The Power of the "N-Word"

This past week in American Studies class, while discussing Junot Diaz's The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, the topic of the "n-word" came up. Is it okay for white people to use this word? Is it okay for anyone to use this word, and if so, when? Personally, every time I hear the word I cringe. It hurts my ears. Here's why.

First of all, the "n-word" is extremely offensive and, to me, blantantly racist. In the words of Abiola Abrams, author of "The Sacred Bombshell Handbook of Self-Love," award-winning blogger, and 'Dare' speaker, "I just don't understand why white people want to use the n-word." The word started out as "negro," and in the 17th century, turned to "the n-word" as an intentional, explicit, derogatory towards African Americans. Now, in the era of extreme political correctedness and colorblindess, the word has become the ultimate insult, and is one of the most offensive words I can think of.

Secondly, the power of language. (This is something we talk a lot about in American Studies, too). Language is the most powerful tool we have, which is something some people don't understand. When teachers tell young kids that "words hurt," they're right. Words give people the power to "name" other people, and names are what define us. Calling someone the n-word is literally giving them that name, they are forced to believe that they are that insult, they are that name. Language is powerful, and in the words of Abiola Abrams, it has reprocussions. Let's think about how we use it.

In your opinion, is it ever okay for one to use the "n-word?" If so, who, and under what circumstances?

Gun Control in the U.S.: What It Really Means

This past Tuesday, States United To Prevent Gun Violence, a group of gun-control activists, set up a fake gun store in an attempt to show potential buyers the true dangers of guns. The facts made potential buyers think twice about buying a gun, and perhaps changed some minds about gun control in the United States. “It made me actually think, ‘I’m not going to buy that gun,'” said one customer after the true purpose of the fake gun store was revealed. Some would say these gun control activists took things a bit too far, but their intentions were true. Perhaps the United States should think a little more about our laws regarding gun control and what allowing civilians to carry guns truly means for the safety of our country. 

According to FBA data, "410 Americans were 'justifiably killed'" by police in 2012. 409 commited by guns. In the same year in Britain, police shot total of three times. In fact, with the exception of Northern Irelanhd, police only carry firearms in the United Kingdom under special circumstances. Why are these numbers so drastically different? Perhaps in part because of the difference in gun control laws in the United States and the United Kingdom. 

In the United States, more than a third of the population reports that either they or someone in their household owns a gun. In contrast, only about 6.7 percent of people in the United Kingdom own firearms. This means that the police force in the United States is under a much higher risk of facing civilians with guns, and therefore potentially having to shoot in self defense. The police force in the United Kingdom does not come in contact with nearly as many civilians with guns and shootings, and therefore have to shoot at civilians much less often. It seems to me that perhaps letting the American civilian population own guns is not really protecting them, it is backfiring. 

How would the statistics be different if gun control laws changed in the United States? What do gun control laws really mean to the American civilian population?

"Role Models Not Runway Models"

Last month, Jamie Brewer, famous for her acting in American Horror Story, made the headlines as the first model with Down Syndrome to walk in New York Fashion Week. This was a huge step in showing all women that they are beautiful, that they can look amazing in the clothing shown in Fashion Week. What's amazing, though, is the designer whose clothes Brewer modeled, Carrie Hammer. Her mission was to "feature role models over actually runway models." (Her line is actually called "Role Models Not Runway Models," and inspiring and empowering women from around the world are featured as models.) She did just that, and what an amazing impact her message had on the nation.

When Hammer was asked to show her designs at New York Fashion Week last year, she chose to use her own clients instead of real runway models. This included Danielle Sheypuk, the first model in a wheelchair to be featured in Fashion Week, and other models varying in height, weight, and ethnicity.

Jamie Brewer walking in Fashion Week

Carrie Hammer's mission to include real clients of all types modeling her clothing means so much to me and women throughout the world. As I said before, she has shown women that everyone can wear the clothes they see in Fashion Week, that everyone can feel beautiful.  Most importantly, though, Hammer has shown the world that a woman's image does not define them; it is only a small part of who they are. What's most important is a person's mind, what they do with their life, and who they are inside. Hammer realizes this and it is reflected in her models and clothing line.

It's Okay

In American Studies class on Friday, we discussed Frank Bruni's article "How to Survive the College Admissions Madness," which was in the New York Times on March 13th. (If you haven't read it yet, please do so now before reading my opinions on it). Perhaps because I find myself perpetually stressing over grades and the ACT and college, I found the topic that Bruni struggles with important and relevent. However, I do not agree with some of his points.

This article tells the story of two young students, Peter Hart and Jenna Leahy, as a way of showing that "it's okay to get rejected." Bruni first tells us Hart's story- rejected from his dream schools, he attended Indiana University for college. But it's okay that he got rejected, because he eventually made it to Harvard. Believe me, I think it's great that Hart eventually got to Harvard and thrived. But I think that, for the sake of high school students stressing out about college, we need to realize that it's also great that he got into Indiana University in the first place. Not everyone can go to the Ivy's, and there are other great schools. Yes, it's okay to be rejected, like Bruni says, but it's also okay to never make it to the Ivy's, to never be the elite-elite of the country.

Bruni then goes on to tell Jenna Leahy's story. Leahy was rejected from her top choice schools, and ended up attending Scripps College. Bruni goes on to explain how Leahy accepted and eventually thrived and took risks because of her previous rejection from elite schools. He quotes her as saying "I never would have had the strength, drive, or fearlessness to take suck a risk if I hadn't been rejected so intensely before." This is great, but again I feel that Bruni is patronizing "the rejection" too much. It seems much more understandable that Leahy's success stemmed from her high quality education at Scripps College, not from her rejection of highly selective, elite schools.

I get where Frank Bruni is coming from, and I think his intentions are good; it is okay to be rejected. However, I believe that we need to realize that highly selective, elite schools aren't the only good schools in the world. It's perfectly okay to go to schools like Indiana Univserity. In fact, it's great; it's more than most of the world gets to do.

Unequal Education In The Illinois Constitution

Illinois schools spend an average of $8,786 per student per year. New Trier High School spends more than double that at $21,372. In contrast, Chicago Public Schools, only a short drive from NTHS, spend an average of $13,791 per student per year. For this reason, students in CPS schools receive a vastly different education and high school experience than students at New Trier (and schools with similar budgets). This unequal education is a complicated problem that is the root of many issues in the Illinois education system, and completely goes against the Illinois State Constitution. 

The unequal funding for Illinois schools completely violates the Illinois State Constitution, which states that "a fundamental goal of the people of the State is the educational developement of all persons to the limits of their capacities." I would argue that the limits of my capacities are no different than the limits of a student at any given Chicago Public School; I am no smarter than any other high school student. What the "limit" really is is money; students at New Trier have endless resources, amazing teachers and staff, countless extracurriculars, outstanding academic opportunities that other schools simply cannot afford. It seems to me that the State is not meeting their "fundamental goal" to educate all students equally. For the education of all students in Illinois to be more equal, the funding for Illinois schools must become more equal.

Additionally, the Illinois State Constitution promises to "provide for an efficient system of high quality public education" for all students in Illinois. To what extent, though, can a school provide a "high quality" education without the means to do so? Are students in Chicago Public Schools receiving the same quality education as students at New Trier? I would say no. The average ACT score at New Trier High school is a 26.8; in contrast, the average ACT score at Kelvyn Park High School, a Chicago Public School, is a 15.1. In addition, New Trier has a graduation rate of 98.5%, and 99% of students who graduate go on to college; Kelvyn Park has a graduation rate of 59.3%.The quality of education at these two schools is simply not equal, not what the state promises. The state must provide schools with enough money to provide a "high quality" education if they want to keep the standards they set up in the state's constitution. 

The amount funding a school receives plays a large role in the education the student receives, and we all know how important education and high school is in determining a person's future. How can the state change to provide a better, more equal education for all students? 

Two Bachelorettes: A Feminist's Worst Nightmare

Last week, 14.3 million viewers tuned in to watch the finale of Chris Soules' season of The Bachelor, and I would bet not one of these viewers wasn't shocked at the announcement that the next season of The Bachelorette will feature Kaitlyn Bristowe and Britt Nilsson as the bachelorettes. At first I thought Great- double the dates, double the drama, double the love. But no- according to the show's host, Chris Harrison, "The 25 men on night one are going to have the ultimately say about who they think would make the best wife." One of the bachelorettes will be rejected and sent home by 25 men after one night. This kind of rejection- 25 men voting on which woman will make a "better wife" after just meeting her- is completely insulting and degrading to women, and sends a horrible message to the millions of young female viewers that tune to the show every Monday night.

The main reason why I think this "two Bachelorettes" thing is degrading to women (especially Nilsson and Bristowe) is because it gives the power to the male contestants, not the bachelorett(es) that the season is supposed to be focusing on. The men will send one woman home based solely on first impressions- looks, mostly, because who can get to know a person fully in a few hours? Additionally, I have a problem with the fact that the men are literally voting on not who they think would make a better bachelorette, but who would make a better wife. Inevitably, either Kaitlyn or Britt will be sent home after the first cocktail party, and as she is filmed crying to herself dramatically in the limo, she will think, Wow, it wasn't just one man who thought I wasn't the "best wife," it was the majority of 25 men. 

Previous Bachelor Sean Lowe stated on his blog that, "When I was The Bachelor, the producers selected girls for my season whom they thought were well suited for me." Who are the producers choosing this season- men that are right for Britt or men that are right for Kaitlyn? Half and half?After watching Chris Soules' season, I can safely say those are not the same guys. This fact makes me feel like there isn't a great chance that whoever is chosen as the next Bachelorette will find true love- which is what the show is supposed to be about.

Kaitlyn Bristowe and Britt Nilsson

I have a lot of problems with the fact that there are two Bachelorettes next season, and so do a lot of other people. Above all, I think that it shows women that men have the power, that they can choose who is and isn't a good wife, a good in general. Having two Bachelorettes on an already controversial show just won't work, and most importantly, it just isn't right.

With that said, I understand that the show did this for ratings, that last season was so dramatic that they couldn't choose one woman for next season, that having two Bachelorettes is exciting. However, I think there are better ways to make the show more exciting and increase ratings. How do you think they should have gone about this issue?