Ambivalence in a hectic year

I'm twenty-six and still am not totally sure of what I'm doing to do when I "grow up" (whatever that means).

That isn't to say that I don't have a career idea, or a path to getting to any kind of settling point. But the older I've gotten, the more I've seen that such questions like "What are you going to be?" and the like are tailor made for people who do not have much interest in self-exploration or introspection.

To be honest, I have no clue what a "grown up" even is. I used to look at my parents as the example, but the more time goes on, I both have a deepened respect for my parents and a deepening confusing as to whether they are the paradigm I have for a "grown up". I can respect what they have lived and done with themselves by understanding their lives and contrasting them with my life (and in turn, I can more deeply respect myself in that way also). However, I also see at the same time that they're just as imperfect as I am. They have character flaws like me, they are not these all-encompassing beings I imagined they might be even seven or eight years ago.

I used to bust it hard at work to save up money to finish studying for a technical career that would supposedly launch me right into "adulthood", or at least a major phase of it. But I quickly found that following this path to its logical end wouldn't bring me much deep satisfaction. Money would only bide me so much time and so much happiness. It would never match up to the depths of my imagination and curiosity about the world. I knew that my career, in some form or another, would have to allow me to explore that imagination in some way.

It is this aspect of my life that has caused much confusion in my life in recent years, but also a lot of clarity, oddly enough. My perception is akin to a bone, constantly breaking and cracking in micro-fractures with the confusion I face in keeping true to my curiosity and imagination and facing the scrutiny of those who do not see things the same or have not learned to understand their own curiosity. Clarity is the rebuilding of that broken bone and its strengthening.

This year, 2011, has been a year of rebuilding in many levels of my life. I saw levels of myself that I never knew could exist, both in good and bad ways. I dealt with enormous good fortune, like graduating debt free from college, landing a small teaching job, staying active and in shape, and reaching out to educate people on the world in new ways. I made new friends, met new people, solidified relationships with old friends, and kept true with my family. In other respects, I faltered in some of my money savings plans and ended relationships with some people - some out of necessity, some beyond my control. The gains and losses, successes and failures have left scars and simultaneously strengthened by ambition to grow more and face reality head on, no matter how bright or dark certain aspects may be.

2012 is going to be a unique year in ways that are unknown to me for the first time in my life. But I'm ready for it and am confident in my ability to confront new experiences.

Thoughts on learning

I'm sure that I'm hardly the first person to make this observation, and I surely won't be the last, but in my experience: knowledge is a mixed blessing. It's both empowering and immiserating at times. I tend to side with it being empowering as to how I let the accumulation of knowledge influence my life, but it does not take away the misery that comes every so often with knowing how things truly are in the world. The more I began to learn about the world several years ago, the more I found I didn't know enough. And this pushed me to learn more and more, creating an even bigger space to be filled with possible sadness or concern. I crafted these feelings into a direction, which often changed, but has landed on a trajectory towards working for egalitarianism, equality, justice, and "positive" peace (as contrasted with MLK Jr's "negative" peace).

Before I knew much about the world, I could have been considered particularly happier than today by many peoples measures. My conversation topics didn't tend to go beyond much of anything superficial, I certainly didn't bring up topics that caused any rift between myself and any established friends I'd had for any significant amount of time, and I generally seemed more carefree. Little was I aware that this was my immaturity reigning free and unfettered.

The more I became aware of things, be it out of curiosity, accident, or flat-out necessity, the less I felt careless. I became more thoughtful of my interactions and the consequences of things I would do. This made me feel confident and empowered. At the same time, however, I would feel saddened and dismayed, all the same powerless to the forces of the world around me. This became the moment I decided to alter who I was at another level apart from my personal thoughts and actions - my interactions. I knew and know now that my holding knowledge is not enough. I have to apply it and spread it to others who are willing (and perhaps at times not willing) to listen. With knowledge (and subsequent power within oneself) comes not only responsibility but the ability to empower others to do the same.

Things are bigger than any one person and I've found that wanting to empower others have enhanced my bonds with family, friends, or even people I would be in a relationship with. Living for others, taking yourself out of the center of everything you do, learning to live in true cohesion with others - this has been the key, I've found. It has been the perfect way for me to link the power I feel within myself and the sadness I feel for the world around me, given the mixed-bag that is knowing the good and bad about the world.

Justice and Ideology in Examining Obama

I reject the notion that I'm supposed to kowtow to a party before ideology. That is not to say that I am dogmatic with any ideology any more than with a political party. I may align closely with a certain group of ideologies, sure, and I may find myself closer to one party than another, but at the end of the day, I can look in the mirror and say honestly: I am not a socialist, capitalist, communist, fundamentalist of any sort. I'm a human and I am interested in justice for everybody and everything. If this means allying with people who may use socialist means to achieve a just end, I will indeed ally with them. If this means standing opposite people who drape themselves in a flag they wave only when it means protecting themselves and people who think, look, and act like them and benefit accordingly, then I'll do so. As Malcolm X said, "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pondering the 2012 election, it seems difficult for someone who is firmly and sincerely devoted to progressive causes and ideologies to feel halfway okay with voting for Barack Obama again. It's difficult to even air these grievances aloud, as much of the monopoly on criticizing the President has fallen on the side of the Tea Party. They've made an art form out of it in ways and it makes it difficult for the left to voice their dissent. They run the risk of their voice getting caught up in the fog of media coverage of an extremely loud, extremely active organization that, whether they realize it or not, support the policies that indirectly cause their own frustration and anger.

Indeed, President Obama has fallen down on the job in important moments when the left expected him to rise to the occasion. He pushed a lackluster stimulus bill that should have been much bigger than it was. He has repeatedly bent over backwards to placate Republican and right-wing feelings with extensions of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. He accepted a version of the health-care reform that gave the private industry what they want, even after they have been raising costs for years. He has done little to significantly scale back the growing and problematic defense sector. Indeed, the left has much room for grievance with Obama. The only consolation that it once held for backing him now and in 2012 was the feeling that, "It's better than a Republican".

But if Obama is to continually bend to the right rather than to the left, if he is to start negotiations from a destination that ensures a long term problem for the nation and long term political loss for the left, why would the left continue to support Obama? If right-wing policies are to be enacted, wouldn't it make more sense to let the right-winger enact them so as to not obfuscate the location of the problem in our national approach?

It's highly improbable that the right would welcome any Republican candidate over Obama. Even Ron Paul, who gets the Democrat nod with his approach to foreign policy and ending the Drug Wars, sits wrong with many on the left for his approach in other areas. However, it's looking even more improbable that the left is going to back Obama with the same confidence it did during the 2008 election. This could spell a real problem for the President. Low turnout to vote on the left or deflection to the 3rd party could mark one of many incidents that may spell a Republican win. In short, Obama had better learn the difference between allegiance to party, ideology, and justice soon. It could cost not only himself but many progressive causes ground in the long run.

Life experiences are a mixed blessing. I just gained a part-time position as an adult classes Spanish teacher in San Marcos, I've been out hanging with new friends and playing basketball more, I've been doing more reading for myself lately, I've been eating better, etc. At the same time, life has been really rough. Getting out of a long-term relationship (and possibly the friendship ending as well), dealing with health issues, preparing for the GRE, day to day money survival,...these things have taken their toll. But I always find a way to overcome them.

In the midst of it, the other day I was congratulated on my new job by a close friend. When I said I would still be at HEB, they said "At least you are one step closer to doing something that means something!"

While I understand they were only trying to encourage me more about my new job, I wish they'd have phrased it differently. But, even with the phrasing I didn't care for, I was glad they did so. I began to reevaluate my time at HEB. Of course, I don't believe my job title is anything that has made me gain much. All I've gotten from my paper title is some physical exercise, a little fruit and veggie in my diet, and a developed patience for people in general.

When I transfered stores from Georgetown, TX to Kyle, TX, I didn't expect to find anything other than what I'd found at previous stores in terms of discussion or personal encounters. I couldn't have underestimated where I was going more. I have had the pleasure, and still do, of working alongside and forming bonds with some of the brightest and most forward-thinking people I've ever known. If it weren't for my stimulating discussions with them, my revelations alongside them, I don't know what my school experience would have been like at Texas State. From history to politics, from philosophy to science, from music to movies, I have had discussions and relationships cultivated with these few co-workers in a ways that I could never have imagined.

At the same time, I know I've helped a few people a long the way. I don't refer only to personal struggles, though I've had quite a few of those discussions with these people. I've helped some people, as they've helped me, understand more fully where they see the world from. Some have changed with time and experience, some haven't. I've gotten so much more from the HEB I work at than anything the people running that store could have expected or thought of. My close knit group of co-workers and I may not always work together, but I know we're forever altered and changed as a result of having worked together for these past three years and for however much longer we should be fortunate enough to be around each other.

I don't know how I'm going to deal with a lot of the sudden confusing and problematic situations life has hoisted on me. I'm sure I'll handle it like I tend to handle most things. But I find a lot of comfort in the fact that when I moved out here on my own, starting into a new kind of unknown, environment of University and intellectual stimulation, I dealt with it in ways that I didn't even know were ways to deal with it. I found comfort, help, development, and growth in places I could have never expected. I'm sure that's something I'll run into again in this next phase of my life.

Baldwin's question

"I'm not a nigger. I'm a man. But if you think I'm a nigger, that means you need it. And you have to ask yourself why."

James Baldwin is, without a doubt, my favorite writer, speaker, thinker - EVER.

Rest assured, folks. What he says in that statement above it the question that America, specifically the power structure that is White America, has never dealt with.

When Baldwin puts that up, it goes not only for White Americans that project that sickening idea of the "n word" onto Black people. It goes for any White person who projects any racial notion of inferiority onto any people. Oh, they may use coded words like "I'm just talking about 'these' (group here), not 'these' (different subset of same group)". This is just the White speakers way of telling you that one group of people in the racial/ethnic group have "met up to the White standard of behavior" and another one is not doing so.

It is simply White Supremacy thinly veiled in a self-serving outfit of denial, false-intellect, and ignorance.

The more and more the White person clings to the identity they are finding themselves in, the more and more they need that "other" to hate, the less and less they will find that they actually understand themselves, their lives, and the people around them.

White people needed non-Whites to be crafted in their social context, to be reined in as "inferior" in their daily lives, and to build their entire lives in this context. Then, racism had to become the norm for them to feel okay with it. Whiteness as the norm had to be the water to the fish, that which they didn't even notice. It became their crutch for their intellectual survival, not noticing that it was indeed what would always debilitate not only their intellect, but their very humanity.

Today, much has been overcome, but the signs are abundant that much has still to be conquered, and the need for change is urgent.

When you - in this case a White person in a culture drenched in institutional and cultural White Supremacy - "need" an oppressed prescence to feel whole, to feel alive, that means you know that much less about how to survive without it. You know less about yourself. You can handle yourself less well without it. You are less strong without it.

When you begin to conquer that need that has been institutionalized into you through culture, media, your peers,... when you learn to rip out the root of your own ignorance and walk into the great unknown, that part of you that you have still not discovered after all of this time, you'll find that is the place where you can salvage the part of your humanity that the oppressive nature of your past held hostage.

Until then, your humanity is incomplete. Until then, your self-concept is flawed tragically. Until then, you are consumed, ruled, and driven by your own worst enemy - your ignorance.

Late-night rant...

I’m twenty five, about to finish college, and here’s what my life looks like: I work roughly thirty-two hours a week, have attended school full-time up until now, and pay rent, utilities, gas, car maintenance, insurance, groceries, and oh yeah, tuition and books. I also manage to fit in money for time with my girlfriend each month. Oh, and I’m doing all of this with keeping myself debt-free. I bust my ass most days of the week, try to exercise as well so as to stay in shape because I'm only going to be enrolled in health-care benefits for so much longer, and I try to maintain a semi-healthy diet. All the while, I try to keep reading more and more about the world, stay informed, and keep in contact with old friends, family, and keep strong ties that I am forming with people now.

But somehow, if I opened my mouth about half of how I feel about society and the world in general, without mentioning any of the above information, I’d be labeled a lazy, socialist, terrorist loving, anti-American, problem. Yes, me, the guy who throws out your fucking fruits and veggies so you can let 1/3 of them rot, is anti-American. Yes, the guy who pays his taxes so an army of his country can stomp up and down other countries in some bullshit parade to ‘spread freedom’ with the use of tanks and bombs while his country’s education system is fucked, as well as his country’s healthcare system that should clearly be converted to single-payer, is anti-American. What a crock of shit. This is not to mention the fact that my tax money goes to supporting our proxy in the Middle East, Israel, who commits UN violations every year against Palestinians, the very people they displaced with no justice. Violation of the UN statutes, one of the many reasons we decided to go into Iraq to begin with (or was it those Weapons we never found in there? Or the fact that Saddam was a dictator - that we put into power? Or the 9/11 involvement they never had, yet we never managed to prove?)

Yes, me, the guy who pays for his living, his schooling, and his personal life and has never asked for federal welfare (though I don't demonize people who may need it), is the lazy, socialist, scum. Is this right? Me, the guy who studies his ass off, reads non-fiction in his spare time to broaden his understanding of the world, and wants to solve problems facing everyday Americans, is anti-American because I don’t succumb to the bullshit idea of maintaining the status-quo because of what some old, 18th century, racist, sexist, classist, and agrarian assholes decided was “right”. Because I don't drape myself in the flag to support policies and oppose ideas I don't fully understand? The Founding Fathers, let alone the dogmatic group that worships them today, are not the be all, end all of political thought and ingenuity. They were wrong about the idea of Black people not being human, they were wrong about women’s roles in society, they were wrong about plenty of other things, so why the fuck does the rest of the Constitution escape similar critique? Why do we fail to put into context the rest of the ideas in that document? This doesn't mean I want to scrap the whole thing, but I don't want to be so sanctimonious to the paper that I can't tell what is clearly an outdated concept.

I'm often told, regardless of whether a person knows some of the facts about my life, that I 'just don't understand fully how the world works'. Typically, I've found that this comes from someone who has never dealt with the world in a way that doesn't shield them from the full effects of their actions. Or it comes from someone so arrogant that doesn't notice how built-in privileges to a system benefit them in ways that are the only life-force to their deluded vision of 'how things work'.

It’s a horseshit ploy formed, perhaps by amazing historical circumstance and chance, to keep elite interests in control of how things filter upwards in a society. It’s maintained because nobody thinks to challenge it. They don’t think to because they haven’t been taught to. And even if one does, they don’t get rewarded for it. In fact, it’s called a “problematic distraction” in the workplace, “killing the vibe” in most social settings, and “preaching to the choir” in academic settings. Thus, society is set up to keep us working, mindlessly chatting in our spare time in hopes of watching fat people ‘dance their asses off’ on cable TV, eating food from chains as a sign of social stature, and buying the newest, coolest gadgets made by someone in someplace we’ll never know using their resources they never see the lions share of profit from. So when does change happen in all of this (Obama voters, don't you dare fool yourself into thinking he's brought it)?

It's going to take more than Obama. It's going to take more than voting. No, I'm not talking ideas of armed revolution or tumult and chaos in the streets. I don't really think it's gotten to that point. But I don't discount the power of peaceful protest in the streets, and I do think that it is an integral part of what it will take to change things. I do think in addition that it's time people started to develop a real sense of self-reflection and tough-love within themselves that can keep a real movement for justice alive and spirited.

Knowledge

In a society, so far as I can tell, there are two ways to approach knowledge (that is, two ways to value it). Neither are mutually exclusive and can occur simultaneously. I don't see this fact as being "bad", so to speak, but I do believe having a higher concentration of one rather than another is preferable for a society that wishes to be aware and constructively conscious of its surroundings.

The first approach is that which seeks knowledge in order to question, experiment, achieve personal intellectual growth, challenge onself and ones context, and explore new territories. One may very well call it "knowledge for the sake of knowledge", but I'd rather say "knowledge for the sake of growth". The second approach is that which seeks knowledge in order to attain status, money, or power over others. The pursuit of intellectual growth is very much an after-thought and knowledge is merely a means to a monetary or power-related end.

When in one person or society the latter takes on a significantly higher concentration than the other in manifest goals, that entity is headed for serious and possibly existential trouble.

I don't mean to suggest that seeking skills or information that may gain one resources in a short term setting is bad as a rule or without exception. I only mean that most decisions made that lead to resourceful lives often involve much more long-term measures which include looking outside of an immediate context or understanding and acting appropriately.

We do make decisions in the short-term on occasion that impact us in resourceful ways for the long term. But these decisions tend to be habitual in nature. Take, for instance, smoking. Smoking cigarettes is a short-term action, bringing a short-term stimulant effect. However, it is, over time and with addictive habit, something that holds bearing on our long-term health. Very infrequently do we make short-term decisions non-habitually that reflect a reality for the long-term. That is, having one alcoholic drink a month or every two months is unlikely to affect ones health in any significant way that would alter resourceful living later.

And so, with knowledge, gaining knowledge for short-term gain or benefit may seem to be the most resourceful (cheating on a test to gain an A in a course). But doing less tangible work for knowledge, panning ones learning out for long-term benefit, brings us resourceful benefits over time and in advantageous ways we may not have predicted (opening a retirement account that you put small amounts into over time). Recently, I've begun to extrapolate this idea to many in my generation and how we as young-adults view education - specifically college.

I've attended three schools over the past eight years for various reasons. Two of them were community colleges, having changed from one to another for travel reasons, and the last (and most recent) was a public university. During that time and in all of these places my serious intent for a major has changed three times from Nursing (in which I graduated with a nursing license for work) to Biology (took a total of 20 hours in the field) to finally a double major in Spanish and Anthropology (with which I'll graduate in May 2011). I've thus experienced education from the technical, quotidian field in which I explored Nursing (meant for a technical job with a daily application) whose end of studying was to make money and provide a decent living. The rest of the studying had to do primarily with a love for knowledge of the subject. I'll return to this idea later. I've only introduced this information to explain how I've been around different areas of college life and have thus heard plenty of what is about to follow.

Most any college student would profess, if pressed, some value for education. But is seldom followed up with is a question as to "What do you value education FOR?" In this question we gain a much deeper understanding of the values of a society and its citizens approach to knowledge.

The typical representation of what I'm about to start into would focus on primarily a History major and a Marketing major. The two might chat and eventually reveal their majors to each other. Typically, the Marketing major might ask the History major "What are you going to do with that major?" In this question, the essence of that Marketing majors value of education is unveiled (and thus, the value of education for society is unveiled, as the open environment to ask and believe in such a questions authenticity would have to be fertile in order to permit it).

The Marketing major sees education and knowledge in a pursuit to gain something tangible. These is nothing wrong with this as a facet of educational attainment. People do, after all, need access to resources, and it would be silly to suggest that education not be some sort of indicator of how they might do so. But the underlying point of the question is often in a marginal yet notable jabbing manner. Obviously the marketing major knows what he/she will do with the degree. They'll obviously get a job selling something in the capitalist framework they are brought up in and are valuing so much as to make it the center of their pursuit for knowledge. The history major, unless the answer is to go to grad school, is latently understood by the other student to have either made a mistake or not know what they are doing. That is the entire point of the question, most of the time, and this tells us a lot about where education is in our society.

That the history major will not gain as immediatley and monetarily apparent as the marketing major is unimportant, as least to the major in question (or, anyways, it shouldn't be to my estimation). Studying history is the study of human records, activity, and more importantly - mistakes and misfortune. Studying this record and internalizing its lessons brings a reward that will intangibly go a long way for a person making political decisions, in voting for his/her society's future, and in raising their children in how to see the world. The benefits of properly learning such a discipline do more than possibly bring money. They bring the benefit of consciousness of ones interactions, decisions, and happenings in a broader sense.

This is not to deride the marketing majors choice for education. I have never studied marketing formally nor do I plan on it in the immediate future (though I do some for my tutoring freelancing). I simply mean to point out that from the point of view of power and influence in a society, the history major has to know why marketing majors will make money and what they will be possibly successful for. They have to know the value of that degree due to its obvious esteem in the predominance of advertising in our everyday lives and how it props up our dominant pastimes in the country (football, reality TV, etc.)

The marketing major does not have to, as a rule, because historical lessons are not as apparent nor are they socially sought-after to be understood and discussed. By virtue of the society's focus on one rather than the other, we see very quickly how much esteem is given to one instead of the other. The more tangible results given from one make us value marketing more, even if implicitly through how we reward its work on our everyday lives, and the less tangible results of valuing history go ignored or undervalued.

Like I've said earlier, it is not entirely wrong to want education in some degree as a measure of attaining tangible resources. I love to study Spanish and Anthropology, and do see how knowing other languages and cultures helps me understand my own point of view and place in the world more effectively (and that is, to be sure, my primary value). However, I'd be foolish to say that I didn't also at some level appreciate and take into account how knowing Spanish would help me in a job or how Anthropological knowledge might aid me in knowing about another culture in order to make my dealings with others at a job more pleasant. These, either directly or indirectly, help me in a monetary light.

My eventual point is that we as a society seem to be giving fertile ground to valuing the tangible aspect of education - in the sense of monetary gain, status, etc. through rewarding those who give tangible rewards in the moment - and giving less consideration to those scholars and citizens who value other types of knowledge who can contribute in ways not easily digested or tangible on first glance. This, in my opinion, is a mistake, and based on the understanding presented with the history major, I think we could take some of those facts as the first steps in changing our social attitudes towards knowledge. Not just for liberal arts sake, or for business majors sake - for all of our sakes.