Hello All,
Providing you with a tiny piece of my research was a pleasure ! We spoke about generalization of Afro-Latino's/ Latino's in the media, how "boxes" entrapped populations within identities that they do not quite understand, and how these "boxes" allocate resources although populations either get marginalized or are incorrectly labeled.
I would like for you to think about your placement and discuss the demographics of the clients at your placement (even if you do not work directly with clients). How do the racial boxes we spoke about represent the community? Do they marginalize them? Why or why not?
You can also discuss "boxes" that discriminate, exclude, or add negative weight to the clients you work with whether racial or not? Discuss the categorizations in which these clients/population are placed and the impact these categorizations have.
Keep in mind that these "boxes" are not limited to those that people use, but rather those that are used by the system to label people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Really great class Danyeli! Your question about boxes is very relevant to my placement. There is a movement going on at present to "ban the box" which essentially relieves formerly incarcerated individuals from being forced to declare their possession of a criminal record on application forms. As we explored in my class, the "box" denies this population access to the very opportunities, namely education and employment, that they require for successful reentry. Hardly makes sense right? Anyways, the assumption of the "box" is that ex-criminal record holders are still a potential danger to society and should be barred from these opportunities.
I also feel that the "box" is rather panoptic (which we came across in the Foucault class last semester) because it casts an intrusive eye into one's personal life, and is another means to socially control a morally excluded population.
Danyeli, class was great!!
At my placement, there is no discussion about race and ethnicity in anyway. At least, I have never came across that while working on two different projects. First of all, the population with mental health needs is extremely diverse and the needs that should be addressed are being addressed without the race-related distinction. I believe, that should be done this way. My agency is doing really good job approaching the issue of mental health from the health-related point of view. Additionally, we do research on how society and criminal justice system feel about the general population with mental health needs and not about how criminal justice system addresses the issues of people of color with mental health needs.
In some way, it might be a good approach. However, going through several classes on race and ethnicity, I realize that some day Vera would have to do more research on racial disparities in access to mental health services.
The "box" conversation is really complicated. In my opinion, if both person's parents are Dominican/Mexican/Puerto-Rican/Brazilian/etc., it should not be that hard to identify the race/ethnicity of the person unless it is very complicated historical events relate to the issue (like being raised in another culture). However, if one of the parents is Dominican, another one is half Guatemalan and half Brazilian, it would be much more complicated to identify the "box" that that person might fit. However, that is a case from any other person of non-Latino ancestry. For example, if my mother was Japanese and my father was half African and half Britain that would be hard to identify myself as well. Reiterating the point made by Professor Waterston during the class, I believe that the existence of all these "boxes" is not always bad. Because if there is a "box" stating your name, it means that you "box" is being represented in society. It means that someone UP there considers your interests. It is a huge problem, when there is no box for you.
Usually, people are trying to "box" themselves. It is not like someone is categorizing them. In majority of cases, people try to categorize themselves to understand what place in society they take.
However, coming from the non-"box" country, it is really hard for me to understand the necessity of these boxes. Probably, it has to do something with representation. And again, if someone happens to be from mixed marriage family, it would be always a problem to identify oneself. For example, I am coming from mixed marriage family. However, considering the fact that I have never seen my father in my life, and the fact that I have never been introduced to his culture, I do not consider myself someone but Russian. If my parents would not divorce in some point in their lives, I might "box" myself somewhere else.
Finally, I did some more research about the difference between White and Caucasian. So, the article says: "a White is never called as Caucasian whereas a Caucasian can be called as white". Therefore, when comparing the two races, Caucasian is a larger race when compared to the other. "The Caucasian race consists of North Africans, Arabs, Whites, Somalians, some people in India and Ethiopians. On the other hand, White are mostly people who belong to Europe".
Another huge country with a really diverse population is Brazil, and I was curious to see what their census forms look like, with regards to race/ethnicity.
Click here for a picture.
Interestingly, the form asks respondents to select their "color" as in: White, Yellow, Brown, Black, and instead of giving a list to pick from, it asks the respondent to just state what they consider their race/ethnicity to be.
Marina, I completely understand where you're coming from when you say that "if both person's parents are Dominican/Mexican/Puerto-Rican/Brazilian/etc., it should not be that hard to identify the race/ethnicity of the person".
Those are only nationalities though. A Dominican can be purely white, or a mix of black/Native/white. These racial mixes are what causes a spectrum of skin tones. That is what makes it complicated. A black-looking Dominican might have very different social experiences from a white-looking Dominican.
Gina, totally agree. I think while identifying race and ethnicity, it is often being a mix up of different categories that should not be mixed. Race is usually your biological traits, and ethnicity is more cultural category.
Social experiences are pretty different for everybody. Here is when our class in eco-system comes in handy.
As I pointed out in the blog for Monica's class, it differs geographically a lot. For example, when I was living in Ohio, I was constantly discriminated on the basis of my nationality. For some reason, the town where I used to leave does not appreciate the existence of foreigners. My experience was totally different in New York. (not that different if I look at this year). Therefore, my point is that any Latino (no matter what race they are) may experience better or worse social conditions depending on their location. Probably, the Latino person of African ancestry still has more beneficial social experiences in New York as he/she would have in white-only states (which is a lot). Again, not always. That is what research struggle is.
Is Latino/Hispanic considered to be a race or ethnicity? Based on my readings, race is the group of people with similar physical characteristics, can we consider this diverse group as one??? Maybe, there should be more definitions:)
Marina, definitely! Geographic location surely matters a lot. There are so many factors that complicate the determination of race and ethnicity, because so much of it is socially constructed as you say! And that makes it so hard to fit people in boxes. 2 individuals may indicate that they are Mexican on paper, but as Danyeli's character descriptions in class indicate, there can be a world of difference between these two individuals that forms fail to capture. I find it very interesting that the Brazil census form asks the respondent to indicate their color by choosing from White, Brown, Yellow and Black.
This conversation is so interesting because I see this "box" dilemma at CJA during the interviews! At the end of the interviews, there is a question about the defendant's race. The only race that the defendant's are allowed to check include the following:
Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Other
Five categories is nowhere near sufficient to categorize the diversity found in New York City and elsewhere in the United States. Also, as discussed in Danyeli's class, these five categories are being used to label entire groups of people. The categories are insufficient in representing the community and are misrepresenting entire populations of people. What if a defendant coming through CJA, like Marina said, was Dominican, Guatemalan and Brazilian. How would they be forced to identify? I'm definitely for banning the box for all intents and purposes! We should create a single box and ask the individual how they choose to identify.
at my placement I had to ask the same question that is mentioned in many of the previous post. options being the normal: african american, white, hispanic, asian or other. I remember talking with my mentor and being like, I really hate asking how folks identify racially within these categories- do I have to ask them? She hated the question too but said that the organization and its funders need to know that for statistics and things. it made me so uncomfortable feeling like i had to guess they might identify, or checking a box for them without their knowledge as my mentor did, so i began to ask them how they identified and then made up a new box. these boxes just make me so annoyed. like, why are they there? why does it matter? They have some value, as professor Waterston explained, and I see that being very helpful, but does the good outweigh the bad?
how can we use labels in a good way for the good purposes?
this is complicated topic for me because I feel like I am as basic as the "white" label. i can't resist the label because hardly any bad comes with being white and because it is exactly right. I'm a white girl in a colorful world.
In terms of our participants at Jobpath, I've spoken about some of the racial issues in the past. But in terms of labeling and boxes, diagnoses are more influential than race for the participant. In order to receive certain services people are boxed in certain categories that don't take individual differences into consideration. in addition, diagnoses do not really encompass all the facets or presentation of a disorder. These box both marginalize but they can also "empower" individuals depending on the situation. A person given one designation may receive more services or better services based on the box they reside regardless of need. Also, once a person is boxed into a diagnosis often they are treated as though every facet of them is an extension of that box. They are seen not as a person with a personality but as walking talking diagnosis. However, these labels are still needed in order to be recognized and receive support from the system.
Badass class Danyeli!
In regards to 'boxes' as has been mentioned by both Gina and Lauren there's an entire movement pushing for the exclusion of the "have you ever been convicted' question. At CASES the kids all have system involvement and if the race question isn't bad enough having to see their faces drop when I show them that damn question of whether they have a conviction or not. It's so awkward because now there's something that some may feel like they need to disclose. So many job applications, college papers, and other tons of forms ask this and it gets me every time.
They shouldn't have to disclose anything to a piece of paper and they definitely don't need to disclose anything to me, I've grown to hate that question even more then the race one...
There have been great conversations in this blog. I feel like I am siding with Marina on a lot of the questions being raised. Defining terms are ESSENTIAL in this debate. What is race? Ethnicity? Latina? Hispanic? Caucasian? White? Asian? Black? Negro?
If we all have different definitions then the dialogue does not further or evolve. Instead of race I would say the classes overall are identifying who we each are as individuals. Personally i put more emphasis on nationality than race. I agree with race and professor Waterston, why does race matter? Everything is so complicated.
Anyways, at Fedcap there are "boxes" for everything ultimately segregating the customers based on their level of education, criminal background, competency using a computer. In this case im not sure whether it's a good or bad thing. It allows the customers to receive the personalized focus when s eperated on these "boxes"
Thank you Danyeli for such a great class.
In my placement, we asked our participants about the conviction information. I believe questions such as “was this your first time in prison?”, “how many conviction do you have?” or any question related to the participant conviction is like putting them in boxes. As professor Waterston mentioned in class, sometimes it is necessary to use “boxes” to gather information that can help the organization achieve its goal. At my placement, we partner with employers to find placements for our participants. Sometimes we have employers that would not hire a participant with violent, drugs, or robbery conviction. At CEO, it is important to keep developing a healthy relationship with employers. Therefore, we use those “boxes” to send the participants that meet the criteria that employers are looking for.
I love that you are having a back and forth blog discussion. Very important what Brenda is saying- define race, ethnicity, and culture. Most importantly who's defining, who's creating the box, and for WHAT PURPOSE? What is the intent behind the box and is it helpful or harmful?
Post a Comment