that one line about ramy's bangla being rudimentary made me absolutely sob (i'm bengali) and i wanna talk about why
there's so much to it both contextually with ramy's character as well as historically. contextually because ramy is fluent in 6 languages, an insane number of languages for one person but none of which are his mother tongue. he's described as a performer, one who knows he can't blend in so instead he stands out as a means to escape as much of the racism as he can. he gets lost in it that he almost forgets who he is; this is reflected in his language ability too – he gets so lost in his linguistic academics he just barely remembers the native language of his home place that he adores.
and honestly, you can't even really blame ramy for it at all when it was induced. it's the british who saw urdu, arabic and persian as more valuable than bangla, it's the british that make ramy put on this act so he can literally stay alive. and when you know the historical relevancies between urdu and bangla, it hurts so much that ramy was forced to forget bangla
very brief history context: after the partition, where british india was split into india, pakistan and east pakistan (now bangladesh) bangla was seen as inferior to urdu due to its hindu connections. bengalis experienced so much shit because of this (and bengali muslims are still dealing with the internalised cultural racism today honestly). pakistanis tried to make the official language urdu, even though literally everyone in east pakistan were bengali and spoke bangla, so bengalis fought back against it. we still celebrate that day today (feb 21)
so to have ramy be in this position in the 1830s where urdu was seen as superior to bangla, especially when ramy is a bengali muslim, is just extremely accurate?? and maybe it's bc we don't have much western literature where we talk about this but it's just so nice to have it acknowledged
the bangla language movement didn't happen until around the 1950s, over a century after babel's timeline, but the seeds are always there. while i do think it comes with both this islamic superiority tendency a lot of asians have (arabs i'm looking at you) and britian's imperialistic racism, i just love how it all makes sense
103 notes
·
View notes
Can you imagine the concept of education – of learning – without artificial scarcity or competition?
What would your educational goals be – for yourself, for your children, for your community, for your country – if you eliminated the framework of competition, hierarchy, or ranking?
I was thinking this when listening to someone say that every parent wants their children to have “every advantage,” and how completely warped that is. Why would you want your child to have an advantage? You should want your child to have the best possible life, but “an advantage” necessitates someone to have an advantage over. When I say I want everyone to have the best possible life, I mean literally everyone, and I mean “best” relative to “all possible life circumstances,” not relative to “all possible other people.”
The person I was talking to didn’t even understand the distinction I was making. The framework, the cultural idea, doesn’t exist, of wanting children to learn things, master skills, and have a high quality of life, without reference to learning more than someone else, being better at skills than someone else, or having a higher quality of life than someone else.
Learning is an infinite resource. There is no reason it should be scarce. There is no reason someone’s ability to learn should take away from someone else’s ability to learn.
The resources to facilitate learning – teachers, textbooks, enrollment slots in a particular school – might be finite, but learning itself is infinite. And we can always train more teachers, print more textbooks, and build more schools, if we have the public will to do it. There is no reason that anyone’s experience of learning should have to be any lesser than any other person’s, or that comparisons like that should even be the relevant frame of reference.
When I try to argue that educational competition is bad, people rebut me by arguing that education is good. We could unpack what kinds of learning are considered “education,” and why some forms of learning are considered essential for everyone and others are considered optional, but that’s not especially relevant to my point. “Education” and “educational competition” are not the same thing. When I say that focusing on 2 year old children being “ready to compete in preschool” is horrifying, people inform me that preschool is good. Sure, preschool can be good. But why does it have to center on “competition” instead of letting literal babies learn at their own pace? We have a society where babies, as soon as they’re born, are put on a path of competition with other newborns, and we think this is normal. It’s bizarre. Even when people do critique the culture of educational competition, they come up with bonkers galaxy brain that reading to children is wrong because it gives them an “unfair advantage” – and that STILL doesn’t challenge the underlying premise that the purpose of education should be “competition”!
To be clear, I want to spell out what I’m NOT saying.
I’m not saying that competition should never be used as a tool in education. Competition can be an incentive or a way to make learning fun. If a school spelling bee makes it more fun for everyone to study spelling, that’s great. But what is the GOAL? Is it competition as a tool towards the goal of learning, or learning as a tool towards the goal of competition? There is a huge difference between “A fun class competition can incentivize students to further the goal of everyone learning more” and “Learning is useful because it furthers the goal of these children ‘defeating’ those children in competition.” And what are the consequences of “success” or “failure”?
I’m not saying “And that’s why parents should send their kids to public school instead of private school.” Milquetoast liberals at publications like The Atlantic sometimes critique the competitive-private-school culture of educational competition (while constantly promoting it in every other context), but only to argue that, out of “fairness”, everyone should go to public school instead. Milquetoast liberals see universal public schooling, beginning in infancy, as the solution, because they identify the problem as “We shouldn’t be hierarchically ranking children on unfair things like race and class; instead, we should be purely hierarchically ranking children in some kind of ‘fair’ way.” That is still hierarchically ranking children! There is no “fair” way to do that! Public schools rank children in a hierarchy. Private schools rank children in a hierarchy. Homeschooling families rank children in a hierarchy even when they have no one to rank against! I am not interested in making hierarchies “more fair” (which they can never be) or “equal” (which is an oxymoron).
I’m not saying “Everyone’s educational experience should be the same, because that’s equality.” For one thing, equality is not sameness. For another thing, I’m not even really advocating “equality.” I’m advocating universal supportive education. And if everyone in the entire world had access to universal supportive education, there would probably be a wide disparity in what people would learn and pursue. Which is a good thing! No one person can know everything, so it’s good for people to diversify and specialize. The only reason there’s so much pressure to standardize educational experiences is to make it easier to assign people places in the hierarchy. Our society has really concluded “We can’t objectively rank an art student against a physics student, so the obvious solution is to eliminate art” rather than “Why are we ranking people?” Furthermore, universal supportive education can be lifelong, so there’s no time or age by which someone who hasn’t learned something has “missed their chance.”
What I am saying is that we should reimagine what education and learning can look like if we break out of the limiting framework of competition and hierarchy. We can build a society where everyone is free and supported to learn in the way that works for them without a system that necessitates “losers” to be dominated and defeated.
139 notes
·
View notes
The Unofficial Black History Book
Huey P. Newton (1942-1989)
'The Revolution has always been in the hands of the young. The young always inherit the revolution.' - Huey Newton
This is his story.
Huey Percy Newton was born on February 17th, 1942, in Monroe, Louisiana. The youngest of seven children to Armelia Johnson and Walter Newton, he was named after former Governor of Louisiana, Huey Long.
His family relocated to Oakland, California, in search of better economic opportunities in 1945. His family struggled financially and frequently relocated, but he never went hungry or homeless.
Growing up in Oakland, Newton recalled his white teachers making him feel ashamed for being African-American, despite never being taught anything useful. In his Autobiography, ‘Revolutionary Suicide’, he wrote – “Was made to feel ashamed of being black. During those long years in Oakland Public Schools, I did not have one teacher who taught me anything relevant to my own life or experience. Not one instructor ever awoke in me a desire to learn more or to question or to explore the worlds of literature, science, and history. All they did was try to rob me of the sense of my own uniqueness and worth, and in the process nearly killed my urge to inquire.”
He also had a troubled childhood; he was arrested several times as a teenager for gun possession and vandalism.
Huey was illiterate when he graduated from high school, but he taught himself to read and write by studying poetry before enrolling at Merritt College.
During his time there, he supported himself by breaking into homes in Oakland and Berkeley Hills and committing other minor offenses. He also attended Oakland College and San Francisco Law School, ostensibly to improve his criminal skills.
He joined Pi Beta Sigma Fraternity while still a student at Merritt College and met Bobby Seale, a political activist and engineer. Huey also fought for curriculum diversification, the hiring of more black instructors, and involvement in local political activities in the Bay Area.
In addition, he was exposed to a rising tide of Black Nationalism and briefly joined the Afro-American Association, where he studied Frantz Fanon, Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, E. Franklin Frazier, James Baldwin, Karl Marx, and Vladimir Lenin.
Huey had adopted a Marxist/Leninist viewpoint in which he saw the black community as an internal colony ruled by outside forces such as white businessmen, City Hall, and the police. In October 1966, he and Bobby Seale founded The Black Panther Party for self-defense, believing that the black working class needed to seize control of the institutions that most affected their community.
It was a coin toss that resulted in Newton becoming defense minister and Seale becoming chairman of the Black Panther Party. Newton’s job as the Minister of Defense and main leader of the Black Panther Party was to write in the Ten-Point Program, the founding document of the Party, and he demanded that blacks need the “Power to determine the destiny of our Black Community”. It would allow blacks to gain “Land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice, and peace.”
The Panthers took advantage of a California law allowing people to carry non-concealed weapons and established armed patrols that monitored police activity in the Black Community.
One of the main points of focus for the Black Panther Party was the right to self-defense. Newton believed and preached that sometimes violence, or even the threat of violence, is required to achieve one's goals.
Members of the Black Panther Party once stormed the California Legislature while fully armed in order to protest the outcome of a gun bill.
Newton also established the Free Breakfast for Children Program, martial arts training for teenagers, and educational programs for children from low-income families.
The Black Panthers believed that in the Black struggle for justice, violence or the potential for violence may be necessary.
The Black Panthers had chapters in several major cities and over 2,000 members. Members became involved in several shoot-outs after being harassed by police.
On October 28, 1967, the Panthers and the police exchanged gunfire in Oakland. Huey was injured in the crossfire, and while recovering in the hospital, he was charged with killing an Oakland police officer, John Frey.
He was convicted of voluntary manslaughter the following year.
Huey was regarded as a political prisoner, and the Panthers organized a 'Free Huey' campaign led by Panther Party Minister Eldridge Cleaver. And Charles R. Geary, a well-known attorney who was in charge of Newton’s legal defense.
Newton was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter in 1968 and sentenced to 2-15 years in prison. However, the California Appellate Court ordered a new trial in May 1970. The conviction was reversed on appeal, the case was dismissed by the California Supreme Court, and Huey was acquitted.
Huey renounced political violence after being released from prison. Over a six-year period, 24 Black Panther members were killed in gunfights with the police. Another member, George Jackson, was killed in August 1971 while serving time in San Quentin Prison.
The Black Panther Party, under the leadership of Newton, gained international support. This was most evident in 1970 when Newton was invited to visit China. Large crowds greeted him enthusiastically, holding copies of "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung," as well as signs supporting the Panther Party and criticizing US imperialism.
In the early 1970s, Newton's leadership of the Black Panther Party contributed to its demise. He oversaw a number of purges of Party members, the most famous of which was in 1971 when he expelled Eldridge Cleaver in what became known as the Newton-Cleaver split over the party's primary function.
Newton wanted the party to be solely focused on serving African-American communities, whereas Cleaver believed the party should be focused on developing relationships with international revolutionary movements. The schism resulted in violence between the factions and the deaths of several Black Panther members. The Black Guerrilla Family (BGF) was one of several factions that had broken away from the main party.
Then, in 1974, Newton was accused of assaulting a 17-year-old prostitute named Kathleen Smith, who later died, raising the charge to murder. Instead of facing trial, Huey fled to Cuba with his girlfriend at the time, where he remained for three years. The key witness in the trial was Crystal Gray. And three Black Panther members attempted to assassinate her before she gave her testimony.
Huey returned to the States in 1976 to stand trial but denied any involvement. The jury was deadlocked, and Newton was eventually acquitted after two mistrials.
In 1978, he enrolled in the History of Consciousness program at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and earned his Doctorate in 1980.
"War Against the Panthers: A Study of Repression in America," his dissertation, was later turned into a book.
On charges of embezzling Panther Party funds, Huey P. Newton was sentenced to 6 months in prison followed by 18 months on probation in 1982.
On August 22, 1989, Newton was assassinated by a member of the BGF, named Tyrone Robinson.
Huey was 46 years old at the time of his assassination. Robinson was convicted of Huey’s murder in 1991 and sentenced to 32 years to life in prison.
His wife, Fredricka Newton, carried on his legacy. 'Revolutionary Suicide,' his autobiography, was first published in 1973 and then republished in 1995.
Huey Newton was not perfect, but he did fight to protect the rights of the Black Community. The rights that we're still fighting for today.
__
Previous
Ruby Bridges
Next
Henry "Box" Brown
___
My Sources
90 notes
·
View notes
can u help give a definition for what mad pride is and where I can learn about it
Hi! We will do our best to give a definition, but keep in mind that Mad Pride is quite a broad movement - it is intertwined with Mad Liberation and Antipsychiatry, which involve entire schools of thought and academic fields.
Mad Pride, in summary, is a movement in which people take pride in being neurodivergent, mentally ill / disordered, mentally disabled, intellectually disabled, and any variance of the mind that isn't considered "normal" by the psychiatric institution or society at large.
The label of "Mad" is in reference to "madness", and is used as an umbrella term. It is a reclamation of derogatory terms used against those who are mentally atypical. People in the movement often also reclaim terms such as crazy, insane, lunatic, etc. The point is to demonstrate that being mad is not something to be ashamed of.
Currently, people are incarcerated against their will solely for being mentally disordered, or even just abnormal in any way. Any sort of neurodivergence is pathologized and treated as something that must be forcefully cured. Many people do not get a say in their treatment, and they are often coerced into taking medications or doing treatments that they don't want. Psychiatry as an institution largely seeks to force people into normalcy, and has a long history of being used as a tool of oppression against people of color, women, queer people, and more.
Mad Liberation is the movement that seeks to give people autonomy in how they deal with their mental health. It is (generally) anti-incarceration, against the blanket pathologizing of neurodivergency, against forcing people into any sort of treatment, and against the idea that people who are mentally disordered in some way must be cured. Central to the movement is the autonomy of individuals to decide what's best for them, no matter how mad they are.
Here's a good list of literature related to Mad Liberation, as well as a few other resources.
What if Psychiatry is Fake? by Mia Mulder is a good introductory youtube video to some of the problems with the institution of psychiatry.
105 notes
·
View notes