EXTREMISM HAS NO RELIGION - What The Oslo Terrorist Attacks Teach Us About the World We Are Living in Today

I am not going to provide a summary for what happened in Oslo because it was all over the news.  I would like to call attention to some of the comments that were made by media in wake of these terrorist attacks:

“This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists. [...] Some irresponsible lawmakers on both sides of the aisle…would have us believe that enormous defense cuts would not affect our national security. Obama would have us believe that al-Qaeda is almost caput and that we can wrap up things in Afghanistan. All of these are rationalizations for doing something very rash, namely curbing our ability to defend the United States and our allies in a very dangerous world.”

“…in jihadist eyes, [Norway] will always remain guilty of being what it is: a liberal nation committed to freedom of speech and conscience, equality between the sexes, representative democracy, and every other freedom that defines the West. For being true to those ideals, Norwegians have now been asked to pay a terrible price.“

           
“Norway also drew the ire of al Qaeda for publishing the controversial political cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that appeared in a Danish newspaper and sparked outrage in the militant Islamic community.”

 “I think the betting is on terrorism. We don't know for sure, yet. But you've only got to look at the sort of blast that occurred. You've only got to look at the target - prime minister's office, the headquarters of the major newspaper group next door.

Why would that be relevant? Because the Norwegian newspapers republished the cartoons of Prophet Mohammad that caused such offense in the Muslim world. When that happened, the Norwegian telecoms offices in Pakistan were attacked and ransacked. The Norwegian embassy in Damascus was attacked. That is an issue that still rankles amongst Islamist militants the world over. So, that fact that Norwegian newspapers did that makes them a target.”

According to the article by Gharib and Waldron for ThinkProgress (found here: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/23/277310/wapos-jen-rubin-wsj-right-wing-pundits-jumped-to-blame-muslims-and-jihadists-for-norway-attacks/) the second comment was initially in the Wall Street Journal but was promptly re-written when news of the real attacker was discovered.


As everybody is aware now, the terrorist is actually one that no one would have thought –

32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, who is apparently a right-wing extremist and not anti-Western but anti-Muslim.

Since the world has learned of this, there has been little usage of the words “terrorist”, “fundamentalism”, or “extremism”.  Why not? He committed acts of terrorism; he was an extremist, and a fundamentalist.  But no; instead of calling his attacks what they were, we seem to have a special group of people for whom these labels are reserved for – regardless of if they have done anything or not.

The point of this article is to say that violence, extremism, hatred, and fundamentalism come in all forms.  They are not inherently Muslim; the fact that the media immediately jumped to the conclusion that these acts must have been committed by Muslim terrorists is saddening and offensive to the vast majority of Muslims who are against these violent acts. 

The world hates them.  The world likes to pin every fear, every violent act, every problem on them.  After all, it is because of Muslims we are in Iraq or we are in Afghanistan.  It is because of Muslims that there are problems at the Gaza Strip.  It is because of Muslims that airport and border security has to be more strict. 

But the reverse is actually true.  It is because of stereotypes that they are blamed for every problem.  It is because of these viewpoints that innocent people are being killed and their homelands are destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other places.  It is because of these wars that Muslims are treated as less than people.  It is because of these viewpoints that the prevailing viewpoint is that Palestinians are in the wrong, even though they are denied property, and healthcare, and the actions of a few destitute citizens result in disproportionate violent retaliations from Israel and others.  It is because of these widely-held beliefs of Muslims that when they are completely innocent, they are still nervous to cross the boarder or pass through airport security.  It is because of these viewpoints that time and time again, innocent people are held and tortured in Guantanamo Bay.  Muslims are victimized, searched, questioned, humiliated, and hated. It is because of these viewpoints that regular citizens are afraid of their own government.  They are afraid to say they are Muslim.

President Obama was often “accused” of being Muslim, as if being a Muslim, had he been one, was one of the most offensive things you could say to him.  He even venehemently denied it, because he saw it as such as well.

Many places in the United States have opposed mosques being built (with the ever-famous and incorrectly-named “Ground Zero Mosque”) which was clearly a “slap in the face” for Americans since they were “fighting Islam”; I must have been under the incorrect impression that they were fighting extremism – not the very religion.

And in doing  just that, the West is itself guilty of extremism in the name of Islamaophobia.  Muslims can no longer feel free to say and act how they want. They cannot openly express their religious beliefs through manner, speech, or dress, because they will be victimized and frowned upon. Having just a Muslim name or so-called “Muslim features” (“looking” South Asian or Middle Eastern) immediately labels them as extremists.  Simply attending a mosque becomes evidence against an innocent citizen.

The media consistently discusses the race and religion of suspects in “terrorist acts”; meanwhile, I have yet to hear a news anchor discussing the religion or race of a Christian white man who is committing similarly terroristic acts.

It is interesting that with such new ideas that people so quickly forget that there are Muslims who are citizens of our country. They contribute to the economy. They work hard just like anyone else. They pay their taxes. Muslims are signed up in the army. They also work as police officers, fire fighters, and other “patriotic” occupations.  They have families. They raise their children.  They want a good life.  There are Muslim teachers, professors, scholars,…the list goes on. They were affected by events like 9/11 just like “we” were; many Muslims lost their lives in those attacks as well, and in fact had to deal with a repercussion that most of us are not familiar with.  Following the attacks they were victimized and sought out; many were killed by angry citizens forgetting that the people they were targeting were citizens as well.

It seems that Islamaphobia has spiraled out of control so much that nobody thinks to question it.  Islam is simply bad and we do not want “those people” to express their “crazy” or “backwards” or “violent” religion.  We will do anything to keep them under control and hate them for being in “our” country.

But when I watch the news that tells me another school has been blown up in Afghanistan, or another cab driver was killed for being Muslim, or another person is tortured in Guantanamo, given no trial, or disclosure as to why he is a suspect, before being set free and found to be innocent, I ask myself yet again, “Who are the real terrorists?”

-Nancy L.

Sources           

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/22/blast-rips-through-norways-capital-injuries-reported/

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/22/qa-why-norway/

http://alhittin.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/are-the-anti-islamic-bigots-disappointed-that-the-oslo-bombing-is-not-from-an-islamic-organisation/

 

Herman Cain and Mosque Bans

Hi.  My name is Not Raj, which seems to come as a shock to many.  This is my first post on The Needle in the Haystack, and I hope it will show you what is in store from me.  Let the blogging commence:

Herman Cain of Georgia is aspiring to be a possible presidential candidate for the Republicans.

In response to the events taking place in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, wherein a proposed mosque has resulted in protests, legal challenges, and arson, Cain replied, "Yes, [the people of Tennessee] have the right to do that" and even referred to the proposed mosque as  an “infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion" adding it “isn’t an innocent mosque.” 

I thought it could not get any worse, until I read the rest of the article.  Cain went on to claim that "[The American] Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state…[Opponents] objecting to the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws," Cain said of the opponents.

First of all, this mosque is supposedly an “infringement” on freedom of religion, but certainly both denying Muslims the right to establish a mosque and claiming, without basis that they are terrorists is not an infringement at all.  Really Cain?  And you want to run this country?

And further, if simply establishing a mosque means that this goes against rules of “separation of church and state” then maybe Christians should not be allowed to have churches in America either.  Or maybe state-instituted Catholic schools should not be established.  But that is just as ridiculous.  

Just like everyday Muslims do not practice Sharia Law, everyday Christians do not go around stoning adulterers or anything else of the like mentioned in the Bible, which arguably has it’s own “set of laws” that would equally “offend” the separation of church and state.

Additionally, just an afterthought, you would think someone like Cain, whose ancestors and people have faced centuries of oppression, hatred, and stereotyping, you would think he might be more sympathetic to other groups now facing similar struggles and issues.

All I can say is let alone a possible presidential candidate, I cannot understand how someone like this is any position of political power at all.

Fuming,

My Name is Not Raj.

This blog post is written in response to the story found here:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herman-cain-backs-mosque-bans-152052930.html

A little food for thought…

Just because someone has an accent and drives a cab does not mean he is stupid… more likely than not he is a Doctor and has gone through more education than you ever will.

Homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, and is well documented for 500 of them. So much for the “against nature” argument huh?

The Mayans, which are amongst the oppressed indigenous groups of the world (but really what indigenous group isn’t oppressed beyond belief in our world?), and invented many things, and even had a symbol for zero, while in Europe they didn’t even like to bathe.

Vernon L. Smith, Nobel Laureate in Economics, Satoshi Tajiri, creator of Pokémon, just two of the many talented people with autism. Do I need to mention Helen Keller, couldn’t see, hear or speak yet she became more successful that most of us? Yes, you may be “normal”, but is that necessarily a good thing? Normal never makes history… extraordinary does.

Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz… nun, autodadict, poet, feminist, rumoured lesbian, Mexican of the 17th century. “I dressed up as a nun because I couldn’t dress up as a man”. I’ll leave you to think about this one…

Point being, question everything, try to learn from everywhere possible. If you open your mind and let go of your biases you will be thankful. If you decide to hold on to your prejudices you are only cheating yourself. There is so much out there worthy of an ear. If you give yourself a chance you might have your mind blown when you realize how cool some people are, put down the magazine that talks about celebrity divorces, really what is new about that? Give your self some credit; you are smarter than that, fill up your brain with awesomeness!

- Kevin Alcott

Why SAT Results Were Not Reflective of Student Ability, & Why This Is Still Relevant

Early SATs had questions like this:

RUNNER is to MARATHON
(RUNNER : MARATHON)
is the same as

A) envoy : embassy
B) martyr : massacre
C) oarsman : regatta
D) referee : tournament

E) horse : stable

In this case, C is the correct answer.

First of all, why is this a clear reflection of biased testing? Because only people of a certain class have ever encountered a “regatta” and know what it is (I sure didn’t). So if there are questions that privilege upper class individuals (and because wealth is racialized) what these crafty test makers concluded was that those students who were of a certain economic and ethnic background happened to be “less intelligent” all because the questions were ethno- and culturally- centric. Obviously such blatant favoring of particular classes and ethnic groups (i.e. upper-class white Americans) no longer occurs in the test.

Yet this is still of relevance. Not only did decades of such views on Black students or of students of lower classes change how society saw and treated them, but it has lent itself to a historical conception of the aforementioned groups; ideas like this only added to already negative stereotypes of these groups and stereotypical views can become so ingrained that even after knowing the tests were skewed these underlying ideas of such groups never really go away. This is just one miniscule example of why history is not really over after the events pass because they remain a part of the inner conceptions of both actors involved.

In the same token the British may no longer be colonizing South Asia, and the United States is no longer enslaving African Americans; but both of these practices brough with them conceptions of the aforementioned people, whether it was that they were “backward”, “savage”, “uncivilized”, “unintelligent” (etc.) and while the practice went away these conceptions did not necessarily disappear.  They were in fact still relevant in the subsequent treatment and general view of these persons colonized, enslaved, or not. such conceptions can be carried over decades, even centuries, and this is why history is never “over” – it remains relevant and very much alive.


Consciously yours,

Malcolm [Exorcise the Demons]

Try the Real Paradise

Cenote Dos Ojos

I would like to share a tendency I have. I tend to view the world in a practical way; I like practical solutions to the problems we face. Of course the first step to changing our world is being as aware as possible about the problems in the world, but awareness needs to be followed by action. That action is in fact practical, doable in the society we live in, and fit to the lives we lead. We may not save the world, but can hopefully help at least some with our actions. So for this blog, I would like to share a little bit about a different type of tourism, an alternative tourism, in one of the most popular vacation destinations to us, Mexico.

I want to shed light on an alternative option to Mexico’s resorts because this supports Mexico’s indigenous people. Indigenous people all around the world are amongst the most alienated, poor, and abused populations that exist. To this day, they are still paying the consequences of colonization. The abuses they have suffered (and still suffer) throughout history have left them not only an embedded negative emotional impact, but also a social and economic impact. In their towns they lack access to education, appropriate health care, and sometimes their basic needs. According to Mexico’s Government Agency for the Development of Indigenous People, the average indigenous family lives on less than a US$1 a day. This is obviously problematic, as most of these people live below the poverty line. So let’s talk about what we can do to support them.

Everyone that I have ever met loves going to Mexico, or if they haven’t been able to travel there, would like to do so in the future. Reasons are clear: Mexico is globally known for its beautiful beaches, its beautiful and hospitable people, its amazing food, its rich culture etc…

Why not enjoy all of these aspects that make Mexico a world renowned touristic destination while supporting its local indigenous communities? Next time you are planning to visit Mexico make a reservation at one of the hotels that are provided all over the country (Riviera Maya, Michoacán, Campeche, Oaxaca, Chiapas, Hidalgo, etc…) by local indigenous people. But I’ll focus on the south of Mexico because I know that is a very popular choice. The hotels in the Yucatan have in their backyard the famous Mayan pyramids, and what better than to be bumping elbows with Mayans themselves? It is Mexican culture at its finest, at its purest, coming back into the pre-Hispanic roots that started it all. I am sure it is close to impossible to find better hospitality, because the native people will be glad to have you; will be pleased with your interest in their culture. These little hotels offer a variety of tours and activities, such as swimming in the gorgeous cenotes (underwater caves), of Yucatan, bike tours, bungee jumping, snorkelling, finishing, and much more... They also offer all-inclusive packages, which means absolutely mouth-watering authentic all-you-can-eat food (nothing North American- washed like the food you may get on main stream resorts.  After all, you’re in Mexico right? You want the real deal). All of this is just minutes away from the gorgeous beaches and the amazing archaeological sites, such as the pyramids. Because these hotels are owned and operated by the local indigenous people, you are guaranteed to be helping their community, and not just some rich person who owns a mainstream resort, and it’s all at a fraction of the usual price. Not only that, but as part of this program, the indigenous people are trying to promote eco-tourism by offering environmentally-friendly activities to the tourists, and their hotels are built with local grown materials that they have built themselves. Cool huh?

So I invite you to meet the wonderful Mayans, eat their food, share a laugh, share their art and history, and have a toast (with tequila of course) to a more united world. Once you have tasted what Mexico has to offer look into what the other native people around the world have to offer when you visit their homeland. I bet it’s awesome. 

 -Kevin Alcott

Resources:

Cenote of Yucatan picture:

http://nauticajonkepa.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/cenote-dos-ojos.jpg

Guide/ List of Alternative Mexican Tourism:

http://www.cdi.gob.mx/turismo/

Videos and Phone Numbers to resort in Yucatan:

http://www.cdi.gob.mx/turismo/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=133:cenote-ecoturistico-x-canche-sc-de-rl&catid=50:yucatan&Itemid=54

http://www.cdi.gob.mx/turismo/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=134:centro-ecoturistico-cabanas-ecologicas-uh-najil-ek-balam-ac&catid=50:yucatan&Itemid=54

http://www.unajilekbalam.org/

Women Who Choose to Cover Themselves Are NOT Backwards

My name is Nancy and I am a liberal woman from a conservative place.

I recently saw an old friend post this picture up onto their Facebook, and this is what sparked the idea to write this post – about Muslim women, and then any other women for that matter, who would rather not show off their bodies.

(Obviously I am not talking about people who are actually are forced to hide their bodies beyond their will. I am talking about the women that choose to do so.)

The Western conception that anybody who does not like to wear (sometimes overly-) revealing clothes  (e.g. short skirts, “booty” shorts, halter tops, tank tops, low necklines, crop tops, leggings, etc.) means that they do not like their body, are ashamed of how they look, are ashamed even, to have the female form, is ridiculous. 

We live in the West assuming we are more forward-thinking than every other culture and country yet we still do not really understand the conception of liberty in so many ways. 

Telling women, or even merely judging them when they cover themselves up is backwards.  Why are we trying to enforce “liberty” on others? Does the phrase itself not sound oxymoronic?

While I agree that women’s faces should be shown for photo identification cards (e.g. faces should be showing, hair is not necessary) I do not see why women have to face both outward scrutiny and informal stigma of those surrounding them in society. I thought living in Western countries meant we were FREE to do as we chose as long as we did not harm others (thank you Mill); judging these women and unfairly calling attention to them in settings such as schools, the workplace, and then in broader ways through the media and in society in general is what causes harm to others.

A woman who chooses to dress modestly has as much right to do so as a woman who chooses to show herself; in fact, the former is not ashamed of herself, rather, this is the look she prefers and there is nothing wrong with that. So to simply assume that such women are “backwards”, “confused”, “too traditional”, “ashamed” and importantly, “forced” to do so, is ignorance. Some women prefer to be this way and some women do not. We cannot tell women how to dress and if that involves allowing them to show their bodies without assuming they are “sluts” then it also means allowing them to cover themselves without assuming they are “old fashioned”.

Yours sincerely,
Nancy.

What's on Your Status?

This is Kevin Alcott.  I do not feel the need to make much of an introduction because I hope my words will speak for themselves.

We all seem to claim to want privacy and feel safe wherever we are. We want to feel safe in our schools, in our neighbourhoods and we expect the best client privacy policies with the companies we deal with. That is very understandable; I am one of those claimers. What I find ironic is that at the same time most of us (including myself) fall into the Facebook mania. Approximately everyone we know in real life (and some internet loners who just add you as a friend for lack of real interpersonal skills) knows if you got drunk last weekend and were showing off your granny panties down Peter Street. We voluntarily expose details of our lives that maybe we shouldn’t.

Why shouldn’t we? Well maybe it’s not entirely safe to have your whole school and neighbouring community know that you were getting busy at a party instead of being at work. Maybe not everyone on your Facebook friend’s list is worthy of your trust, and (to be fair) maybe you aren’t worthy of theirs.
Think about it: your pictures with your better half in the hands of your archenemy that just happens to be armed with Photoshop….the possibilities are endless.  With Facebook everyone knows (the minute it happens), if you are in a relationship, with whom, and when you break up. If the breakup does happen, you will get amusing little comments from people that you never really talk to such as; “aww what happened hun?”. Like come on; do they really care? No. Why do we expose ourselves like that? Is it maybe a mutual agreement? I’ll show you mine if you show me yours? I’ll expose my life if you expose yours? The times when I have deactivated Facebook I have had numerous texts and complaints from my friends asking me if I was mad at them because I didn’t show up on their list of friends. No. I’m not mad my lovely friends/acquaintances/weird internet loners. Sometimes I just get tired of wasting my life on that webpage and not even knowing why. A very ironic part of my personal Facebook life is that I have my whole family and friends/acquaintances blocked. Why? Because I am paranoid someone is going to tag me in a picture from Saturday with a tequila shot in each hand looking like I’m about to fall over and my dad will see it. Or someone who knows my mom will tell her how I seem to be the life of every party. Does that make me a hypocrite? Yes. Will it make me unblock my family? No. But nevertheless, I let a whole bunch of randoms know my personal life while I hide it from my family. Why? I’m not sure. Do I like the convenience Facebook gives to keep in contact with people I would otherwise not talk to? Again, I’m not sure. To all of you who do not use Facebook, good for you, I admire you for not following the norm. Fight the man!

Maybe I’ll set an example and go deactivate my account, but for now I’m going to go update my status.

-Kevin Alcott

A little to think about when it comes to racism…

My name is Belisa. This is my first contribution to The Needle in the Haystack which I am sure will turn out to be a wonderful project.  Without further delay:

This little piece is to question the internalized racism I have experienced all my life. People sometimes without even realizing it, have these internalized notions that white- lighter- Anglo- is somehow always better. The truth is that there is a big difference between patriotism and being racist. Yes, you can (and I believe you should), be proud of your roots and what your culture has to offer. However, racism falls into believing a race in superior to others, which is completely absurd. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, this is a true cliché. I wish the problem would stop there, that Caucasian people think white is better, but internalized racism is such a big part of our society that even non-Caucasian people think white is best. Many people no matter their background including Latinos, Middle Eastern, African, European etc… have this belief that lighter is better, just because it’s just that, lighter. Lighter features are preferred all over the world for some reason they are thought as more beautiful. In my country, Mexico, the gueritos get so many more people interested in them, simply because they are lighter than the rest, they don’t even have to be actually good looking, but to many people just the fact that they are lighter makes them more desirable.

I beg to differ, lighter is not necessarily prettier. Beautiful eyes are beautiful no matter their colour; features are beautiful no matter their colour. However, I think a big part of the blame still has to be put on colonialism. By now most of the world is a colonized society, which helps to put an explanation about this belief of white supremacy. People who come from colonized parts of the world have this embedded code in their upbringing that white is superior, that is why white people always win, that is why white people can take whatever they want and nothing happens, they are boss wherever they go. This of course is no longer true, it was before when their countries were being colonized, but the pain and the feeling that they are not as good enough as the colonizers remains in their education. This may seem farfetched to you, but there are innumerable examples we can extract from. Why are there skin lightening creams? Why are people fascinated with bleaching their hair to look unnaturally blonde? Why do people insist on pretending they have blue or green eyes by wearing contacts? Why is it that the African American women who are considered desirable in the media are mostly the lighter skin ones such as Tyra Banks, Rihanna and Beyonce? This is something I believe we have to fight to get rid of, and truly analyze it and ask ourselves where this comes from, because if we really take a look at it, it really makes no sense. This only feeds oppression, insecurities, racism and pain. There is no point in keeping this notion alive.

Here is some food for thought: did you know that genetically the black race is considered the perfect race? That is part of why they were enslaved, they are the strongest, most agile, and most resistant. Did you also know that genetically light eyes are considered a deformation? That is why over 50% of the human population has brown eyes; they are the normal and healthy shade of eyes to have. The point is to appreciate who you are, and stop internally degrading some races and upholding others, it does not make sense and it only leads to hate. Here is a little piece I did out of frustration I have felt all my life from by culture being degraded…

You tell me I don’t look like the people from my land and you expect me to take it as a compliment.

Why are green eyes and light skin valued over my brother’s dark skin and my mother’s gorgeous brown eyes? He has the colour of the sun surrounding him, the beautiful colour of bronze infused in his skin.

If anything these traits that I have inherited are my least valued.

These green eyes and this pale skin are prevalent in the land of the people that raped and killed my people, that slaved them, degraded them, tortured them, humiliated them, and stole from them. Would you like to be told you are lucky to look like the man who raped your mother? No? Neither do I.

I do not pride myself in these and I do not take it as a compliment that you make my mild differences come to light. I embrace my looks, but when you try to make my "lighter" features appear to be more beautiful than those more common in my people then we have a problem.

If you are going to compliment me compliment me in my curves that the women from my land are well known for, compliment my natural rhythm that we are blessed with and the warmth in our manner that comes so naturally to us.

Do not tell me I do not look Mexican, you do not know Mexicans.

 -Belisa

Examining So-Called Pluralism and the Africentric High School Proposal

This is my first post on The Needle in the Haystack. I’m really excited about this blog; so by way of quick introduction, you can call me Malcolm.  This is now somewhat an old issue, and in many parts of North America, an unknown issue, but I think it is important to talk about nonetheless.

            From the beginning, there have been many challenges to the Africentric high school that was to be established in Toronto at St. Clair Avenue West and Oakwood Avenue at Oakwood Collegiate (which has now been facing much protest from the community surrounding the proposed site).

            In general the following arguments have been made: i) an Africentric high school should not be allowed, mainly because it takes away from the pluralistic experience of Canada.  These people are concerned that those students going to the already-established Africentric primary school will continue to the proposed high school meaning they will never encounter students of other races or cultures, thus being unprepared for multicultural society. Another deterrence is that ii) the cost on what is supposedly an already strained budget for schools.  This is irrelevant; a “strained budget” is a factor for any school and is certainly not a reason to completely halt the creation of such a school.  It has even been argued that iii) we do not know if it is “effective”, and we should test the results of an Africentric primary school before creating a  high school.  However, why are the two comparable? Primary education is very different from high school education and positive or negative results in one do not entail the same for the other.  It is also stated that a high school is more difficult to plan, which is again, a disputable claim.  Primary school and high school planning are different but one is not necessarily more difficult to plan than the other.  The author tries to strengthen this the argument by mentioning that Trustee James Pasternack, (an “authority”) did not want to add a high school at this point in time.

            Most people’s largest concerns seem to be that of pluralism and the fear that such a school creates “segregation”.  The author fears that Africentric education could lead to too much of one viewpoint - however the same can be argued for the public school system.  In fact, supporters of this proposition feel that African-Americans are overlooked by the system and that many Black students do not learn about their own history and culture, and this disillusionment contributes to their high drop out rates.  Additionally, while students of an Africentric school may be surrounded by their own type of people, it does not necessarily mean that they are going to be close-minded or unwilling to interact with others, in other areas of their life – for instance, in their occupations.  If this is such an issue, surely parents that send their child to a French immersion school are at the same risk of having a child who only speaks and interacts with other French-speaking individuals.  In addition, encouraging pluralism means allowing groups to pursue their own goals and interests instead of having just one idea of what pluralism is (i.e. every type of person exposed to every other type of person, all the time, which has also unfairly been applied to this school when the case is the same for many other schools).

            Yet “segregation” already occurs but in a less formalized manner. The author's, and the public’s (incorrect) underlying assumption is that every other school has a mix of many different cultures; however it is not uncommon for certain areas to have predominantly white students, or Jewish students, for instance, or any other given main group meaning these students are not always mingling with diverse students in a school-setting either. If we are to address this issue, it is a deeper problem which is not just characteristic of an Africentric school. In fact, the school population is probably even reflective of the people who dominate certain neighbourhoods or parts of the city meaning beyond just a school setting, many people are not even living in highly pluralistic areas.  Before deciding whether such a school should or should not be allowed, maybe this means Catholic schools, or any other type of religious school should not be allowed either – these students are only interacting with people that share the same religious ideologies of them and when we discuss pluralism it is not just in reference to ethnicity, but also religion.

            Beyond just an ethnic divide, or a religious divide, what about an economic class divide? Poorer classes all seem to be concentrated in the same schools while upper-class students dominate their own (better-funded) schools.  This is not pluralistic either and these are all forms of segregation.  I’m not saying we should allow it or we should not, but an Africentric school is only one piece of the puzzle.

            One more thing to consider is that if we are to grant that the education system needs to change in order to make all groups feel included (in this case, African-American youth) then such changes should really be implemented in every school, so that everybody can strive to learn about each other in every school, rather than just targeting issues to groups “that concern them.”  I personally would want my child not to just learn about his own cultural issues, but those of his neighbours and (diverse) classmates; this way we can see how similar we really are rather than pushing us apart even further.

*Note: This started out as a response to http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/423994 initially. More current debate can be found in the following articles: 

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/03/30/africentric-school-deferred635.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/03/29/africentric-high-school682.html

Signed,
Malcolm [Exorcise the Demons]

Welcome!

Hey there,

Welcome to Needle in the Haystack. We are a small entourage of bloggers with big ideals. Our main goal is to try to uncover the truth in the most unbiased way possible, (as hard to find as a needle in a stack of hay). We want to change the world, and we know that the best way to do that is through education. Don’t get us wrong, we do not pretend to teach you anything, all we wish to do is make you think. To do this successfully we recommend the following steps;

1. Suspend your judgment initially to try to absorb as much of what is being tried to be communicated
2. Now that you have listened and put yourself in the other person’s shoes, now it is time to question – question everything

Here in Needle in the Haystack we are going to make you question, patriarchy, misogyny, political practices, the media, power of language, racism, sexism, ageism, human trafficking, etc… We will try to give you a new perspective that is probably not being explored in the main stream media in the hopes of you having another lens into which you can see an issue and hopefully inspire you to challenge the world as well.

Our goal is to cut the bull as much as possible. We hope you hop on this journey with us and try to find the needle.

Sincerely,

Needle in the Haystack team.