This weekend I took a Sociology workshop with 5 of my classmates called "Prison Industrial Complex." According to the Critical Resistance website, a prison abolition organization:
"The prison industrial complex (PIC) is a complicated system situated at the intersection of governmental and private interests that uses prisons as a solution to social, political, and economic problems. The PIC depends upon the oppressive systems of racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia. It includes human rights violations, the death penalty, industry and labor issues, policing, courts, media, community powerlessness, the imprisonment of political prisoners, and the elimination of dissent."
www.criticalresistance.org
It was a really great class, with more important info than I can include in one blog post (because of all the other, not-as-interesting, homework I need to get done). We watched a few videos- one about the increased development of state prisons in California in recent decades. Here's an interesting stat: California currently has the same number of UCs/CSUs as it does state prisons: 33. Wonder which will be built next in Any-Rural-Town, CA- a university, or a prison?
Another video clip we watched was from a corrections conference, where prison industry products were being sold. Imagine a business merchandise showcase, in a huge warehouse, with aisles and aisles of the newest accessories and styles. But these products were the new and improved tasers, stainless steel sink and toilet combos, and stab-proof vests.
What both of these have in common, and an issue that really struck a cord with me, is the issue of industry/commerce/corporation. Currently in the U.S. many prisons are privatized. That means corporations make money off of incarceration. More prisoners, more money! Capitalism at its best.
There was a guest speaker from Bar None, a local prison abolition organization, and 2 from Cop Watch, an organization that documents police brutality. During the Bar None presentation, the speaker discussed how our prison system is so deeply ingrained in our minds and culture as the only way to deal with "crime," that we struggle to even imagine alternative responses. For example, solitary confinement, used- and abused- pervasively in the U.S., is considered a violation of human rights by the U.N. Bar None does workshops, including with youth, that look at our definitions of harm, and safety, as well as brainstorming around alternative ways of dealing with various social harms.
Bar None: www.barnone.mahost.org
Redwood Curtain Cop Watch: www.redwoodcurtaincopwatch.net
That evening, Bar None was celebrating their 10 year anniversary with an event including artwork and letters by inmates at Pelican Bay (our local- Cresent City- supermax prison). I went to the event, which was small, but incredibly moving. Several people read letters from inmates, and one woman spoke whose son has been incarcerated for the past 20 years. And then a man stood up to speak, probably in his mid-50s, who said this was his first time engaging Bar None, and that he had had no intention of speaking. But he said, "I am the face of these letters." He had been incarcerated for 29 years, for homicide, "which I am guilty of," and was released 1 month, 1 week ago. He had spent a total of 9 years in the "Shu," which is solitary confinement. As he spoke, he looked at the mother of the inmate in the audience, and said his mother passed away before he was released, and he never told her that he was guilty.
Today, as I wrote this post, I was listening to "Sista's Place," an old-school soul radio show on the Humboldt State station, KHSU. Apparently a lot of inmates in Pelican Bay listen to her show, and so she reads messages to and from them over the radio. She had 2 guests on the show today, a couple of grad students working on an inmate writing project through Dell Arte, (a local artist community organization), who were at the Bar None event. They talked about that man who spoke, and said that afterwards, he and the mother hugged. They mentioned how incredible that moment was- a former inmate who did not get to hug his mother again before he was released, and a mother who cannot hug her incarcerated son.
I will leave it at that, but I want to say that I am so grateful for this community- including the opportunity to take this class, to be inspired by local activists, to bear witness to artwork by and communication with inmates, and to see the healing power of reaching out and opening up among those impacted by the prison industrial complex.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Professional Use of Self
A few things came up this week that made me think about my "professional use of self." I understand this term to mean, as a social worker, using one's skills and strengths to be an agent of change. Coincidentally, this is the idea behind the name of my blog; basically, what I can do to make a difference. According to my Community Practice textbook, use of self includes such skills as "coordination, advocacy, active listening, counseling...assertiveness...self-awareness, (and) interpersonal skills" (Hardcastle & Powers, 2004, p.208-209) The authors go on to say that "use of self implies that a social worker must be able to perform solo, because he or she may be the only person on the scene who can and will act" (ibid, p. 209). I think this is a really important point- one that connects social work to the foundation of social justice. It implies courage, which I don't think gets talked about enough in school (or at least in my experience). We have to be willing to speak up, even when no one else will. This relates back to having the awareness of and confidence to use one's strengths.
Related to this, Hardcastle & Powers go on to say that use of self includes "self-examination, making judgements, (and) taking actions beneficial to service consumers and community members" (p. 211). The authors emphasize the fact that "we react to others and others react to us" (p.212). This is such an important part of self-awareness- to have the humility to recognize one's weaknesses, triggers, and pejudices. This has been on my mind because I went to a training this week called "Decisions on Disproportionality." We discussed specifically the disparities within the child welfare system regarding various ethnicity groups. And we spent a lot of time talking about self-awareness and what we can do, as individuals, to effect change. We examined the concept of prejudice, and acknowledged the fact that everyone is prejudice, because it means learned ideas and opinions. And these learned ideas and opinions are created via socialization, which we all experience. Unfortunately, some socialization we experience within American culture and society is racist/sexist/homophobic/classist/etc, etc, etc.
I learned that prejudice is the thought or belief, and discrimination is the action based on that prejudice. Therefore, there are two ways in which we can take action against disparities within our agencies, systems, and society. First, we can practice mindfulness of our prejudices. When a thought pops into my mind that is an assumption or stereotype, I can be aware of it, and check myself. An example used in the training was that of a white woman walking down the sidewalk, and, when spotting a black man coming towards her, wanting to cross to the other side of the street. We can train ourselves to notice when these types of prejudices come up for ourselves. Then, the second part, is to use that awareness to guide our actions. Back to the example, once the white woman notices her thought, she can then choose to not cross to the other side of the street. This is a simplification, but we are constantly confronted with situations where these tools can be utilized. "Avoiding," such as that of the example, is only one way of discriminating- there are many. One of which is ignoring, which leads me back to the point about having the courage to speak up. Because silence perpetuates discrimination just as other things we consider more active.
Related to this, Hardcastle & Powers go on to say that use of self includes "self-examination, making judgements, (and) taking actions beneficial to service consumers and community members" (p. 211). The authors emphasize the fact that "we react to others and others react to us" (p.212). This is such an important part of self-awareness- to have the humility to recognize one's weaknesses, triggers, and pejudices. This has been on my mind because I went to a training this week called "Decisions on Disproportionality." We discussed specifically the disparities within the child welfare system regarding various ethnicity groups. And we spent a lot of time talking about self-awareness and what we can do, as individuals, to effect change. We examined the concept of prejudice, and acknowledged the fact that everyone is prejudice, because it means learned ideas and opinions. And these learned ideas and opinions are created via socialization, which we all experience. Unfortunately, some socialization we experience within American culture and society is racist/sexist/homophobic/classist/etc, etc, etc.
I learned that prejudice is the thought or belief, and discrimination is the action based on that prejudice. Therefore, there are two ways in which we can take action against disparities within our agencies, systems, and society. First, we can practice mindfulness of our prejudices. When a thought pops into my mind that is an assumption or stereotype, I can be aware of it, and check myself. An example used in the training was that of a white woman walking down the sidewalk, and, when spotting a black man coming towards her, wanting to cross to the other side of the street. We can train ourselves to notice when these types of prejudices come up for ourselves. Then, the second part, is to use that awareness to guide our actions. Back to the example, once the white woman notices her thought, she can then choose to not cross to the other side of the street. This is a simplification, but we are constantly confronted with situations where these tools can be utilized. "Avoiding," such as that of the example, is only one way of discriminating- there are many. One of which is ignoring, which leads me back to the point about having the courage to speak up. Because silence perpetuates discrimination just as other things we consider more active.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Music & Social Action
So my last post was about how music can be used to spread hate, which, well, sucks. So how about thinking about how music can be used to further a cause? To build community, inspiration, and action? I saw Ani DiFranco in concert this week here in Arcata (side note: a benefit to living in a small community along the tour route between big cities means some big names come through town and play at ridiculously small venues! Rad.). Anyone who knows Ani DiFranco's music knows she is a long-time feminist/activist/anti-corporate musician. She has written and performed many, many politically-minded songs, never hiding her views. She sang brutally honest criticisms of George W. Bush throughout his presidency. Tuesday night she sang a song called "November 4th, 2008," about Obama's victory:
What I really loved about it was that before she played this song, she said she was annoyed by people saying Obama hasn't done enough yet. Ani said it is our duty to encourage and support him so that he can continue to make social change and not get bogged down in the negativity. I appreciated that, because I've personally found myself criticizing him now and again. Not that we should blindly follow him- but I think we put so much hope on him, that it's easy to highlight what he's not doing. But hello, have we already forgotten BUSH?!
Anyway, the other super-duper radical, inspirational, I-wanna-go-out-these-doors-and-start-a-revolution song was a cover of an old labor union song from the 1930s, "Which Side Are you On?" I researched it, and found that it was written in 1931 by Florence Reece. An online article states:
And here's a video of Ani's version:
In undergrad, one of my upper-division Sociology classes was "Music & Social Movements." It was a fascinating class, to study songs and musicians that helped shape and propel movements (sidenote: unfortunately the professor did not present a single song related to the Women's movement; so I did a class presentation on a Riot Grrrls song). So much can be gained by social action through music- solidarity in a message, singing it all together; energy released and created by singing and dancing; fun and positivity as an anti-violence tactic; and a memorable link to the issues and experiences.
What I really loved about it was that before she played this song, she said she was annoyed by people saying Obama hasn't done enough yet. Ani said it is our duty to encourage and support him so that he can continue to make social change and not get bogged down in the negativity. I appreciated that, because I've personally found myself criticizing him now and again. Not that we should blindly follow him- but I think we put so much hope on him, that it's easy to highlight what he's not doing. But hello, have we already forgotten BUSH?!
Anyway, the other super-duper radical, inspirational, I-wanna-go-out-these-doors-and-start-a-revolution song was a cover of an old labor union song from the 1930s, "Which Side Are you On?" I researched it, and found that it was written in 1931 by Florence Reece. An online article states:
"In 1931, coal miners in Harlan County were on strike. Armed company deputies roamed the countryside, terrorizing the mining communities, looking for union leaders to beat, jail, or kill. But coal miners, brought up lean and hard in the Kentucky mountain country, knew how to fight back, and heads were bashed and bullets fired on both sides in Bloody Harlan.It was this kind of class war -- the mine owners and their hired deputies on one side, and the independent, free-wheeling Kentucky coal-miners on the other -- that provided the climate for Florence Reece's "Which Side Are You On?" In it she captured the spirit of her times with blunt eloquence.
Mrs. Reece wrote from personal experience. Her husband, Sam, was one of the union leaders, and Sheriff J. H. Blair and his men came to her house in search of him when she was alone with her seven children. They ransacked the whole house and then kept watch outside, ready to shoot Sam down if he returned.
One day during this tense period Mrs. Reece tore a sheet from a wall calendar and wrote the words to "Which Side Are You On?" The simple form of the song made it easy to adapt for use in other strikes, and many different versions have circulated.
Edith Fowke and Joe Glazer, Songs of Work and Protest, New York, NY, 1973, p. 55."
Both Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger were known to sing the song. Here's Pete Seeger singing it:And here's a video of Ani's version:
In undergrad, one of my upper-division Sociology classes was "Music & Social Movements." It was a fascinating class, to study songs and musicians that helped shape and propel movements (sidenote: unfortunately the professor did not present a single song related to the Women's movement; so I did a class presentation on a Riot Grrrls song). So much can be gained by social action through music- solidarity in a message, singing it all together; energy released and created by singing and dancing; fun and positivity as an anti-violence tactic; and a memorable link to the issues and experiences.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Community Action
So this week a reggae singer named Buju Banton was scheduled to perform in Eureka. In preparation for this post I planned to research Banton, but then saw that the job had been done for me. So rather than re-cap what has already been written locally about this, here's an article from The North Coast Journal:
Bubba Banton's Blues
By Hank Sims
Poor Buju Banton! The reggae singer's show at Nocturnum nightclub later this week was canceled after local people swiftly organized a protest in response to the singer's history of violent gay-bashing. Illustrious chapters of this history include a hit song called "Boom Bye Bye," which lovingly describes the murder of homosexuals, and a trial charging him with participating in a gang assault and home invasion targeting six gay men. (Charges against Banton were dropped under shady circumstances.) And yet everywhere he goes, the gays are out to get him!
Let's be clear. "Homophobia" is too weak a term to describe what happens in Jamaica. Vicious, violent, murderous persecution of gay people is an everyday fact of life. There are many people in that country who live in terror because of their sexual preferences. If Banton were serious about having changed his views, as he sometimes professes, he would take ownership of a desperate situation he helped to create. He is in a position to do more to stop the violence and bigotry in his country. And he does nothing.
Poor Buju fans! Judging from blog comments, some of them feel personally persecuted by the Banton show's cancellation. There is no need for this. I think I speak for everyone when I say that if bone-dumb dreadlocked frat boys want to smoke themselves silly and bop around in dark, sweaty rooms all night -- then hey, good on you. Everyone wants to feel like they belong. But if you're going to feature a special guest who has cheered on mass murder, and who has stood back while that murder takes place ... well, people are bound to take offense, even if you don't. Tough luck, and nothing personal.
Of course, none of the heartbroken reggae fans who profess to be oh, so offended by this outrageous attack on Banton's freedom of speech would give a damn if the protests were aimed at some hypothetical shitkicker from the South. Say this shitkicker -- let's call him "Bubba Banjo" -- had scheduled a gig in town. Say he had recently signed a statement renouncing his first big hit, "Kill the Queers," and that while he was signing he winked at the camera and kept his fingers crossed behind his back. Do the noble sons of Selassie raise their bongs to demand that Bubba be given a fair shake?
I take leave to doubt it. Far more probably, they reload the bowl and never give it another thought. They want to defend their tribe, somehow, but principles don't really enter into the calculation.
The Town Dandy, October 8, 2009
Here's another article from the same publication, this same week:
Bye Bye Buju
By Bob Doran
When concert promoter Carol Bruno and nightclub owner Gil Miracle announced on Monday that a planned concert by dancehall reggae artist Buju Banton was canceled, it wasn't the first time a reggae show got the axe because of an artist's gay-bashing lyrics -- and if you look at reggae history, you know it won't be the last.
Back in 1992, Shabba Ranks, a rising star in Jamaican dancehall, was on the verge of crossover success in America and England when he found himself embroiled in controversy. Appearing as a guest on a BBC-TV music show, Shabba was asked about the incendiary dancehall hit du jour, "Boom Bye Bye," by a young Jamaican artist called Buju Banton whose patois lyrics basically advocated killing homosexuals. Defending Buju, Shabba suggested that crucifixion would be a fitting punishment for gays. The incident was widely publicized and effectively sidetracked Shabba's career.
In the years that followed, British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell would coin the term "Murder Music" to describe violently homophobic work by a group of notorious Jamaican artists including Beenie Man, Sizzla, Capleton and Buju Banton. Working with the group OutRage!, Tatchell mounted a successful blacklist campaign that torpedoed tours and even blocked musicians from entering England and Canada.
The anti-Murder Music campaign hit Humboldt in 2004 when a show by Capleton at Humboldt State was canceled in response to student complaints. There was organized opposition to a Buju appearance at the Mateel in 2006, but that time the show ultimately went on (and sold out).
OutRage! declared a victory of sorts in June 2007, when, bowing to unrelenting pressure, Beenie Man, Capleton, Sizzla and Buju Banton all signed something called "the Reggae Compassionate Act," a pledge that said in part, "We agree to not make statements or perform songs that incite hatred or violence against anyone from any community."
Signing was a calculated risk. The financial loss from being blacklisted was considerable, but many Jamaican fans, who live in a country described in a Time magazine story as "the most homophobic place on Earth," saw signing as a capitulation. Buju and Beenie both allegedly disavowed signing the statement and campaigns against their shows continue.
Buju's fall 2009 tour saw concert giants AEG Live and Live Nation pull all of his shows from their venues. The viral battle in Humboldt, waged on Facebook and on blogs, was echoed across the country. Nevertheless, Buju's management declared the tour "a success" in a press release issued Monday, claiming, "Despite the ongoing smear campaign against Banton, promoters are already calling it the biggest selling reggae tour of the year."
The release includes a message from Buju that tries to put "Boom Bye Bye" behind him: "I do not condone violence against anyone, including gays, and I have spent my career rallying against violence and injustice through music," he writes. "At this point, I can only hope that my body of work speaks for itself and that anyone still offended by the lyrics of my youth will take the time to explore my catalog or come to one of my shows before reducing my character and entire musical repertoire to a single song."
It wasn't enough for Nocturnum's Gil Miracle. "We tried for a week to get a statement from them, and we finally got that from Buju, but it was too little, too late," said Miracle in a call on Monday. "This won't end until he comes forward and really denounces what he said. In the end, canceling the show was just the right thing to do."
The Hum, October 8, 2009
Okay, now here are some of the lyrics of "Boom Bye Bye," since it's kind of hard to understand by listening to the song:
World is in trouble
Anytime Buju Banton come
Batty bwoy get up an run
At gunshot me head back
Hear I tell him now crew
(Its like) Boom bye bye
Inna batty bwoy head
Rude bwoy no promote no nasty man
Dem haffi dead
Boom bye bye
Inna batty bwoy head
Rude bwoy no promote no nasty man
Dem haffi dead
(Two man) Hitch up on an rub up on
An lay down inna bed
Hug up on another
Anna feel up leg
Send fi di matic an
Di Uzi instead
Shoot dem no come if we shot dem--
Don't want Jackie
Give dem Paul instead
Dem don't want di sweetness
Between di leg
Gal bend down backway
An accept di peg
An if it really hot
You know she still naw gon fled
A some man
Still don't want di
Panty raid
Pure batty business dem love
(Me say) Boom bye bye
Inna batty bwoy head
Rude bwoy no promote the nasty man
Dem haffi dead
Boom bye bye
Inna batty bwoy head
Rude bwoy no promote no nasty man
Dem haffi dead
From lyricskeeper.com
The local Buju show was cancelled due to direct community action. Queer Humboldt, an online resource and advocacy group, mobilized the queer and ally community via an email asking that we call and email the owners of nocturnum and People Productions. The community did just that, and within a few short days, the show was cancelled. In fact, several local representatives had drafted a letter and were going to present it to the Board of Supervisors, but the show was called off before they could do so! I feel very inspired by this action- people came together efficiently and effectively, with the use of local media and technology, and made a real difference. With that, I will end with the email sent from Queer Humboldt after the cancelation:
Sent to Queer Humboldt Friends and Supporters:
Well, it’s been said, “it takes a village”, and the village of Humboldt came together and moved a mountain.
We were able to reach Carol Bruno from People Productions this morning and had a nice conversation with her about our concerns. She had met with Gil Miracle, the owner of Nocturnum, and they decided to cancel the Buju Banton performance scheduled for this Sunday night, October 11, 2009 due to all the negative feedback they have received.
We want to thank everyone who took the time to email and call Carol and Gil with their concerns. We received many copies of emails that were so well written, coming from the hearts of our community members. It was very touching to read them all.
Carol and Gil sent me this letter shortly after our phone call this morning:
October 5th, 2009
TO: Todd Larsen/ Queer Humboldt
FROM: Carol Bruno/ People Productions
Gil Miracle/ Nocturnum
Greetings Todd,
This email is to confirm to you that after lengthy consideration, Gil and myself decided that we will cancel
the upcoming Buju Banton concert at the Nocturnum Nightclub scheduled for the October 11th, 2009.
We have been diligently speaking with the management and various activists over the past two weeks in an effort to help establish a dialogue for discussions. We care about our local gay community.
Buju did issue a statement today that we have forwarded to you today, but it doesn't change our decision.
We will continue towards positive, constructive solutions.
We regret any inconveniences this has caused to our community.
We are very appreciative that Carol and Gil heard the community’s concerns and took this action. As you may or may not know, we are not alone in having Buju Banton’s concert’s cancelled. Just take a look at the list of cities that have cancelled his performances for his most recent tour:
http://cancelbujubanton.
Buju Banton releases a press release today that can be found here:
http://www.prnewswire.com/
Buju’s record company’s press release includes the statement:
“Throughout my travels as an artist, I have witnessed first hand the senseless atrocities being suffered by innocent people around the world and my heart goes out to them. I do not condone violence against anyone, including gays, and I have spent my career rallying against violence and injustice through music. At this point, I can only hope that my body of work speaks for itself and that anyone still offended by the lyrics of my youth will take the time to explore my catalog or come to one of my shows before reducing my character and entire musical repertoire to a single song.”
While we think this is a good first step, it certainly doesn’t address all his documented anti-gay statements and relatively recent performances taken place after “the lyrics off his youth” of his hateful song, “Boom Bye Bye”.
For details on the lyrics of the song, visit: http://www.jamaicancaves.org/
We also want to recognize some of the local representatives we have here in Humboldt that were drafting a letter today in support of cancelling the performance. Supervisor Mark Lovelace, Supervisor Bonnie Neely, Eureka City Councilwoman Linda Atkins and Arcata City Councilman, Shane Brinton were the first to sign on to a drafted letter that was to be presented tomorrow at the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors 1:30pm meeting.
We also want to thank our local print and radio outlets. KMUD this morning featured David Cobb on the NoHum report speaking about Buju Banton’s scheduled performance. Tomorrow, Times Standard Reporter, Thadeus Greenson, will have an article in the Times Standard on the performance cancellation. And Bob Doran at the North Coast Journal has been in touch with us all weekend.
We are lucky to live in such a wonderful community as we have here in Humboldt.
Thank you all for your quick and genuine concern to this issue.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Community Building
Last week, for my internship, I went to the local Beyond the Bench summit. If I understand it correctly, this is an annual event to address juvenile court issues and developments to better serve the youth involved in the system. The summit began with a video of 6 local former foster youth candidly discussing their experiences in the system. It was really powerful- and not at all sugar-coated. There were a few complaints about some foster homes they had lived in, but social workers were by far the biggest complaint. Many of them mentioned how they cycled through social workers and never really felt like their social workers got to know them very well. One individual mentioned that one of her social workers just expected her to 'spill her guts' when she barely even knew her. The day concluded with members of the Humboldt County Transition Age Youth Collaboration presenting on how to best include youth in meetings, committees, and planning for services. It was an incredibly well-developed and professional presentation.
Because of both of these presentations, several of the other speakers reflected on the value of hearing the voices of those that we serve. Why is this always an afterthought? I was thinking about this again while reading for class in our Community Practice book, which said one of the critical social functions that community builders need to be aware of is participation. It's simple- it is essential that those who's community is being impacted be involved in the process and have a say in what is needed and wanted. It seems so logical, and yet is so often forgotten. This concept is really a cornerstone of community organizing- it informs the idea of power with rather than power over. But, again, as social workers, it is so easy to believe that we know what is best for someone or a group of people, as well as how to go about getting desired resources and outcomes. And really, we don't!
Something else that stuck out in the reading for me was the impaction of perception on action. How we perceive a situation, and whether or not we believe we can achieve something, is such a huge piece for action to occur. The book pointed out that inaction is common, because we are socialized for passivity and fear. That is so true!!! And so as community organizers we must facilitate empowerment, a feeling of self-efficacy, and hope. Obama and his campaign organizers obviously knew this, perhaps because of his community organizing days. This isn't a new idea, but I just really liked the emphasis on how inaction is the norm, and action is rare, but possible.
Because of both of these presentations, several of the other speakers reflected on the value of hearing the voices of those that we serve. Why is this always an afterthought? I was thinking about this again while reading for class in our Community Practice book, which said one of the critical social functions that community builders need to be aware of is participation. It's simple- it is essential that those who's community is being impacted be involved in the process and have a say in what is needed and wanted. It seems so logical, and yet is so often forgotten. This concept is really a cornerstone of community organizing- it informs the idea of power with rather than power over. But, again, as social workers, it is so easy to believe that we know what is best for someone or a group of people, as well as how to go about getting desired resources and outcomes. And really, we don't!
Something else that stuck out in the reading for me was the impaction of perception on action. How we perceive a situation, and whether or not we believe we can achieve something, is such a huge piece for action to occur. The book pointed out that inaction is common, because we are socialized for passivity and fear. That is so true!!! And so as community organizers we must facilitate empowerment, a feeling of self-efficacy, and hope. Obama and his campaign organizers obviously knew this, perhaps because of his community organizing days. This isn't a new idea, but I just really liked the emphasis on how inaction is the norm, and action is rare, but possible.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Film: Boy, Interrupted
Tonight the Social Work Student Association, which I'm a part of, showed a film, Boy, Interrupted. It's a documentary that this couple made about their son who committed suicide. Here's a clip:
It was intense, to say the least. The parents are filmmakers, so they had essentially documented their family's life, and so had clips of their son throughout his childhood. They decided to make this film a few years after he committed suicide, and included interviews with other family members as well as doctors and school staff whom their son had worked with.
The gist was that their son, Evan, had talked about death, dying, and killing from a very young age, and was eventually diagnosed as bipolar. It was a fascinating profile on someone with bipolar disorder, especially being so young (he committed suicide at 15). There were many things that struck me, but a couple really stood out. For one, the family was clearly quite well off and intellectual. At one point Evan was placed in a therapeutic group-home setting. The place was pretty incredible, and I just thought how fortunate they were to be able to afford such a thing. Not to mention just their general privilege as far as their awareness, access to services, and family and community support. Many, many individuals and families who face similar issues do no have such things.
The other thing that really stuck with me was that the psychiatrist who had worked with Evan for years, and had initially prescribed him lithium, commented on medication and bipolar disorder. A few weeks or months before Evan took his life he had asked to go off of his medication to see how he would do without. Since he had been doing quite well for several years, both his parents and his doctor agreed. He eased off, and reported feeling ok, but his parents noticed a shift back to his depressed behavior, and so had scheduled an appointment to get his dose increased again. 2 days before that appointment, Evan died. What the psychiatrist mentioned was that they would have been able to save him for a while longer, but that most people- I believe he said "all these kids"- eventually want to go off the meds. And this is what happens; for Evan, it was particularly quick. Most people I've known who take on-going medication, either for a physical or mental illness, have at some point tried going off of them for a while. And I think it's pretty understandable, if someone has maintained a good level of health for a while, that they want to test their own ability to cope again. And yet, what the doctor seemed to be saying, was that for the kids with bipolar disorder who do this, the illness comes racing back, every time- that it's particularly dangerous.
I just felt like that was very sad. I can imagine the frustration with that situation- because medications have side effects that people just have to accept. I can also imagine it being pretty scary to know how heavily your functioning depends on this one thing. And of course, just the overall sadness of what people with this disorder may have to endure emotionally and mentally. It was very thought-provoking, and hopefully can increase awareness of bipolar disorder, especially for families dealing with shocking symptoms in very young children.
It was intense, to say the least. The parents are filmmakers, so they had essentially documented their family's life, and so had clips of their son throughout his childhood. They decided to make this film a few years after he committed suicide, and included interviews with other family members as well as doctors and school staff whom their son had worked with.
The gist was that their son, Evan, had talked about death, dying, and killing from a very young age, and was eventually diagnosed as bipolar. It was a fascinating profile on someone with bipolar disorder, especially being so young (he committed suicide at 15). There were many things that struck me, but a couple really stood out. For one, the family was clearly quite well off and intellectual. At one point Evan was placed in a therapeutic group-home setting. The place was pretty incredible, and I just thought how fortunate they were to be able to afford such a thing. Not to mention just their general privilege as far as their awareness, access to services, and family and community support. Many, many individuals and families who face similar issues do no have such things.
The other thing that really stuck with me was that the psychiatrist who had worked with Evan for years, and had initially prescribed him lithium, commented on medication and bipolar disorder. A few weeks or months before Evan took his life he had asked to go off of his medication to see how he would do without. Since he had been doing quite well for several years, both his parents and his doctor agreed. He eased off, and reported feeling ok, but his parents noticed a shift back to his depressed behavior, and so had scheduled an appointment to get his dose increased again. 2 days before that appointment, Evan died. What the psychiatrist mentioned was that they would have been able to save him for a while longer, but that most people- I believe he said "all these kids"- eventually want to go off the meds. And this is what happens; for Evan, it was particularly quick. Most people I've known who take on-going medication, either for a physical or mental illness, have at some point tried going off of them for a while. And I think it's pretty understandable, if someone has maintained a good level of health for a while, that they want to test their own ability to cope again. And yet, what the doctor seemed to be saying, was that for the kids with bipolar disorder who do this, the illness comes racing back, every time- that it's particularly dangerous.
I just felt like that was very sad. I can imagine the frustration with that situation- because medications have side effects that people just have to accept. I can also imagine it being pretty scary to know how heavily your functioning depends on this one thing. And of course, just the overall sadness of what people with this disorder may have to endure emotionally and mentally. It was very thought-provoking, and hopefully can increase awareness of bipolar disorder, especially for families dealing with shocking symptoms in very young children.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
What is Priviledge?
My Community Work class lecture last week was heavy.We discussed some of the history of American colonialism. Some of this was not new information- though I have to admit, a lot of it was new to me as of last Fall. I don't recall my public school education including the true devastation and genocide which was enacted upon the Indigenous people of this continent (among others) by the colonists. I was taught about the people of the colonies as brave souls who had been religiously oppressed and sought freedom in the "new world." This may very well have been the case, but many terrible atrocities were enacted upon Native Americans by these colonists. I know I'm- sadly- very late to the game, but studying colonization as a whole has really changed my view of what is ultimately an invasion- that being only the beginning- of one group of people into the land and lives of others.
This lecture had begun with a photo of a Native American man, George Gillette, visibly weeping at a treaty signing. I was deeply struck by this photo, and hoped to find it online to include in this post. I did not find it, however, during my search, I came across info about a computer game called: Colonization: Create A New World. So I had to investigate. First I found a few images from the game, such as the one here to the right. Then I read about the game. So I should note, I ended up reading Wikipedia, which I know is not an entirely reliable source, but it seemed to have the most comprehensive info. Here's a quote:
"Relationships must be carefully maintained with Indians and other colonial powers, from waging war and maintaining strategic defenses to offering tributes or "recruiting peacemakers" (Benjamin Franklin and Pocahontas). Destroying native settlements yields a quick profit and makes land available, but prevents the substantial long-term gains to be made by friendly bargaining and trading. Destruction of native settlements also counts against the player's final score." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier's_Colonization)
Ok, so one might think, well, players get more points by behaving 'nicer' to the tribes in this game- it could be worse, right? Well, yeah, it could be. But just the fact that we are so ingrained with acceptance of colonization in this country that it's apparently not a problem to revolve a video game around it is pretty shocking. Which connects with what I was thinking about during the class lecture- we are completely indoctrinated with this stuff!
Now, I want to say, this is not by any means a black and white issue about bad guys and good guys. I would wager a guess that the large majority of European people during the time of the colonies were just trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, not meaning to destroy the lives of others. But that's just it- as it was for them, it is for me today. I have this unearned "priviledge" which is to be able to live my life mostly ignorant of and untouched by not only this history, but of what the U.S. is currently doing all over the world. I get to just 'live my life' and not mean to harm anyone. And yet, my government, that I basically support, since I am not rioting in the streets, daily commits acts of devastation to people, countries, and not to mention the environment. On the flip side, there are countless people, in the U.S. and beyond, who cannot forget these things even if they tried. Their families have been ripped apart, their homes, communities, and ways of life have been permanently scarred, if not destroyed.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Lucy Ella Gonzales Parsons
American Revolutionary: circa 1853-1942
Lucy Parsons was an African, Native and Mexican-American revolutionary anarchist labor activist from the late nineteenth and 20th century America. Emerging out of the Chicago Haymarket affair of 1886, in which eight anarchists were imprisoned or hung for their beliefs, Lucy Parsons led tens of thousands of workers into the streets in mass protests across the country. Defying both racial and gender discrimination, she was at the forefront of movements for social justice her entire life. She sparked rebellion and discontent among poor and exploited workers wherever she spoke, and her fiery, powerful orations invoked fear in authority nationwide.
www.thelucyparsonsproject.org
I thought I would start out with something a little more interesting than my rambling this time, as well as a little inspiration. Hence the blurb about Lucy Parsons- how rad is she? I read about her on Think Girl (www.thinkgirl.net), a website I'm digging lately (when I'm procrastinating from homework). Which relates to the question in my head this week: where is my activism? I got into social work because of some social justice-related courses I took my senior year of undergrad- I remember the urgency I felt to get out into the world and do something. And some of my previous non-profit work felt participatory and important. But now here I am, in academia, having interned at a school, an oh-so conventional setting, and now I'm at Child Welfare Services, an often dreaded governmental system that at times seems very punitive and non-preventive. I mean, our efforts to first make contact with families are called investigations. Sounds like the criminal justice system, right? I remember at orientation last year one of my professors said that we may be in social work for social justice reasons, but social workers have been, and continue to be, instruments of social control. I think I physically winced. I know it's true, but it's my least favorite thing about social work. Oh, and the pay. Well, plus the emotional exhaustion...
Anyway, I do very much believe there's value in my interning at CWS- I chose to, and am excited about the experience. And I know there are many amazing advocates working in child welfare, and we are always working with limited resources and money. But I guess I'm feeling very much a part of the system(s), which is not where this all began for me, and not where I hope to end up.
www.thelucyparsonsproject.org
I thought I would start out with something a little more interesting than my rambling this time, as well as a little inspiration. Hence the blurb about Lucy Parsons- how rad is she? I read about her on Think Girl (www.thinkgirl.net), a website I'm digging lately (when I'm procrastinating from homework). Which relates to the question in my head this week: where is my activism? I got into social work because of some social justice-related courses I took my senior year of undergrad- I remember the urgency I felt to get out into the world and do something. And some of my previous non-profit work felt participatory and important. But now here I am, in academia, having interned at a school, an oh-so conventional setting, and now I'm at Child Welfare Services, an often dreaded governmental system that at times seems very punitive and non-preventive. I mean, our efforts to first make contact with families are called investigations. Sounds like the criminal justice system, right? I remember at orientation last year one of my professors said that we may be in social work for social justice reasons, but social workers have been, and continue to be, instruments of social control. I think I physically winced. I know it's true, but it's my least favorite thing about social work. Oh, and the pay. Well, plus the emotional exhaustion...
Anyway, I do very much believe there's value in my interning at CWS- I chose to, and am excited about the experience. And I know there are many amazing advocates working in child welfare, and we are always working with limited resources and money. But I guess I'm feeling very much a part of the system(s), which is not where this all began for me, and not where I hope to end up.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Empowerment
Something that's come up for me in the past and has been on my mind this week is how, as a social worker, in any capacity, can one assist in another's self-empowerment rather than leading, advising, or dominating that individual (or group). One of my readings for class this week said that the idea of "Never do for others what they can do for themselves" is a key component of community organizing (What is Community Organizing? http://www.nfg.org/cotb/07/whatisco.htm). We also watched the film Salt of the Earth (http://www.archive.org/details/salt_of_the_earth), about mine workers and their wives going on strike in the 50s...it was very progressive for its time, you should watch it...Anyway, afterward in class we discussed this concept of truly getting to know one's clients or population and facilitating their own empowerment. I think this really comes down to listening. In social work, I think we talk a lot about being good listeners. But what does this really mean? I know for myself, I can end up preaching at people occasionally (ok, you who know me well probably think it's more than occasional...). And I know that I don't mean to- it's just that I observe and ponder a lot of others' (as well as my own!) actions and experiences, and want to share all these thoughts somersalting around in my head that I think could be useful! But what that often looks like is preaching to- some may say bossing around- those around me, be it family, friends, even clients. (For the record, I tend to save the bossing around for personal acquaintances, which is good for clients, but maybe not so good for my personal life).
When I read Barack Obama's book, Dreams From My Father, I thought about this idea of empowerment vs. dominance during the section about his community organizing work. I wondered, how could someone so clearly meant to LEAD, manage to step aside in order to allow others to decide, plan, enact, etc? My most relevant experience with this was when my school cohort worked for weeks to facilitate a meeting with our department faculty to discuss our requests of and concerns about the department, curriculum, and the MSW experience at HSU. I could fill a whole other post about that experience in relation to community work, but what I will say here is that I personally wrestled with this balance between leadership and dominance. It was a group of my peers, so I was not an outsider trying to organize another group, and I was in no way in charge. But I ended up sort of tracking and attempting to organize our on-going discussions- both in person and via email- into a concise plan and agenda. I initially stepped up to do so just because we had attempted a similar meeting in the past, and it turned out pretty half-assed. I just wanted us to do a better job! But at times I think at least a few people felt I was dominating the process and determining its direction. But I was only trying to help! I meant well!
And yet- isn't that what so many community helpers have been caught saying? Reading through the history of social workers, this has been the apology given after many unintentional injustices. I don't recall the reading or the specific instance, but in our Values & Ethics course last fall we read a piece from the turn of the century where it was the kind progressive who was advocating to 'civilize the Indian-ness' out of the Indigenous people for their own good. He thought he was being empathetic and well-meaning!
This all leads back to the listening. We are taught that everyone is their own expert- that we as social workers, whether as substance abuse counselors, case managers, or community organizers, do not have the answers for our clients. But how do I actually put this value into practice? I can start by whole-heartedly listening, and shutting my trap! I will likely continue to come up with what I think are great ideas/advice/solutions for the individuals and groups that I work with. And certainly there will continue to be times to recommend or suggest or contribute decisions. But if I really value empowerment, which I think I do, I have got to listen.
"A wise old owl sat on an oak; The more he saw the less he spoke; The less he spoke the more he heard. Why aren't we like that wise old bird?"
(unknown author)
When I read Barack Obama's book, Dreams From My Father, I thought about this idea of empowerment vs. dominance during the section about his community organizing work. I wondered, how could someone so clearly meant to LEAD, manage to step aside in order to allow others to decide, plan, enact, etc? My most relevant experience with this was when my school cohort worked for weeks to facilitate a meeting with our department faculty to discuss our requests of and concerns about the department, curriculum, and the MSW experience at HSU. I could fill a whole other post about that experience in relation to community work, but what I will say here is that I personally wrestled with this balance between leadership and dominance. It was a group of my peers, so I was not an outsider trying to organize another group, and I was in no way in charge. But I ended up sort of tracking and attempting to organize our on-going discussions- both in person and via email- into a concise plan and agenda. I initially stepped up to do so just because we had attempted a similar meeting in the past, and it turned out pretty half-assed. I just wanted us to do a better job! But at times I think at least a few people felt I was dominating the process and determining its direction. But I was only trying to help! I meant well!
And yet- isn't that what so many community helpers have been caught saying? Reading through the history of social workers, this has been the apology given after many unintentional injustices. I don't recall the reading or the specific instance, but in our Values & Ethics course last fall we read a piece from the turn of the century where it was the kind progressive who was advocating to 'civilize the Indian-ness' out of the Indigenous people for their own good. He thought he was being empathetic and well-meaning!
This all leads back to the listening. We are taught that everyone is their own expert- that we as social workers, whether as substance abuse counselors, case managers, or community organizers, do not have the answers for our clients. But how do I actually put this value into practice? I can start by whole-heartedly listening, and shutting my trap! I will likely continue to come up with what I think are great ideas/advice/solutions for the individuals and groups that I work with. And certainly there will continue to be times to recommend or suggest or contribute decisions. But if I really value empowerment, which I think I do, I have got to listen.
"A wise old owl sat on an oak; The more he saw the less he spoke; The less he spoke the more he heard. Why aren't we like that wise old bird?"
(unknown author)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
