Slashdot Mirror
Village Voice on Voices From The Hellmouth
I said the e-mails had the feeling of testimony, which survivors of disasters often used. He asked me if this were like the Holocaust, and I said I suppose the idea of testimony was similiar, but that they weren't comparable experiences. So here's a lesson in how media work.
Dark asked me a half dozen times if these were all middle-class males, and I said no: nearly half were women, and my impression -- Î couldn't know for sure -- was that a huge chunk were working class kids. The Voice piece obviously reflects a pre-conceived and provocatively contrarian point of view, to which the writer is perfectly well entitled.
But I think it's pretty snarky to misrepresent what I said in support of it. He could just say it himself. I don't know why he even bothered to call. And I'm not into squawking about what reporters write. If you dish it out, you ought to take it.
Then, of course, there's the profoundly stupid idea at the heart of the piece that middle-class kids bring victimization on themselves, or don't deserve sympathy if they are harassed, humiliated, excluded, or sent home or suspended for being different from most other middle-class kids. In fact, it's so foolish an idea I doubt he even believes it.
This may be an honest difference of opinion, but it sure wasn't honestly gathered.So I'm telling the people e-mailing me to move on. Let's not play.
It's not limited to the U.S.
:-)
I had a horrid schooling here in Europe. I was (and still am) very shy, and not sport-orientated. Add an ability for maths into the equation (d'oh!) and that's a great recipe for no friends. Sure there were others like me, but I regarded them as even sadder! I suspect we're all guilty of looking down on those we find "beneath us" - but at least I left them alone.
It's human nature, and you aint never gonna change it.
What we all HAVE a right to, however, is freedom from bullying. It should not be tolerated. And this is where the author of this sad piece misses the point entirely. Bullying cuts accross all divides of race, gender, beliefs, dress-sense etc.
Isn't bullying really the issue? Don't we just wan't to be able to wear black if we want to (ooh no, no colours, too complicated hehe) without being picked on?
I was bullied for a year or two, then fought back one day. They left me alone after that one fight.
The isolation was almost as bad, but I just regarded it as my cross to bear. I was different, no-one understood me, so what... my problem.
Luckily I had a whole load of mates outside of school thanks to the then current CB craze. That kept me sane - in my opinion anyway
I have no answers. The gunmen were sick. Maybe you could blame their upbringing, but I wouldn't - I reckon they were very mentally ill. You'd have to be, wouldn't you, to do that? They could have struck out at anything. You can't reason with madness. No-one get's perfect life, but most of us just deal with it.
Here endeth the random thoughts. Comments welcome.
This article sounds like it was written by someone who has been claiming oppressed class status and is afraid of losing it if some other group is also seen to be oppressed.
:).
It also sounds like the same old crap about how middle-class white kids can't possibly have problems because they are part of the alleged white male conspiracy against all minorities and women.
The truth is, something has gone horribly wrong with these kids, and to attack them for saying something about it is simply shooting the messenger. It doesn't matter who is saying it, attacking those who say it doesn't do anything to fix the actual problems.
Until every person in middle and high schools in this country is safe from harassment and abuse from their peers, and until schools take a hard look at the established cliques, we will continue to see this kind of problem.
But it doesn't stop there. The schools alone can't solve this problem. Not only do parents need to start taking responsibility for every aspect of their children's lives, they must begin to instill in them a sense of respect for others and an understanding that other people are also human and do not exist for their amusement.
Children who are raised with a solid moral grounding (and no, I'm not advocating religion, just a simple, straightforward moral code) will be able to resist whatever is thrown at them by society, and be able to stand up for their own values.
We can ban violent games, internet access for kids, violent movies, even guns, but unless we bring these kids back into the fold soon, there will only be more Littletons.
This can be fixed without tearing down the Constitution, but it will require an effort on everyone's part. And it will probably require an outbreak of common sense in the newsmedia and in the legislatures.
Enough ranting for now
You're missing the point that many people made in Katz's piece. It's not about being called a loser because you're smart. It's about getting beaten day after day for not doing anything. I can handle someone calling me stupid, or not inviting me out on a Friday night. I can't handle a 300 pound meathead beating the crap out of me. It's illegal and immoral, and there's no reason for it to continue, whether the person being beaten is white, black, gay, straight, male, female, etc. These people need to learn to control their feelings and take them out in other ways.
-D
Why do American kids cry out against their station in life more loudly than their European or Ausie counterparts? American kids are the result
of the "ME" generation. It's all about them, it's all about being 'happy with who they are'. It's all about being 'special'. They lack the feeling of
community and common welfare.
The problem is that suffering (as well as.. joy?) are subjective. If I feel that I am suffering maximally, and so does an etheopian child, then to me and that child, we're suffering equally. You cannot gauge a person's problems from outside of them. Yes, you can say that in fact, the ethopian child is suffering more objectively, but to the white middle-class kid who gets beat up in school for being a geek, his hell is no less hot by his standards.
American teens are more out of touch with this than teens in other countries. The "American Dream" and "keeping up with the Joneses" tells
them that if they don't have the BEST, they don't have it good. If they don't have it good, they then must have it bad.
I fail to see how this has to do with being ousted by a community. In high school, I was "less than popular." I was a geek, I was into computers, and worst of all, I was fat. Wether or not I had money, or a nice house, or whatever, that made no difference to tormentors. (odd that "mentor" is present in that word) I don't think I "had it bad," materialistically I had it pretty good, and I was well aware of that. However, that has nothing to do with how you feel emotionally because someone else deems you "unworthy" of popularity, of acceptance.
To summarize: even if you have a billion dollars and all the best stuff in the world, if you're say, clinically depressed, then your life is still a living hell. If you're poor, but find happiness in something then I say you're better of than the person who "has it all."
If you're a jock, and you feel horribly worried that you won't be accepted so you beat up some kid who's different but it tears you up inside, then i'd say you're just as bad off as the kid you beat up, but you chose a more harmful way to deal with it.
High schools are one of the worst inventions ever created. They foster horrible class structures based on the wrong criteria. I don't know a solution, but I do recognize a problem here.
Posted by generic kewl tech reference:
to know that there was such an easy solution to the constant abuse that was my school experience: Just learn to fit in or suffer, rich white boy!
Thank you, Village Voice.
Never mind that my parent was on welfare and had less than $100 in the bank, everybody knows the white people are the oppressors.
Admittedly, where I went to high school, we had very few minorities when I went. Perhaps I didn't notice how badly they were being treated, being selfishly caught up in my own trivial little daily beatings, humiliations, assaults, and death threats.
I wish that the well-meaning parents, teachers, school counselors, and psychiatrists (and psychiatrists, and psychiatrists...) had been as honest with me as you were, Village Voice. Instead of telling me to tell a teacher or authority figure (which got me beaten) or to just pity or ignore my tormentors (which got me beaten) or to stand up to my oppressors (which got me locked in a locker as they threatened to set fire to me), they should have just told me that it was all my fault and to conform or perish.
It's nice to know that the suicide attempts were just petty whining over normal adolescent problems. I'm sure every child goes home, digs out the 9mm Walther PPK their parent had hidden away, and wonders just what it would feel like to go to school the next day and blow away everyone who pisses them off.
Thank you, Village Voice.
cc: Village Voice
bcc: slashdot.org
Dear Sirs:
I just finished reading your feature "Suffer the (White, Middle-Class) Children" (http://www.villagevoice.com/features/9921/dark.sh tml) and I must say I am quite disappointed. Your writer apparently heard stories of suffering and pain, then checked a color bar and saw "white" and "male" and concluded that the pain and suffering weren't real, and that this was just the white, male establishment trying to steal the identity-politics initiative. Hardly the journalistic thoroughness that The Village Voice is known for.
Neither Jon Katz, nor the thousands of kids and adults that wrote him, claimed that they were the only people being punished for being different; all they said was "Hey, it's happening here, too." School *is* Hell; Matt Groening wasn't telling any new tales when he drew that collection of cartoons a decade ago.
I've never been a fan of identity-politics -- I've always felt that the problem was "the system" was taking advantage of individuals, because individuals rarely have any way to fight the system or even of knowing that the system doesn't have to be that way. Black, white, female, male, adult, child: as individuals we are all easily oppressed; only by gathering together can we become strong enough to fight the system.
But there are plenty of special interests that have figured out that they don't have to gather everyone and address all the problems -- all they need is to gather enough people from a single category, and focus on one set of problems -- and they'll have found their own special path to power, and representation within the system, consequently make the system that much worse for the rest of us. Blacks, women, gays, the elderly, the poor, the handicapped -- they all have their special needs and special desires, and their own special advocates who are all just more cogs in the system.
Your writer and your editorial policies indicate to me that The Village Voice is proud of its place within the system, and isn't interested in anyone else upsetting the status quo. Just remember when you send your kids off to school in the morning, you're condemning them to the same daily torture that you once suffered, and remind yourself that you had a chance to say and do something about it -- and decided not to rock the boat. I hope you feel proud of yourselves.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
I found the article pretty offensive, personally. It showed the ugliest side of reverse discrimination, the part that says, "your pain has no validity because you don't match our idea of an oppressed group." The fact Ms Dark assumes that the people who contributed their personal stories to Katz's series are white males is so patently racist that I'm shocked her editors didn't call her on it.
None of the respondents even mentioned their race. For all we know, many of the contributors were non-caucasian and non-male. That wasn't so much relevant as the fact that they considered themselves nerds and geeks.
I consider myself a liberal on many social issues, but this Village Voice article is exactly the kind of "liberalism" that makes me want to puke.
-- Bander
What we need more of is science!
Well... I'm a former high-school geek myself, but I've also been doing a lot of volunteer work with high school kids for the past 10 years or so. And, I can tell you that this quote is right on. (I think the article itself draws some incorrect conclusions, though.)
The point is that it isn't just the geeks or the social misfits who have a hard time in high school -- that time of life is hard on *everybody*, but the symptoms show up in different ways. Here are some other ways it shows up:
* Eating disorders
* Suicide
* Narcotic and Alcohol abuse
* Steroid abuse
* Promiscuity
* Crime
Anorexic popular girls
Football players who commit suicide
The valedictorian who's a closet alcoholic
The homecoming queen who thinks the only way to get boys to like her is to sleep with them.
The champion wrester who turns to steroids so he'll keep winning and stay popular.
It's tough on everybody, "Jocks" and popular kids included. The main difference is how good the kid is at covering it up. Yeah, some kids tend to get the brunt of the physical abuse, but that doesn't mean that they're the only ones hurting.
In my school, they put the smart kids from one grade in gym with the delinquents from the next. I got a lot of abuse in gym class. But, looking back on it, I wouldn't trade it for being the star of the football team needing rehab.
>White middle American class kids do one thing >well - complain. Katz provided what
> appeared to be a legitimate >opportunity for them to claim victimhood
I see that you're making exactly the same mistake that the author of the article did; classify opression as "more or less important" using shallow political factors, instead of looking at the real issue -people being physically/psichologically abused (not just bullied). "Middle-class white male" isn't an monolithic group, despite what some people might think.
>Note to future teenagers - you're going to be >bullied, you're going to be hard-pressed for a
> sexual outlet, no one is going to like your >clothes, and you've got horrible zits. Welcome to
>planet earth. Kids in Kosovo would kill to have >problems as trite as yours.
"Note to gay kids: you are going to be discriminated, beaten up, harassed and killed just because you're different. That's okay because that's how it's always been in the real world, and if you don't like it, go to Sudan/Ethiopia/India and face the real problems".
Is that okay with you?
(As for whining, many of the responses to Katz's article weren't so much accounts of personal experiences as calls for action and practical advice to deal with harassement, so I wonder how much of them did you really read).
What an insult.
Being home... alone... unharassed... on any night whatsoever was paradise.
I think they completely missed the point.
Nobody can judge anybody else's personal pain. We are products of the societies we are raised in. It's the flipside of this pyramid. Sometimes the people being beaten the most at school, who have the most quiet voices are feeling the least pain. They've grown accustomed to the abuse.
Who hurts more? The popular kid who's rejected by their peers, or the unpopular kid who's rejected by their peers?
Is the unpopular kid deserving of a "reality check?" Should we throw him into a greater hell simply because he isn't in enough pain where he is? Should we call him selfish if he cries?
It's a damn shame he doesn't want to be beaten up every day. He should take it with pride and tell himself that as long as the Ethiopians are starving, he has no right to complain. His agressors are good kids -- They're not crying 'What about ME.'
It's a little more complicated being selfish or "keeping up with the Jones'."
I'm sort of afraid to ask this, but....why do
:)
these things seem to be centred around the US?
I'm not sure on the demographics, but I know
Australia has one of the highest person/net usage
in the world, most of the kids I know play console
games, we get all the terrible US telly, and yet
we don't seem to have the same problems.
I know that I was bagged at high school for being
geeky, but who cares? Do other people opinions
_really_ make that much difference to how you
think about yourself? I certinaly didn't give
myself an ulcer over it.
Just think of the people who critisise you as
being stupider than you are, merely trying to
bring you down because of their dissatisfaction
with their own intelligence. Makes you feel
better
daniel
A few points for all the folks who whine about 'whiners' must consider:
.....
1) People really do get physically, emotionally, sexually abused in schools and not in some abstract way - in a real way.
2) The people who are targeted are perceived to be different from their attackers whether by race, gender, status,
3) If any of this abuse occured off school grounds there is a pretty good chance that it would reported to the police if not prosecuted.
4) The race/gender issues in the VV article are off the point since this kind of crime is almost uniquely WM in the US in every aspect. Almost every 'lone crazed gunman' has been a WM, some middle class, some poor, some better off.
5) Saying that "life is hard get a helmet, you can't imagine how much better you have it than anyone else, including me" smacks of what my mom used to tell me when I wouldn't eat my dinner e.g. "finish your beets, children in asia are starving" - Maybe that's an effective argument for 4 year olds but it hardly helps anything.
> But some things don't quite add up. Ask all of
> your friends if they felt different and
> miserable in high school, and you'll wait a long
> time for anyone to say, "Nah, I was
> well-adjusted and happy. In fact, I spent most
> of my time beating on the losers, huh-huh-huh."
I was home schooled. When one of my "peers" found that out, they invariably asked "How can you stand it?" They didn't understand that I didn't miss the so-called "social life" that the school provides.
In other words, they liked school, or at least the parts not involving education.
Seems this author is lackiing in understanding.
-- Out of cheese error! Redo from start.
Actually, VV came much closer to the true problem than Katz did.
In comparing schools to prisons they were close to the truth and
missed only by not exploring the comparison more closely. "Modern"
schools are factories, factories to mill the unique edges, distinctive
extrusions, and characteristic cravasses from our individualities.
"The purpose of public education is to teach reflexive obedience
to arbitrary authority", I tell my daughters. It began with military
training in central Europe, was adopted and expanded upon as a tool
of political inculcation by British socialists and was siezed upon
and remolded by American industrialists in the image of the factories
for which they were to produce refined ore (workers!).
Schools don't harbor a repressive social order by accident -
production of repressive/suppressive social order is their very purpose.
They exist not so much to teach math/history/language etc. as that we
must all get up at a certain time, accept an external committments of
our time, obey a variety of strangers and accept their authority based
upon the social structure, limit our "freedom of speech" to acceptable
norms, follow the dress code and others I've probably been to thoroughly
"mainstreamed" myself to recognise. And it is no accident that those
who most exemplify social order and obedience - the players of team
sports - are the exhalted of this microcosm.
Nor is it an accident that those who don't/can't fit are handled most
roughly. The horrors visited upon the physically inept are bad enough,
but the Geek Tragedy arises from the fact that the nominal purpose of
mass education - edification of the intellect - has little to do with
its real purpose. By definition the intelligent have access to a larger
conceptual space than the normals and are thus more likely to cross
into expressions and behaviors which the consumer/worker factory finds
unacceptable, and hence must restrain coercively and "taught" not
to repeat.
While industrial economics ruled, this system worked well enough:
the socially successful in school were "successful" in life enough to
reinforce the school social system in partly self fufilling feedback.
Now as factory industrialism nears extinction it doesn't work so well.
The nose-picking dork with the palm-top on his belt that the jock
beats up on after school may be not just the jock's boss a few years after
school, but could be the jock's father's boss in a part time job tomorrow.
Of course the sports and poms recognise this inversion of the natural order
and vent their despair with renewed hostility.
Meanwhile perceptive and interactive space (cable, vcr, games, inet)
have exploded in the last decade. Those who may be socially maladroit
in meat space can often find ego validtion in conceptual space at a point
so far removed from mundane conceptual space that feedback from the
school social milieu will more likely be percieved as arbitrary sadism
than a directional inducement. Likewise normal conceptual space has
expanded and thus been diluted and diffused to the point where the
elite of the worker/consumer factory school are often at a disadvantage
to, and outperformed by the pasty fat kid who's on the computer all day.
But schools go on - they have an embedded politically powerful
bureaucracy to ensure it - pretending that they can produce cohort after
another of ample worker/consumer droids for factory jobs which no longer
exist, in ever larger, more expensive factory schools.
The largest single problem manifest at Littleton is not violence in
games or movies, not guns, not the clash of geeks and jocks, gays and
homophobes, not social angst and alienation nor hatred and intolerance
themselves. The problem lies in a state sponsored and backed system
of institutionalized homogenization of young minds; confining an ever
more socially and intellectually divergent group into unintended and
often unwilling contact, conflict and competition while imposing an
external social order which no longer fits the real world.
Do you know what her high school life was like? More importantly, why should that be a reason to exclude her from the discussion at all? Just because this happened to be two geeks who shot up a school doesn't mean that non-geeks have no right to speak up. Maybe the fact that it was non-geeks who actually died in that high school should give them some right to speak about the problem. Or is that not enough for you?
You may not agree with this piece, but you should give it more due respect than saying that it's just an inflammatory piece by just a music critic. Or, alternatively, next any topic comes up anywhere about something not geek-related, keep your mouth shut. Don't ever talk about sports, or politics unrelated to encryption and net regulation, and certainly don't talk about literature, history, or philosophy. You, after all, are just a computer geek.
I don't mean to sound rude at all, but here is Jane's situation: she is a she, she is black, she was poor as a child, and now that she's a 'journalist', she's pissed that she's not making more money, and she feels that it is the fault of 'white America'.
Let me say one more thing, I am in no way a bigot (more on that in a moment), think differentiophobia is stupid and stand up for the opinions of most people, even if I disagree.
BUT, I am vehemanently (sp?) opposed to idiots who are idiots by choice, and the same for assholes. And this lady seems to be both of those, which I am opposed to.
*Rant-O-Matic shutting down*
Happy slashdotting!
The one and (thankfully) only,
LafinJack
we are building a religion
a limited edition
we are now accepting callers
for these pendant key chains
Maybe it's just me... But the whole article reeks of the prose of one of the hardcore Politically Correct.
From the title alone, "Suffer the (white, middle-class) Children", you get a taste of the real issue the author is addressing.
The fact the kids are white and middle class.
There's no real addressing of the 'Geek Profiling', no attempt to address the fact that the most sensitive of the kids are being picked on, for the sheer fact that they are sensitive, and show the most reaction to being hurt.
Oh yes, that article is penned in eloquent English, with the verbal flourishes and pomp that accompany the arrogant and self obsessed.
There was one mention of ethics. And one of compassion.
The rest was about politics. 'Progressive' politics. 'Identity' politics.
And the sum up paragraph drove home what the author really seemed to be directing all this flamboutance at (and don't be fooled, it is almost entirely flambouyant waffle.. There is very little not no real meat in this article...)...
The impression in her mind that the white middle class males are trying to steal the 'identity' of the 'opressed' (read 'black', 'from the slave origin', Politically Correct garbage).
Is that all it comes down to in the minds of some, that all the pain and suffering is merely political vying to see who can be the biggest victim??
I'm white, was brought up middle class, and had a rather nasty breakdown at 11 due to bullying.
All the PC administration would do is tell me 'I ought to get to know them better, they're nice really... You should invite them round for dinner'... Every excuse under the sun, and many that weren't...
I wasn't interested in being a victim, and I'm not now...
Faecal matter occurs.. Deal with it.
This isn't about politics, or something that happened generations ago.. People have grown up a little since then.. They understand a lot more...
This is about something that's happening now..
It's about ethics. It's about opening your eyes and seeing that the people who change the course of the world are those that think differently...
And if you kick that person all their life, when they change the world, will they not kick back?
At school, is the place where attitudes are formed... And, I know very well that it's a nightmare for the teachers to cut the fine balance between overprotecting the children (as seems to be the rage in the US), and offering them no protection at all.. Or maybe protecting them from the wrong things...
Every child needs a challenge.. They need the ability to prosper and grow...
The physically inclined require physical challenges (so, install a few adventure playgrounds... The few bruises and grazes they garner are proud badges to a child, to show wht they've achieved... But, oh, I forgot, in the US, the parents would sue the school for 'damaging their child'...), the bookish need the company of the bookish, so they can exercise their minds and feelings in peace...
I'm sorry, but I feel nothing but contempt for the author's offhand dismissal of the problem as being politics...
It's not.. It's about the people... It's about the future.
Only when people stop shouting about politics and the 'use' of the 'victim culture', and deal with the people who hurt, but refuse to identify themselves as victims.. Just as people who hurt, will things start to become clearer...
Just my tuppence worth,
Malk
Was it just me or was there an undercurrent of
bigotry, prejudice and racism in that article
nicely clothed in a wrapper of political
correctness? Not only that it dripped with a
thinly veiled bitterness.
Oh, of coure, I forgot. All us white middle class
folk are part of a conspiracy to oppress everyone
else. For her information it has nothing to
do with race or class (I'm 1/2 chinese myself).
Don't peg people with race or class labels.
Only the small minded do that. I'm not saying
that there aren't minority groups and that they
don't get oppressed sure they do. BUT, you can't
define a "minority" group by race and class
alone, if you are to do it at all.
She should get off her, we are so down-trodden
holier than thou, "horse." Wake up, your
type of thinking that labels and classifys others
and then pre-judges them based on YOUR arbitrary
classifications is EXACTLY like that of those other
small minded bigots who I image, and you insinuate,
persecuted and oppressed you. We need to realise
that people are people no matter where you go.
We all have the same wants and needs, hopes and
dreams, as everyone else. Whether your white,
black, hispanic, asian, whatever. Judge people
on the merit of WHO THEY ARE, not where they
come from, what they look like or how much money
they make.
The pity is that she has failed to realise that
she has become just like those "racist bigots"
that she hates so much. Poisoning yourself with
bitterness will not make you a better person.
I sympathise but we all have issues. Ever had to
deal with the extreme loneliness of being from
a bi-racial family? (man I hate using this
terminology, but it's probably the only thing
you'll understand). You're of two different
cultures but belong to none, not accepted by
either side. Until you stop looking at everything
through the glasses of race and start drawing
on the strength that your unique background
gives you. Same thing for anyone from a single
minority. But you can't get to that point in
your personal growth without letting go of the
bitterness, hate and frustration that you've
accumulated. It starts with forgivness. Sounds
cheesy but it's true.
Cheers.
********************************************
Superstition is a word the ignorant use to describe their ignorance. -Sifu
Home alone on Friday night. Gas chambers.
I don't think that Jon's article went that far, and despite that, I do think that the Village Voice article raises quite a few interesting points.
Yes, it sucks to be a kid. But, unlike the author of that article, I believe that you can decide against the moves for playing along with the popularity game.
Twenty-some odd years ago, I was in the same situation as Jon's correspondants. I was a computer nerd (geek wasn't used back in 1974). I didn't earn the anger of the more popular students, but rather they just ignored me totally.
There is NOTHING that justifies what happened in Littleton. But also, there is NOTHING that justifies what has happened in the aftermath of Littleton -- expulsions, suspensions, geek counseling, "geek profiling," etc.
The establishment is overreacting, as usual. But let us not overreact as well.
School sucks. College sucks. Work sucks. Life sucks.
It's up to you to figure out how to win the game. Spraying a school with bullets isn't the answer. Succeeding is the answer.
How? Everybody will have to figure that out for himself/herself.
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
Your comments, while valid, also seem to prove a point about America which perhaps you did not intend to prove.
After WWII, America rejoiced, reveled and otherwise felt good about itself. We were told that we could have anything we wanted, but as the Great Depression taught us, we would have to work to get those things we wanted. This did not bother Americans, those two great tragedies seemed to have an important effect on this mode of thinking.
Now jump forward to present. The geeks, nerds, and other social outcasts in high school are idealists (mostly, and I know because I'm proud to be one.) We've read countless books where in the end, it is the smartest person who is our hero, because he uses his ability to determine the best route to thwart his oppressors. These are propagandist stories, judging simply from when in history they were written, and also by whom they were written. Yet they still hold true to some case.
The geeks, nerds, and outcasts have worked to put learning (gasp) as the focus of our schooling, and yet now our American Dream is failing. The truths that were instilled from our parents and grandparents that if we work hard enough, everything will be provided seems to be fading. Why is this? Because rewards and vicarious living through the talented athletes, popular people and otherwise "in group" has become prevalent.
Now to get to your point about the difference between Ethiopian, Kosovar, and geek. It is true that the tragedies happening elsewhere in the world are far more disturbing and shocking, and it is true that their victims are mostly unable to speak up. Yet, Kosovars and anti-Milosevic Serbs ARE speaking up online. So are the geek class. Why?
The answer is simple. Our ideal is dissolving, and we as a class are finding ourselves under fire by all sides. So, we USE our voice which our class created to speak up against the atrocities (I use that word with as much fervor as I would describing the helplessness to stop tragedy anywhere) performed by our oppressors.
Yes, it is a shame that Ethiopians cannot speak up, but it speaks of their upbringing (not to say that their upbringing is the Right Thing) which has made them helpless. And without meeting Maslow's pyramid of having the necessary things to feel good about yourself, these people are forced to accept their plight. It is most definitely not the Right Thing.
Geeks in America are on a higher rung of the pyramid, and are in the position to move higher by fighting for what is Right. However, no one ever condoned killing, slaughtering, or massacring your oppressors. That is a war crime by Geneva standards. (I find the Geneva guidelines for war to be silly. I know that they protect basic human rights, but to imagine that we have rules for war is outright absurd. I guess "Not all is fair in War.")
I guess my point is that it's not about "keeping up with the Joneses" or even "being the Joneses", it is about reward for work done. That is what we believe. I'm fairly certain that you will not find another person in our "social class" that feels otherwise.
Finally, I'm making another shameless plug for escape from your situation to all high school students that feel oppressed. In Texas, there are at least two programs which allow students to leave high school after their sophomore year. One is Texas Academy for Leadership in the Humanities at Lamar University in Beaumont. The other is the Texas Academy for Math and Science at University of North Texas. I went to TALH my senior year, (it's charter year) and I am currently planning our 5-year (since the beginning) reunion. My best friend was my roommate there (and we're going to be roommates again), and my fiance also attended. The rest of the charter class are people I would consider my closest friends ever. My advice is to research whether there is a program like these in your home state.
It was a reward for my intelligence, but also provided a new challenge. Isn't this what we're all after anyways, challenges?
I'm always glad to help anyone learn more about these programs, as I consider TALH (and somewhat Texas Governor's Honors Program) to be the life-changing experiences that have shaped me.
PsychoSpunk
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
It seems that people cry out about what most bothers them. It seems only natural.
People with the means to cry loudly, do so. Though having the means usually implies that their woes are not as dire as those of the ones who hurt too much to be heard.
A starving Ethiopian child can not be heard farther than earshot. And this is a tragedy.
An angst-ridden middle class American teenager, with access to the Internet can be heard world-wide.
Why do American kids cry out against their station in life more loudly than their European or Ausie counterparts? American kids are the result of the "ME" generation. It's all about them, it's all about being 'happy with who they are'. It's all about being 'special'. They lack the feeling of community and common welfare.
Now, I am not begrudging anyone their experience of the educational system being unfair and unpleasant. I too was a geek who didn't fit in - though by comparison to some, I was very fortunate. Certainly being beaten for being a geek will leave welts that last a lifetime. But laying on dirt, starving, is worse by far.
American teens are more out of touch with this than teens in other countries. The "American Dream" and "keeping up with the Joneses" tells them that if they don't have the BEST, they don't have it good. If they don't have it good, they then must have it bad.
We're all in need of the occasional reality check.
Having food is better than not - even if it is something we don't like.
Having a home is better than not - even if ours is the only one on the block without the swimming pool.
Having a job is better than not - even if the boss is a sadist and the guy in the next cubicle smells bad.
Unlike the starving Ethiopian or driven-out KosovAlbanian, we have choices people. We have options, and we define our context.
As for being a high-school reject, left home without a date on yet another Friday night... What better time than now to hack on some Linux code and start your own company. I wonder, had Jobs and Wozniak not made the Apple in their garage, would they have been the type to go an kill people?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
The Village Voice seems convinced that oppression can be blamed on the oppressed (read the last paragraph). It's like saying, "You weren't very happy in that German death camp, so why didn't you just leave?"
I don't believe students always have someone to talk to, or they might not be sure of who to talk to. As well, by shifting the blame to the victims, it almost suggests that this abusive behaviour is acceptable, which it isn't.
Look at the men and women in abusive relationships. How many times have they been asked, "Why don't you just get out of there?" I think people need help to realize that there are more options than violence, and the people involved in the oppression should be taught respect for their fellow students/people/etc.
Why not attack this problem from both sides?
æeee!
Hey folks... when I start to stick up for Katz, you know someone's been a real asshole.
Here's my reply to the column. It probably could be more coherent, but I think it makes its point.
FLAME
Hey VV-- Go look at the responses on slashdot. Think really carefully: did the boys in Littleton decide that they would, ohhh, *make up* this entire fantasy-world where they were the oppressed? Maybe you say yes, and maybe you say no. The fact remains that their reality *was*--emphatically WAS--to them, Reality-with-a-capital-R. Kids don't have historical perspective. Kids don't give a rat's ass if you tell them that "it's all part of social order." Kids DO understand that adults don't, and never have, understood them on their terms. As much as you love to believe that you understand them, you understand them on your terms only. Your terms, which you've learned in the stilted, academic farce that is college sociology, (or perhaps in the hallowed pipes of some media faucet) mean jack shit to these kids. They understand that it hurts. They understand that adults laugh it off when a kid gets pissed on. They understand that you laugh it off because you don't see the bruises. They understand that you laugh because nobody sees the bruises. Just because I'm white middle-class, and because your handy-dandy laminated demographic doodads tell you I'm destined to do wonderfully in the "real world" doesn't mean that in school I won't--didn't--have problems. What's your real world worth to the Columbine kids who died? Shooter or "victim," they never met your real world. So how about you back off a little, go back to reviewing bubblegum pop albums (prediction: the next twenty will *also* get three stars out of four), and work at something you can understand. --J.R. Parsons Jr.
/FLAME
I think it's disgusting that a music critic (and yes, it pisses me off that she's female, too) would even dare to presume that she knew jack shit about a boy's life in high school. Especially since she's obviously been through a college program rich in sociology and lacking in psychology. No offense meant to those of you who can keep it in check, but the liberal bullshit that is modern socio-anthropology is a brainwashing funnel. Her article just proved it.
Go ahead, change the focus back to where you want it: media responsibility? gun control? She's attacking the cause of the hatred, saying that we, as geeks, are not entitled to hurt. We aren't allowed to be victims. We have it soooo good in the "real world" that we shouldn't complain about life in school.
Again--her "real world" meant bugger-all to Klebold and Harris. Or to their victims. In their reality--the one that she presumes needs no changing--there is a prison atmosphere. A social order that fosters cruelty. A system whereby the physically strong, in the hunter-gatherer tradition, dominate the tribe.
Maybe in her world, white middle-class males have it great. She's sitting pretty working for the Village Voice, living the trendy life, while pale males all around her rocket through the glass ceiling. The worst torment she can expect is being hit on by the boss at a party. And hey--she can sue!
Like I said to her: back off. Don't write about what you don't know about. I'm not about to suggest that her complaints as a female in a pale-male-dominated workplace are unfounded, because I've never been there. I won't tell a lower-class black that he should just "suck it up" and rise above his ghetto roots. I won't tell a gay man or woman that they've got it easy as long as they stay in cities. Why? Because I'm not gay, I'm not black, I'm not a woman.
I expect the same from other people. Walk a mile in my shoes after Chris Givens has pissed in them as "a little prank." Then you can write a trendy article telling New York how much you know about high schoolers.
I don't agree with Katz on many issues, but I almost always enjoy reading his work because it's substantive enough to make me think about issues I might not have considered.
I was disappointed with the article in the Village Voice because it didn't do that for me. While my experiences in high school weren't as bad as many of Katz' correspondents, I refuse to have my own sour memories and mild but still perhaps too-lingering resentment caricatured like I'm in a John Hughes film.
There are sick people out there. What are we going to do about it? Try to "profile" them so we can head them off, and catch mostly well-adjusted (or at least non-threatening) people in the process? Pretend to restrict access to media (when does an 'R' rating actually stop a 16-year-old)? Pretend to restrict access to firearms? Hasn't society learned yet? There are no easy answers, but it's a good step in the right direction to just start being nice to each other.
The Hellmouth series didn't solve the problem, and I don't think that's really what it was for. It gave me an important insight, though. The system is not merely damaged; it's broken. Katz is significant simply because he opened a discussion on a large scale that didn't previously exist, and perhaps, by opening that discussion, he has contributed to helping thousands or millions of people realise they're not alone. Jane Dark didn't seem to be blaming guns (or worse, pictures of guns), so it's all the more frustrating that on so many levels, she seems to have missed the point.
Humans are not constrained to finite compassion. We can care about white, middle-class, teenage boys and still care about malnourished children around the world. They're both symptoms indicitave of broken systems, that is, sets of values that cannot survive in a world that's changing as rapidly as ours. Ms. Dark's article is a symptom, too, that the problem is more pervasive than we might've hoped. It's my responsibility--my moral obligation--as an adult that survived at least one of those situations (hint: I had plenty of food), to try to fix things. I have accepted that most of my attempts will fail. That's okay. I don't have to be successful every time--just once will do.
I did enjoy Katz' "Hellmouth" articles, and think that "geek profiling" is a real and unsettling phenomenon, but I also think the VV article did a good job of putting things in perspective. Likewise, the Littleton tragedy saddens and concerns me, but perhaps not for the usual reasons.
It troubles me to all of a sudden hear impassioned cries of "Gun control! Gun control!" from people who never seemed to notice the HUNDREDS of kids who get shot every year in inner city schools and streets. Or people who can watch NATO's daily bombing of civilian targets in Kosovo such as hotels, condominiums, TV stations, and marketplaces, without being moved to cry "Bomb control!"
I graduated from high school about ten years ago, and for most of my Jr. High + High School career, I was one of the "weird kids" who got picked on pretty bad for being smart or having atypical interests. I'm pretty sure that I had it worse than most of the kids in my school, frequently getting jumped in the locker room, having my locker vandalized, and just generally being harassed.
Big freaking deal.
At my high school, kids brought guns to school, but it was primarily to show how cool they were. I NEVER seriously worried that one of those guns might end up being fired at me. I sometimes worried that some of the school bullies might show up at my house to jump me some afternoon. I NEVER worried that one of them would decide to do a drive-by on me because I had looked at him wrong.
When I was out riding around with my friends, we worried that cops might give us a hard time because we had long hair or dressed different. We NEVER worried that those cops might decide to have a little fun with us, Rodney King style. Hey, even if we looked funny, we WERE still primarily white and middle class. Other than the standard nuclear paranoia of the Reagen 80s, I never once seriously worried that my house might be bombed at night, or looted by soldiers, or that my parents might get dragged off by dudes with guns. There's plenty of places in the world at this very moment where those are very real fears.
So for those of you living in the Hellmouth - wake up - you are right now living a life which is the absolute envy of 99% of the world's population. The fact that you are sitting here reading Slashdot is a pretty sure indication that YOU'VE GOT THINGS PRETTY GOOD. Odds are, in 5-10 years, most of you will have decent jobs, a good group of friends, and a fairly peaceful, rewarding life. And for those of you still weeping over Littleton, take a good look at the world around you -- much worse happens each and every day, even if it doesn't make as good TV.
I think the article is criticizing some things that were never really said -- Katz was comparing the email he was getting to the *tone and format* of holocaust testimonies, not so much the crimes committed against the kids to death camps.
As for the criticism of "The idea that this group could move into the slot of the oppressed, as well as occupying the traditional role of the oppressor...." I don't know of many geeks who end up 'the oppressor'. It's true that if geeks survive high school, many of them will end up successful, but that doesn't make them the 'oppressor'; and I'm offended by the implication that later success obviates horrendous early abuse. Did her escape from slavery invalidate Sojourner Truth's rage at bondage?
There was also a trick pulled that even people on slashdot have done -- amalagating different levels of abuse to say 'hey, everyone is miserable in high school, stop being such a martyr.' Under this technique, unhappiness at not making the cheerleader squad is cheerfully is treated as indistinguishable from rape and attempted murder.
In elementary school, for example, I was definitely the wierd kid and abused, but I didn't suffer *daily* abuse. Some of the individual incidents were pretty bad, but while they may have led to longterm scarring, they didn't cause the sheer irrationality that daily abuse did -- as I discovered when I got to junior high, and got to be the (fairly randomly picked) scapegoat. If you haven't experienced the terror of going to class *knowing* you will be tripped and spat at and verbally torn down *with the passive, or even active approval of teachers and adminstrators*, it's almost impossible to understand the insanity it causes -- you stop being able to judge whether a bump in the hall was an accident or another attack, you can't tell if an overture of friendship is real or a trap, you are in a constant state of fear and tension... there were times when I *wanted* to kill, when if I had had a weapon in my hand people would have been dead. I didn't, thank god, but I can't help but understand the rage utterly.
Then I got to high school, where I was a pretty normal kid (the adminstration didn't tolerate bullying, and the geek clan was large enough that we had our own gravity and protection from abuse.) Had occasional unhappy times, just like anyone else, and I think a lot of people who weren't abused but also weren't in the top cliques look back at their sometimes-unhappy times and think it's the same as the worst abuse.
Laura
PS: If you want a lovely look at the attitude at Columbine high, take a look at Chuck Green's Sunday column. The captain of the Columbine football team is under a restraining order to stay away from his ex-girlfriend; he's facing a criminal charge for threatening her; he was picked up by sheriff's deputies prowling outside her house; he was caught by a teacher intimidating her in school; he threw himself in front of her car. Dear Principal DeAngelis's reaction? Suspend a *jock*? The captain of their precious football team, the one they have a sports medicine doctor for? Oh, forfend, no! Instead, he told the girl's parents that she should leave school.
This might be offtopic or even flamebait, but it's been on my mind, so I'll say it. Worst that happens is I get moderated :).
It's easy to say anything you want after somebody dies. Just a few weeks ago, some kid walked through a school in Georgia and shot a bunch of people. Nobody died - the kid didn't kill himself. Where's the outrage, where's the compassion? Where are the millions of people rushing to the aid of this kid, somebody that you could actually help?? I gotta feel something for him moreso than those at Littleton, because here's a kid who was so emotionally tortured that it drove him to try doing something similar, but at least he still had a spark of humanity left in him that wouldn't let him do it.
When people ask "Oh my god, what went wrong? What could we have done?" I don't think they really want to know. That's why they ask it of dead people, because they won't get an answer. They like to beat themselves up and feel guilty, but not *that* guilty. Not so guilty that they'll actually have to do anything about the problem.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
I have to take issue with several points the author raised. However, the most central is that school shootings is a young-white-male-only phenomena. It parallels in 1980 with saying that AIDS is a gay-white-male-only phenomena. The fact that is mostly hits males is obvious. The fact that it mostly hits white males could easily be because they make up the majority of the population.
If the number of shootings were to increase to a figure, such as 100, we would see more minority representation. Just as the number of AIDS cases increase, we see other groups represented as well. Perhaps it is incendiary to some to compare the original class of people in shootings to the original class of people with AIDS, but the point is that you can't say it's a white boy only phenomena based on a handful of events. MORE DATA NEEDED.
The other thing that is shocking is the claim that JAIL is the closest analogy to high school! And the admission of a "cruel social order". I hardly think that just because something goes on in jail, it should also go on in the high schools.
My opinions about this whole thing were pretty much the same as the author's. While I think Jon Katz is a good writer, I thought this whole "Hellmouth" series missed the mark by a wide margin. The most tragic part of the Littleton shootings was that the perps were so self-absorbed in their petty problems (nobody likes me, people take my lunch money, etc.) that they felt justified in killing people over some identity problems they should have solved by first grade.
When the so-called "geek" community reacts to this by displaying a similar degree of self-absorption and decrying that the real villain is society and the school system, that's a pretty sad indicator. There are tougher things than high school in even the most cushioned life, and certainly minorities are justified in scoffing at middle-class whities when they display such pathological and weak behavior.
I think the most offensive aspect of that article, which is saying a lot, is the implication that geeks choose to be outcasts.
Sucks to be a kid. Sucks especially if you decide againt the moves for playing along with the popularity game.
I guess the editor will also dismiss antisemitism; you can't help Jews who decide against adopting the dominant religion.
I know the editor dismisses homosexuality. At least, homosexuality among white males, the only other example of an identity group driven by the white middle class. I guess white male gays wear the jackboots used to put down other gays.
And why do I keep thinking about the charming old tradition of "passing"? A black kid with light skin tones who doesn't attempt to "pass" as white deserves what he gets, neh?!
I guess I've been deluding myself by seeing people as individuals, not as official minority groups and the oppressive overclass. Where I see Bob, a nice guy who happens to be an athlete, I should see a jock -- can't reserve the latter term for athletes with attitude problems vis-a-vis non-athletes. And Sue, the math genius, must always be referred to as Sue, black coed.
And I must never, ever, recognize that Bill is being beaten up because other students have labeled him a 'snortzball.' A 'snortzball' is not a Recognized Political Correctness "identity group" and his bloody nose is therefore his own damn fault for running into Allen's, Sam's, Jim's, John's, Roger's, and George's fist. Repeatedly.
With Focus on the Family and other "right thinking" religious groups headquartered within 100 miles I've always identified myself as liberal. But I find this shit far more offensive than anything I've seen come out of the conservative camp.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Note: This is actually a response to a few different comments, but it is a response, so in the interest of not multiplying threads innappropriately I've placed it as a reply to what seems one of the most important of the comments to which I am responding.
I think a number of people have misunderstood Ms. Dark's point. Specifically, the perception that she was dismissing people's pain as 'mere politics', considering their pain irrelevant because of their races, or (as in the comment above) claiming that they were to blame for not trying to fit in.
I'll consider the last point first, as it is the simplest to clear up. The comment
was taken by many as saying something like: "of course it sucks, but it's your fault for not trying hard enough to be popular." But, especially in light of the following sentence: it seems clear that the author sees reasons to decide against playing the popularity game (after all, she did so herself) and is simply acknowledging that life can be harder if you do what you love or what you believe in or just what you want rather than whatever is popular or cool. In the same sense, she might indeed have said: "It's hard to be black in America, especially if you decide against--or never learn--the way to pass as white." But I think she would agree--as I know both you and I would--that some things are more important than ease and comfort, that ease and comfort had by such means would be worse than pain and hardship.The accusation that the article is racist is based on such comments as this:
Clearly, geeks are being told that they have no business complaining, because they're a bunch of white kids just like their oppressors. But is this so clear? Certainly she is struck by the novelty of the situation, of a group of people that is (let's face it) largely (of course not entirely) white and male complaining of oppression in the same language as more 'traditionally' oppressed groups. But consider her language: "the group stepping forward to take its rightful place", "looks exactly like... [those]The observation here is that people who are being oppressed are, for their own defense, seeing themselves as a united group set against a group of oppressors, as has been done many times before, but that this time the two groups are not set apart by obvious differences of race, class, or sex--that, in fact, both the oppressors and the oppressed 'look like' those who had traditionally been the oppressors only.
This brings us to the third misreading, according to which people's statements are felt to be dismissed as 'merely political'. All I can say to this is that Ms. Dark does not appear to view politics as such in a negative light. To observe that what is being done here is political is simply to say that it hopes to have a large-scale effect in society. To react against oppression by posting on Voices from the Hellmouth is different from just trying to keep out of trouble (this would be 'merely' personal, as opposed to political), or from boldly defying the oppressors and going on being a geek (this is the sort of thing she calls "just abstractly noble"). It is different in that it actually calls out to people "Listen to me! Something is wrong here! Something has to be done!". Thus, to call it 'political' is not to dismiss it, but to recognize it for what it is, and in fact the first time the word is used it is said approvingly ("the outpourings [are] politically progressive").
Now, I don't deny that the article does express some doubt as to the possible dangers of using this particular political tactic (identity politics) in this way, but I do think that if we read it carefully and with an open mind we can see that it is not half so damnable as some of the responses might make it appear.
--Moss
This is a
Now there are two of them.
There are two _____.
It is one thing to say "being a kid is hell, so what?" It is another thing entirely to say that geek profiling can be justified or tolerated when applied by the state, for example school administrations.
While it does appear that I hold greater empathy than does the author for those geeks (regardless of gender and race) who are alienated in our schools, that issue is to me quite irrelevant in comparison with the real issue: People are being meaningfully discriminated against by the government just for being different; for dressing different; and for acting different.
I do not discuss the social treatment of these kids, I am discussing suspensions, counselling and worse (we had arrests in Tampa), merely because of geeky identity or an unwillingness to make superficial change to suit the officious passions of an asshole school bureaucrat.
This shouldn't happen anywhere, but it certainly shouldn't happen in America.
It is *this* discrimination I am concerned about, and for two reasons: (1) it is wrong; and (2) it won't help the "problem" the school administrators and politicians propose to address.
But more important, official discrimination is in many ways more invidious than de-facto segregation into social castes. Official government-sponsored "geek profiling" provides further justification in the minds of those who would stereotype the "different" students -- that's precisely the definition of profiling!
No longer necessary is resort to the innumerate illogic that because a pair of geeky, game-playing kids went postal, all geeky, game-playing kids are risks to society, and therefore all are fair game for ridicule and ostracism. Geek bigots no longer need to engage in vacuous demagoguery to justify or defend their cruel alienation of the "differents." They can now point to the law.
I should think that the Voice author who first raised the race and gender cards would be peculiarly sensitive to government-sponsored stereotyping.
But then again, perhaps that is why he chose to conflate these points in the first place, sweeping everything under the rubric of "white boys unjustly playing identity politics?" If so, I wonder whose cynicism is the worst, the supposed white-boy-victim-wannabes' or the author's?
Once again the voice misses the point.
First, they use this as an excuse to pick on white males. It seems to me that they didn't actually read the Hellmouth section or the would have seen that there were many comments from non-white males. Last time I checked I was not one of those.
Also, they seemed to miss what was happeneing. We are not upset because were were simply picked on. If it had been just name calling it wouldn't have been a big deal.
But let's fact it, it never stopped at simple taunting. Most of the people (myself included) indured far more than that. We were physicly assulted, spit on and in some cases sexually harrased.
We aren't looking for ppl to feel sorry for us, that part of my life is over and I'm over it. I just hope that someone might sit up and listen the next time a kid is beaten up for being different, rather than just ignoring it the way most school officals do now.
White middle American class kids do one thing well - complain. Katz provided what appeared to be a legitimate opportunity for them to claim victimhood - the right to bitch.
Note to future teenagers - you're going to be bullied, you're going to be hard-pressed for a sexual outlet, no one is going to like your clothes, and you've got horrible zits. Welcome to planet earth. Kids in Kosovo would kill to have problems as trite as yours.
Yeah, sounds a lot like what happened to my friends and I when we complained about a jock who basically thought that the junior high girls were his personal harem. (He was a high school senior.) NOTHING was ever done about it. I went to a counselor, and she didn't really believe me and broke confidentiality on me, and the jock followed me around for two weeks threatening my life, and all the other little gossips started asking me if I'd had an abortion. Ugh.
The real kicker was that my mom called ME a slut because he had tried to get me to sleep with him.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Perhaps comparing the "Hellmouth" series and the protests against "geek-profiling" to the gay-rights movement isn't as far-fetched as Jean Dark seems to think it sounds.
For one thing, "faggot" and "sissy" and "dyke" are common names to call kids who don't fit in, regardless of their actual sexual orientation.
For another thing, authors like Jane Dark insisting that the "geeks" don't have problems is quite eerily akin to the studies funded by various homophobic groups who insist that homosexuals make more money than the poor "normal" folks, and that "they can change if they want to."
It's easy to argue whether intelligence is hereditary or environmental (or some combination of both), much like homosexuality. However, telling a smarter-than-average kid to "just stop being smart (read: showing off)" or telling a "geek" to "just try to fit in" is akin to telling a lesbian, gay man, or bisexual to "just stop being attracted to the same sex" or "just don't talk about your sick and immoral lifestyle."
A further question: When the problems of white, male, suburban kids who "don't fit the mold" are ignored by progressives, is it any wonder that some of them turn to the Far Right, when the Far Right is much more eager to welcome them? It's something to think about, in the opinion of this Left Wing bisexual female geek.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
So the only thing wrong with us is that we don't "fit in," and otherwise we're overprivilged whiners?
I think not.
The gay-community parallels are perfectly appropriate here. In fact, "faggot" and "sissy" and "dyke" are typical insults directed at outsider kids, even if they are straight.
Many les/bi/gays are born in "priviliged" families, and some homophobe or other is always eager to kick around statistics that "prove" gay people earn more than straight people. (No, not all gay people, fools, just the ones comfortable enough to tell some random stranger that they are gay.)
As it happens, the suffering of the different and intelligent is nothing new. I'm a third-generation Hellmouth survivor: My grandfather suffered literal physical abuse at the hands of the nuns at his Catholic school because he's left handed. My mother, the smartest kid by far in her class, was denied the chance to be an exchange student because "she's just a steelworker's daughter." I've discussed my own experiences previously -- suffice it to say that I'm well aware of the cruelty of peers and teachers, having lived through it.
If you like, you can go read Oh No, Not Again!, which was my original reaction to Littleton, and Confessions of a Redhead, my follow-up after seeing Star Wars. The second one might not make much sense unless you're familiar with the Chronicles of Amber, though.
Maybe it's time to write another essay, and send it someplace where it'll do some good. Like the Village Voice, which I would have expected to have had better sense.
*disgusted sigh*
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
How do we save all the starving children, anyway? Send them food and medicine? Then they will grow up an have an exponentially larger number of their own children who will then starve. Can we save them too? If not, then they die and we're all morally inferior because we didn't save them, if so, then the exponential growth multiplier is applied again, recursively, ad infinitum. Sooner or later, the capacity of our resources will be exceeded by the growth of the problem, and we will end up being morally inferior (implying that those who are morally superior should gain authority over us, but that's another argument). Alternatively, we could try to change their culture, but we don't have the moral authority to do that either, in our new enlightened p.c. age.
Is this off-topic? Of course it is! That's my point! You can answer every emotional crisis that anyone ever had by pointing at Ethiopia or Rawanda or Cambodia or Nazi Germany or Yugoslavia or [your tragedy here], but that response doesn't address the issue at hand. It's a patronizing diversion, and we're still left with the problem.
What is the problem again? Kids in emotional crisis bring guns to school and shoot other kids. How is pointing at Ethiopia going to put a stop to that? It won't: these kids are inured to guilt, because guilt is the modern subsitute for corporal punishment.
And yes, for the record, add my vote to the camp that says high school should just be abolished anyway. There's no fixing it. (It takes less power to destroy a thing than to control a thing, no matter what Mua'dib [sp?] said.) Let the lovers breed, let the jocks play, let the geeks go work in better labs, and everyone will be a lot happier.
And Jane Dark should still move to Ethiopia.
Bye.
Measure your wealth in hours, not just dollars.
Sent to the Village Voice:
"Boo hoo, the little white middle class kids aren't happy!" Jane Dark's compassion just chokes me up. I have no idea what her experience is, I can only speak for myself and and those I know well.
She mocked the comparison of being urinated upon and being "home alone on a Friday night" to gas chambers in Aushwitz. On the surface, I can agree with her, but by that logic, compared to what's going on in Yugoslavia, she has NOTHING to complain about herself (have HER children been murdered in an ethnic cleansing effort?). And compared to what happened in Nazi Germany, no one who was born after 1948 has any room to complain (after all, none of US have ever been herded into train cars and carted off to death camps). But we do don't we. We each have our own experience and our own crises which shape who we are.
Perspective is certainly necesary, we can't give much weight to someone who's idea of tragedy is breaking a nail. But to dismiss the psychological torture endured by being an outcast and being the object of ridicule, just because most of the people affected are white is ludicrous.
I am a hispaic male, and I endured the same treatment as these white people. I know many people who grew up in the inner-city who endured far worse treatment. People who were embarassed and even afraid to tell other people that they were going to go to college. Nerdiness and brains not only seem to NOT be valued in our nations' high schools (Black, white, red and green), but they are penalized in a very real way.
Ms. Dark shoud take off her black/white glasses and see that we are talking about scarring, about torture, about punishment. Very different from others she's encountered, but very real nonetheless. The difference is, that those who make it through the torture (even those from the inner-city) often find themselves in positions of power and success. (We sold corporate America on the computer and now we have them by the balls) But we carry the scars forever. We carry the hurt just as deeply and just as severley.