally did not agree with anything that he said and I found him very provocative in a way that was off-putting. In terms of his writing and the book itself, I could not read it without being confused or getting frustrated, I guess playing into the point he made about the social justice warrior student who is driven by emotion. I am driven by emotion and try to be politically correct but I won’t deny the truth of a fact. Something that I did not understand was how this reading related to the course topic and this is not just based on the fact that I did agree with him because there have been readings that I did not agree with but I felt that they related to our course. Saad touched on in his talk the thinking of an intellectual and how the ones in his realm are leftist ones he opposes because they are not looking at facts and are stuck in their ways but he did note that there are people on the right that he would also agree with and he does not have any stake in American politics.  One part of the reading that I had the most difficulty understanding was in the section titled Death of the West by a Thousand Cuts. I found this section very childish in thought and explanation. This section was very problematic in terms of what he is arguing as the reasons the west is dying. I have found in my time in this course it is almost impossible to remain unbias in the delivery of opinions (or “facts”) and Saad’s biases are heavily shown in this section. The chart that is on 21 is something that I would want to discuss further as to why Saad thinks that these reasons are a part of the decline. But something else I would want to know is why does he use the language that he does such as language police and social justice worries and identity police. I think that his phrasing these “cuts” this way takes away from his argument because I can’t take it seriously that in order to prove a point he feels the need to talk down on people who do not have the same opinion as him. One part of the reading I wanted to highlight was at the end of chapter one when he says “Unless we win the battle of ideas, the enemies of reason, along with the mind viruses that they promulgate, will lead our free societies to lunatic self-destruction.” While I do not agree with most of what saad says this is a point I would want to speak more with him about. One question I would want to ask is, isn’t diversity of thought even if it is wrong beneficial for society? Why is it a virus if people do not believe what you say to be fact? 

In this week’s blog post something that I want to look into more is our class discussion on the new student left. This is not a group that I would have ever labeled as a part of the intellectual class. Many different topics and thoughts were shared about this group and their influence or lack there of. The thought was brought up that this group might have actually been naive in thought and action, but I want to push back on that. After discussing this group I think that they laid the groundwork for younger people to be involved in social and political movements. This group not only allowed for a future student intellectual class to rise but also brought about a lot of change as well. The involvement that was discussed in this reading includes but is not limited to civil rights, anti-war, religious freedom, and many others. All of these protests are something I was aware of but had never thought of as an intellectual act before now. On page 430 of the Feuer reading, he states “The movements were always a source of intellectual ferment on the campuses; they had a sense of the drama of ideas. They made the average undergraduate and professor more aware of the emerging problems and realities of the world. They were a channel for the noblest idealistic aspirations of adolescence”. This part of the conclusion encapsulated my thoughts on the reading and rounded out how these student movements are truly an act of the intellectual class. 

I wanted also to explore how we can see the influence of this group in today’s society. Student protests are something becoming more widespread. And while it might not be the same protest as the Students of the new left they have the same implications. In my lifetime there has been a large shift in what younger people fight back against. In recent times some of the things that come to mind are social and political such as gun safety, women’s health rights, Black Lives Matter, and LGBTQ equality. These are the main issues that are arising at the forefront of society and since my time in college, I have seen and been a part of movements like these on campus. But in relation to the quote, I stated earlier I question that I want to pose is while I feel that student movements are effective and influential, do older generations actually listen and want to enact change as much as students do? Is there a better way to gain the older generations’ respect when it comes to raising awareness on social and political issues?

The reading this week that I found the most interesting was “America Has Gone Mad”. It was interesting to read something about America from a different perspective and especially from a critical gaze. Something that shocked me at the beginning of the reading was on page 192 “German nazism, Soviet communism, and ( especially) American capitalism were in this respect utterly alike for him, as for many others; Mounier’s mysterious “personalism” operated from similar premises.” I have never looked at our capitalistic view in relation to nazis and communists, mainly because of the negative historical connotation around these groups, it was shocking to have American capitalism grouped in with that. Maybe because when one is so ingrained in that specific society they do not realize the harmfulness of it or the perceptive of it to other societies. Something that makes me uncomfortable in this reading was the description of Jewish people and Americans. Saying that both of these groups have polluted Western society and culture because of their access to wealth and power while being rootless. I found this statement to be classist and harmful to not just these groups of people but to anyone who has built themselves from nothing. I am not condoning the way that Americans built their empire but to say that they are polluting western society implies that they are seen as lesser and toxic. These parts of the reading made it more difficult to look at this reading objectively and without further biases. 

After this point, I found the rest of the reading hypocritical. Especially the part about how being Anti-Semitic is now not respectable. Jewish people were just called toxins to the western culture but then now being Anti-Semitic is not ok? I understand that this peace is not placing all blame on America and it even calls out the French overreaction to capitalism but I don’t think bringing up the pollution of western society was necessary to get the point across.  

Something I would like to delve further into is the idea that American intellectuals and European ones can not coexist.  It does not make sense to me that to oppose one is to strengthen the other. If intellectuals are supposed to be a part of a community then why is there such disparity between different countries? The alienation of this group of people makes it seem like they would want more of a community base rather than to be in constant competition with other intellectuals. Is the disparity between European intellectuals and American ones the difference between the new class (aka the modern way of thinking) and the romantic era? If so is there no evolution and diversity of thought that would drive them together? Just brings up what could be an answer to this question I posed by saying it’s anti-American rhetoric but also a lack of trust in their own judgment, but is there any other explanation to this that might be more deeply rooted in something else, rather than that they think differently?