As far as a sponsor goes there can be many. As far as sponsors go they can be many things, I believe a sponsor can bring the best out of an individual without the most effective attempt. The effects a sponsor might have on his/her mentee can be everlasting and in some cases create unprecedented confidence and structure. In everything we learn there must be a sponsor, everywhere we go there must be one too. I choose to write this response in a reflective tone, how must we continue life without sponsors? There must always be those willing to teach and give their path of fortune onto the next willing generation if not nothing would survive. Sponsors have done so much for literacy. Without it, none of the slaves would have never learned to read or write, left to their own devices one could have only gone so far. I vouch for sponsorship when I think back to some times where I may have never known myself had it been for a sponsor. I think back to a time during my teenage years when I boxed and tried for the Golden gloves medal, my sponsor educated me as to its history, etiquette, process, etc… and without this knowledge I would have failed undoubtedly. There are few things we can accomplish blindly in this world, this must be the reason why we watch one another so closely.
Blog Feed
Class, Mon, 9/30
Baldwin and Obama
In what ways does Obama build on, revise, or disagree with Baldwin?
Deborah Brandt, Sponsors of Literacy
Sponsors, as I have come to think of them, are any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress or withhold literacy—and gain advantage by it in some way. Just as the ages of radio and television accustom us to having programs brought to us by various commercial sponsors, it is useful to think about who or what underwrites occasions of literacy learning and use.
Brandt (166)
Fastwrite
Let’s try to build on Brandt’s thinking. The University of Delaware is sponsoring your literacy. It is—in some way and to some degree—marketing you, as a (soon-to-be-credentialed) graduate, to prospective employers, as well as to the State that it serves as a flagship university. So if you—again, in some way and to some degree—are the “product”, what is it, exactly, that the University is selling? What kind of literacy is it sponsoring?
To Do
- Mon, 9/30, 4:00 pm: Group A responds to Heller.
- Tues, 10/01, 4:00 pm: Everyone else reads Group A’s responses and comments on at least two.
- Wed, 10/02, class: We will use those responses and comments to structure our discussion of Heller.
- Wed, 10/02/4:00 pm: Group B responses to Solnit.
- Thurs, 10/03, 4:00 pm: Everyone else reads Group B’s responses and comments on at least two.
- Fri, 10/04, class: We will use those responses and comments to structure our discussion of Solnit.
- Mon, 10/07, class: Read Jamaica Kinkaid’s “A Small Place”. I will lead our discussion.
- Mon, 10/07, 4:00 pm: Group C responds to Roxane Gay.
- Tues, 10/08, 4:00 pm: Everyone else reads Group C’s responses and comments on at least two.
- Wed, 10/09, class: We will use those responses and comments to structure our discussion of Gay.
- Thurs, 10/10, 4:00 pm: Everyone emails me a one-page proposal for their final project.
- Fri, 10/11: Fall “Break”.
- Mon, 10/14, and Wed, 10/16: No class meeting. Individual conferences with me.
A More Perfect Union
Former President Obama’s speech “A More Perfect Union” was an interesting take on racial relations in the United States. It was not a speech I would have imaged a politician to give. Rather than make black and white statements about each group, which he acknowledges as a common trope used by other politicians, Obama instead looks to the deeper root causes of racial issues in the country.
Something many current politicians mention is the idea of forgiving student loans or medical debts. While these are quick solutions and will undoubtedly help many people, they miss the underlying problem of why these debts exist in the first place in order to prevent a situation like this again. There is no deeper analysis for why it costs thousands of dollars for a simple medical procedure or why college tuition has increased nearly 800% over the past few decades.
“That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years”
This is what makes Obama’s speech so impactful and meaningful; he is looking at the root causes of racial tension. Instead of focusing on individual issues and moments, he takes a broader and more understanding approach. It is through understanding like this that more thoughtful discussions about racial relations can be had.
Unity
I thoroughly enjoyed this article with Obama. Even though I have never been the one nor has my family to fully engage in politics, because it would always draw out conflicts that we already did not want between each other, I enjoyed this. This is yet another piece in which we are seeing more integration and racial discrepancy between people. This ties into the ideas that we have been discussing in class about racial backgrounds and racism. Although many people have seen Obama to be a negative figure, you can really see the good side of him by the timeframe that he stepped into office. He stepped into office in order to change and unite the nation in one of the worse times.
“I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.”
This I saw to be a big idea that I took out of his writing when I was reading it. It made me start to dive into the idea of Leadership and what it takes to be a true leader. In order for you to be a true leader you have to have support and trust from the ones around you, in saying this he began to develop that trust just by this statement, of how “we” need to change the nation together. There are still struggles today but Obama does a fairly good job by uniting us americans together and using “we” instead of “me”. Every well oiled team, nation, committee, etc. uses the term “we” instead of “me” and if we are able to do this we can conquer anything.
Healing the Wounds
Throughout the past 4 weeks in this course, I have approached each piece we have read looking for an answer or a quick fix to these cultural differences. After listening to Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech, I realized that there is not a single solution. As hard as one may try, we cannot completely knock down these walls that separate us. I think that this is a clear point that Obama’s speech highlights and, while obvious, we tend to overlook this.
Obama reminds us that we are not a perfect union, nor will we ever be perfect.However, if we don’t at least try to come together then division will persist. He affirms that our “racial wounds” are not an issue that can be solved “in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy”. This is something that America, as a whole, must work on together throughout time.
“The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.”
There is benefit in addressing the fact that borders exist. We cannot run from situations that bring up these contact zones in fear of an igniting a controversy. “Retreating to our respective corners” would be doing the country a disservice. While we cannot silence our differences, we also cannot allow controversy to evoke hatred. Obama notes that it was not the Reverend’s remarks that made the campaign take a “divisive turn” but our reaction to the remarks.
“A More Perfect Union” is a call to action for every individual in America. Obama has managed to cross the border lines and connect to every with a unifying mentality. He urges Americans to accept the imperfections of prejudice and find what unifies us: survival, freedom, and hope so that we, as a nation, can prosper. Obama exemplifies this in his dilemma over Reverend Wright’s offensive remarks. Taking the high road, he recognized the part of himself in his Reverend: “As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me”. There would be no good to come out of denouncing his reverend. Likewise, if Americans succumb to negativity, then we are essentially continuing the cycle and worsening the racial wounds.
Your Dreams Do Not Have to Come at the Expense of My Dreams
President Barack Obama, in his speech to the people of America titled “A More Perfect Union”, tackles the issue of racial/ethnic divides in America and how we tend to lose sight of what this country is and what it could become from the constant influx of negative and narrow-minded comments said by people all over the country.
Obama highlights the fact that the American people, even though they “may have different stories,” hold on to “common hopes” and that though “we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, we all want to move in the same direction”. I definitely believe that Americans tend to lose sight of what this country is – a conglomeration of different races, ethnicities, genders, sexualities, religions, classes, etc etc. We are constantly battling it out on social media and out in the streets fighting between massive groups… even though in the end, don’t we all want the same thing? Unity? Love? Cooperation? Trust? Compassion? Hope? A better future?
Probably my favorite quote from Obama’s speech was:
“…we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems… problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian but rather problems that confront us all.”
I was glad that Obama made constant references not only to black and white people in America, but also to Hispanics and Asians and immigrants who are just as much of the foundation of America as anyone else. By incorporating all of these identities into his speech, Obama makes sure that he is addressing and discussing a union in its entirety, not just a fragment of a union such as just white people or just black people.
Obama also notes that in order to better our country and to better this “union”, we all have our own specific instructions that come with who we are. For black people in America, Obama points out that they must “embrace the burdens of [their] past without becoming victims of [their] past”, and for white people, they must understand that what ails the African American community experience do not solely exist in their heads. Racial injustices happened in our past, they’re happening today, and without doing anything about it or denying them all together, they shall presume.
Another point Obama emphasizes that I especially loved was when he said:
“Your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams.”
This beautifully ties the piece together by emphasizing that the various plights of people in America should not be compared for the sole purpose of guilt, victim blaming, hostility, or anything negative of the sort. The people of America, all of them, need to come together in order to form a more perfect union, and realize that they all have the same objective and that nobody will be left behind in obtaining that objective in the end.
Class, Wed, 9/25
James Baldwin, Cambridge Union, 1965
Fastwrite
Does Baldwin actually manage to speak across the color line? What do you think? To what degree does he seemed trapped in the American dichotomy of black vs. white? To what degree (and where, and when? ) is he able to escape or transcend that binary?
The Opening: One and I and You
Minutes 14:00–22:00
- Amanda and Sarah (15:30)
- Michael (15:30): Contrast with Anzaldua
- Kate (18:00)
The Conclusion: The West (We?)
To Do
- Wed, 9/25, 4:00 pm: Group C posts responses to Barack Obama’s ” A More Perfect Union”. I’d like to ask the same question of President Obama as of James Baldwin: Does he (and, if so, how) cross the lines of division that mark our society? Does he articulate a view of a “union”, or simply of a faction in that union?
- Thurs, 9/26, 4:00 pm: Everyone else reads Group C’s responses and posts comments on at least two.
- Fri, 9/27, NO CLASS, but . . . during class time (approx.), please post at least one “response to a response”. That is, if you are a member of Group C, respond to the comments on your post. If you are a member of Group A or B, respond to one of the other comments on a post you responded to.
- Mon. 9/30, class: Read Deborah Brandt’s “Sponsors of Literacy”. I’ll lead our discussion (or try to). I’m interested in thinking about how the various “sponsors” of literacy may hinder as well as help our attempts to talk across groups.
Baldwin and Buckley Response
In the video of the debate between James Baldwin and William F. Buckley, it talks a bit about the possibility of one person’s sense of reality being eliminated for another. In a quote from James Baldwin, “whatever one’s reaction to this proposition is, has to be the question of whether or not civilizations can be considered, as such, equal, or whether one’s civilization has the right to overtake and subjugate, and, in fact, to destroy another”.
I feel that this is somewhat similar and different from Gloria Anzaldua’s piece How to Tame a Wild Tongue. The similarity I feel is the clashing between two different civilizations and between two languages in Anzaldua’s case. Baldwin is speaking of the possibility of one person’s way of life or civilization overtaking someone else’s. The difference I see from Anzaldua is that she speaks of the combination of her two cultures and how they make a culture of their own. Baldwin’s comment about domination is a lot more bleak as well.
Learn Your Place
When watching debates, I tend to keep an open mind and hear out both arguments before agreeing with one point of view. However in this debate, I was able to decide pretty early on which case was most compelling. I felt that within minutes of his speech, Baldwin was able to convey that the truth behind this topic is only visible to those who have experienced it, and those that allow themselves to be aware of it.
“Is the question hideously loaded, and then one’s response to that question – one’s reaction to that question – has to depend on effect and, in effect, where you find yourself in the world, what your sense of reality is, what your system of reality is. That is, it depends on assumptions which we hold so deeply so as to be scarcely aware of them.”
Whether one chooses to accept or deny the horrible mistreatment of African Americans in this country comes solely out of if that person has benefitted from this injustice or not. Wealthy white men and women who have been able to live out the “American Dream” are on the opposing side of Baldwin’s argument, due to the fact that in their realm of society, everything has worked out. To the rest of society, it is clear that there has been major flaws in our nation’s history and need to be called upon. To be untouched by these problems or to turn a blind eye to them is entirely in correlation with how that individual views the world, and specifically, his place in the world.
Baldwin is also able to effectively create a sense of responsibility in the room for those who are on the opposing side of his argument. To further prove that the “American Dream” that certain individuals have achieved is only possible through the expense of African Americans, Baldwin breaks down in specifics how this “dream” came to be a reality.
“*I* picked the cotton, *I* carried it to the market, and *I* built the railroads under someone else’s whip for nothing. For nothing. The Southern oligarchy, which has still today so very much power in Washington, and therefore some power in the world, was created by my labor and my sweat, and the violation of my women and the murder of my children. This, in the land of the free, and the home of the brave. And no one can challenge that statement. It is a matter of historical record.”
By speaking in first person, Baldwin takes something that seems so distant to these people and makes it personal. He creates a sense of emotion by explaining, in detail, the suffering of real people within the African American community. This visual makes it impossible for people in the room to hide from what has been done and to deny responsibility of it. He is able to convey that all things created that constitute the “American Dream” are only made possible through the anguish of people just like him.There is no real sense of equality in this nation if this process is the only way to live out the “American Dream.” It is so clear that this “dream” is impossible without the expense of African Americans and there is no way to argue around it—it is a part of history that must be accepted in order to create change.
Keeping Your Attention
I hate watching videos.
Anything longer than a ten-minute Youtube video rapidly loses my attention and never regains it. Due to this, as I am sure you can imagine, I was not exactly thrilled when I learned I had to respond to an hour-long video. Despite my initial apprehension, I tried my best to focus on the debate. Thankfully, this proved to be much easier than I assumed it would be.
My willingness to pay attention to James Baldwin’s speech is probably due to a variety factors. For example, he speaks eloquently and clearly in a way which demands attention. However, what I find to be most compelling is Baldwin’s frequent use of the second person.
Using the word “you” is a complex choice few writers choose to make. This is due to the power of the word. The omission of “you” allows for the audience to distance themselves from the content provided. It is easy to pretend the speaker is talking to the person next to you instead. In the beginning of his speech, Baldwin allows this to happen, as he starts his speech using the more academic “one” instead of “you.” Baldwin distances the audience by saying, “I feel has to do with one’s point of view. I have to put it that way – one’s sense, one’s system of reality.” (15:23-15:32). This way, he is able to start to gain the respect from his audience without spooking them right away.
This is a more comfortable way to live, always pretending like you have nothing to do with the content. However, in using “you,” the author (or speaker, in this case), forces the audience to live through the content.
Baldwin does not allow for a single audience member to escape the narrative he weaves. When he says “you” he means everyone listening. This is prevalent later on in the speech. Though it is impossible to live through the racism experienced by people of color as a white person, Baldwin does his best to put you in his shoes.
“This means, in the case of an American Negro, born in that glittering republic, and the moment you are born, since you don’t know any better, every stick and stone and every face is white.And since you have not yet seen a mirror, you suppose that you are, too. It comes as a great shock around the age of 5, or 6, or 7, to discover that the flag to which you have pledged allegiance, along with everybody else, has not pledged allegiance to you. It comes as a great shock to discover that Gary Cooper killing off the Indians, when you were rooting for Gary Cooper, that the Indians were you. It comes as a great shock to discover that the country which is your birthplace and to which you owe your life and your identity, has not, in its whole system of reality, evolved any place for you. The disaffection, the demoralization, and the gap between one person and another only on the basis of the color of their skin, begins there and accelerates – accelerates throughout a whole lifetime – to the present when you realize you’re thirty and are having a terrible time managing to trust your countrymen”
(18:21-19:45).
The other positive (or danger, depending upon the person you ask) of using “you” is the type of sentences it forms. When Baldwin uses the word, he is not asking you to think about his content. Instead, he is demanding that you do so. By using “you” Baldwin forces the audience to listen, as he is the one in charge of its collective fates. This choice makes the audience into characters in his story, forcing the audience to feel the speech instead of just listening to Baldwin speak.
So despite all of the issues stacked against Baldwin, in the past and present, he is able to methodically involve the audience through his use of “you” within his speech. This leads to an effective and memorable argument. Though his argument is clean, logical, and passionate, it is his use of “you” that takes this speech to a new level.
(For the sake of quoting, I used a transcript of Baldwin’s speech which can be found here: https://www.rimaregas.com/2015/06/07/transcript-james-baldwin-debates-william-f-buckley-1965-blog42/ )
E367: Writing and Diversity 