In Response to "Adversity and Optimism"

I may have told a little white lie in my previous post. I know I promised to continue my discussion of "Language Towards Africa" in this next post; however, I'm taking a little break to respond to a fantastic post from my good friend, Patrick. In his post titled "Adversity and Optimism", which can be found on http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifhis blog (http://devianceanddenouement.blogspot.com/), Patrick talks about his summer experience in Ghana and how its citizens remain so lighthearted amidst a scarcity of resources. I found a similar emotional pattern in my summer experience in a different location- New Delhi, India.

During one of my sightseeing tours, one my of program coordinators mentioned that India statistically has the happiest people on Earth. International surveys indeed support this (http://www.nshima.com/2011/04/indians.html). Like Pat, I find it surprising that India's people can remain so happy amidst so much poverty. I think the reason for their happiness lies in the roots of India's democracy. India's people have such nationalistic spirit. They all gather around the national sport of cricket for example. Finally, they appreciate the minute things in life. People in India don't have expectations of living a luxurious life. They are comfortable with what they are given. Simplicity is happiness.

Language Towards Africa- Part 1

Exploring the world of language in the realm of Africa is interesting I must say. The connotations are grounded in history and still persist today. One can study from many different angles the implications of all sorts of language towards the African region. Having said that, I will split the discussion of this topic into two posts since there is so much to cover.

Let’s start with the most popular phrase used to describe people from the African region: “black people.” According to African scholar, Alik Shahadah (http://www.africanholocaust.net/news_ah/language%20new%20reality.htm), black isn’t a race nor an ethnic group. It is a construction which describes a recent social-political reality of people of color. It has no historical or cultural association. It was born when Africans were broken down in to labor units and transported as chattel to the Americas. Political blackness is therefore not an identity but consequence of a world which after colonialism and slavery existed in those color terms. When you look at the world, only two ethnic groups commonly adhere to color definitions: the Africans (the oppressed) and the oppressor, the Europeans (White people). Africans have gone from Negro (Spanish for Black) to Black (English for Negro). This illustrates the diffusion of the color usage to define identity. It’s extended across Hispanic languages and crossed over into American/European languages. It’s difficult to be called “black” when identity is often geographical and ties people to their native environment their core doctrine (Jews of Judaism, Muslims of Islam, Chinese of China). There is no “Blackland” or “Black Region” or “Black religion.” Additionally, very few Africans are actually black in color. The term “black” was created by Europeans for comparing African skin color relative to the Europeans’ pale pigment. “Black” reflects the European attempt to remove African identity. Europe gave Africans the lowest color on Earth, reflecting the social place of Africans from the European view. Thus, “black” is from the eyes of the “other” or the “foreign.”

However it’s interesting to note that some Africans connect stronger to the word “black” than African. For example, former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice feels there is nothing cultural, ethical, aesthetic, nor outlook-wise that resembles the continent her ancestors came from. “She has replaced Africa with America, and finally Africaness with dreams of the White ideal.” The fact that “black” has no geographical origin comforts some who don’t prefer to be geographically identified in that manner. On the other side, the term “African” has Berber Tunisian origins meaning “a sunny place” (qtd. in Shahadah). Notice the contradiction with the use of the word “black.” The word “black” actually places Africans outside of their connection to history and culture. Furthermore, the words “African” and “black” are not interchangeable. Self-determination allows a people to re-examine definitions and sculpt them to their reality. In academic circles, “black” is facing linguistic extinction. Pan-Africanist American writer and professor John Henrik Clarke says, “Black tells you how you look without telling you who you are. A more proper word for our people, African, relates us to land, history and culture.”

Presidential and Congressional Rhetoric

When you think about it, it is extremely interesting to observe the rhetoric used by both the President and the United States Congress. Intricate details often go unnoticed from a language perspective and the impact of Congressional rhetoric is attached with its consequences as well.

For example, in President Obama’s speech on the American Jobs Act (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8751376/Barack-Obamas-American-Jobs-Act-speech-in-full.html), he uses some form of the phrase “Pass this bill!” a total of 17 times. President Obama obviously makes clear his desire for passing this legislation. However, what’s more interesting to look at is the tactics President Obama uses to push legislation he is not as confident about. In contrast to the American Jobs Act, when it came to talking about his deficit-reduction proposal, three words were absent from his speech (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/09/19/full-text-obamas-statement-to-congress-on-his-plan-for-deficit-reduction-which-would-pay-for-american-jobs-act/). Obama never said “Pass this bill.” Not once. The reason being is that Obama even knew there was no chance that a bill resembling his proposal would pass. Columnist Ezra Klein puts it best when he says, “Republicans would sooner adopt a resolution honoring Karl Marx and Eugene Debs for their commitment to the working man” rather than pass Obama’s deficit reduction proposal. Obama knows this. Republicans know this. And most of us know this too. Thus, Obama’s hesitancy in regards to this proposal is illustrated in Obama’s lack of language. Silence is often more powerful than words.

You and I both know that especially today it seems like Congress can’t get anything achieved. But let me give you a statistic that drives the point home. A recent study by a Harvard professor analyzed 64,033 press releases sent out by all U.S. senators from 2005 to 2007 and found that members of Congress spend 27% of their communication taunting each other (http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2011/04/07/18579/budget-crisis). Negative rhetoric in this example hinders action. In an environment where governmental representatives spend over a quarter of their time insulting each other, compromises are difficult to reach. Congressional rhetoric is connected to the internal politics and tension that appears on the political battlefield called Washington, D.C.