• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Naming oneself: essential to cultural survival

By Kendra Fox-Davis

"So we are left with two clear choices ­ to educate for liberation, or to educate for domination."

­Paulo Friere

Are we at this university to change or to conform? At times it seems the same racist ideology that has contaminated American culture since this country's origin remains as firmly implanted as ever in the minds of the dominators.

As I sat in the Coop on Friday I was presented with evidence to support this unfortunate opinion. Matthew Baker's article on political correctness ("Political correctness factionalizes society," Feb. 24) was, at best, a gross simplification of the issues behind race polarization in America. At worst, it was an obscene distortion of African and true American culture, an ignorant misrepresentation of minority identity and a pitiful attempt at disguising his blatantly racist theories of assimilation as an advocacy of "American" unity.

To begin my discussion, I will start where Baker's ignorance became apparent, in the use of the term "African American." As Malcolm X explained, the term "African American" began as an alternative for the so-called "Negro." It, first, identifies the person in question as African. Secondly, it identifies the person in question as an American citizen ­ which, whether or not we receive the benefits of being an American, we technically remain.

The whole issue behind our naming and remaining of minority groups is part of our continual evolution as human beings to define our identity. This process of evolution has obviously left Baker behind. Perhaps he would feel more comfortable in speaking from his heart and referring to us as the "niggers" we clearly exist as in his mind? Regardless, the process of naming is an integral part of forming an identity.

When you exist in a society that has systematically obliterated and distorted your culture, and I am referring to the attempts by white society to dominate and erase the African culture, the process of naming yourself is necessary for your survival. Baker cannot regulate and therefore should not be expected to understand, the struggles of the African-American man and the African-American woman to define ourselves in a society which excludes us.

This lack of understanding, this lack of knowledge, this ignorance that pervades every sentence in his article is not an excuse. He should speak on what he knows. Since he cannot possibly know the motivation for our quest for self-determination, he should silence himself or be silenced.

Until Baker can understand that Africans were stripped of their names, the very essence of our identity, and renamed by our white oppressors, he cannot understand why we continue to name ourselves. Fortunately, this is not a hard concept. Certainly a political science major should have no problems comprehending it.

In addition, Baker states that since African-American people cannot trace our heritage to a location in Africa we should abandon the idea of being of African origin. This is ridiculous. I know that in 1772 a woman renamed Betsy Bailey lived and gave birth to a proud clan of AFRICANS, one of whom I am. I know that her original name was, more than likely, Belali. I know that there are Belalis in West Africa.

Is that enough to tie myself to the proud African continent, Mr. Baker? This Africa, which he claims is "nothing to envy," this Africa which was the birthplace of humanity, this Africa that flourished while Europe crawled through caves on her hands and knees, this Africa which was raped, exploited, ravaged by white "explorers" ... Oh, Mr. Baker, you have no idea how much you have to envy.

Baker does acknowledge that slavery existed, but adds that African Americans triumphed during the Civil Rights Era.And his point is what? That we were African when we were enslaved but being able to sit on the same toilet as a white man made us Americans? Thanks a lot, but I'd rather be an African. Hey, how about we invite all the disgruntled minority groups to a sing-a-long in Westwood Plaza, that way we can all be Americans and no one could complain, right?

Anyway, Baker's attempts to divide African-American people in America from African people in Africa is just a regurgitated method of the divide-and-conquer strategies utilized by his ancestors to incite hostility and promote weakness on the African continent. The African diaspora remains united under the banner of our proud origin, our mother Africa, whose glorious earth shines through our black, brown, yellow and red skins everyday all over the world.

I do not need Baker's approval to hear the beat of African drums in my heart. Furthermore, I do not appreciate the audacity with which he suggests that I, as a "modern black," cannot "form a realistic bond" to Africa. I suppose the blood, sweat and tears of Africans who built this country is not bond enough. Please do not attempt to appease your guilt, Mr. Baker, by denying me my heritage. It lacks conviction. By distancing African-American people in America from Africans in Africa, Baker distances dominant American society ­ white society ­ from their heinous crimes against us. Through his attempts to discourage African-American people from forming bonds with Africa it becomes clear that he really seeks to discourage African-American people from seeking restitution from America for her crimes against Africa.

The comments Baker makes with regard to the indigenous cultures of Northern, Central and South America are absolutely slanderous and unforgivable. He takes the term "disrespectful" to new heights. How dare he represent the sacred position of Indian healers as cannibals; " ... their hearts ripped out and eaten by Aztec shamans."

Must I remind Baker of the true barbarians, the barbarians who handed out blankets contaminated with smallpox to Indians in cold winters, who broke treaty after treaty, practiced cultural genocide, raped and pillaged an entire people and continue to systematically ignore and misrepresent native culture? The true barbarism exists in the words and actions of men like Matthew Baker.

The insensitivity in Baker's writing floored me. I cannot believe, and continue to be shocked and appalled that any person, European, African, Asian, Indian and the rainbow in between would feel comfortable enough, in this day and age, to make such disrespectful, misinformed allegations against another culture. Because I have not educated myself enough on indigenous cultures to cite sources, I will not attempt to give a history lesson on native peoples.

I do know this ­ that each day when we step outside, it is on stolen land that we step. Each time we admire the beautiful California landscape, we are admiring property that the American government acquired through outright stealing, coercion and genocide. This fact alone should hold Baker's tongue as he praises his "great nation."

Fundamentally, Baker seems to have a problem with respect. Whether he has a problem with the term "African American" or "Chicano/a" is irrelevant because it is not being said in reference to his identity. This is the name with which a group chooses to identify themselves and as a fellow human being you must respect that wish and act accordingly.

Forgive us, Baker, if we did not call you beforehand and get your stamp of approval, but alas, you were born a few generations too late to exercise any authority on this matter. I would encourage him to gain real insight on the issue of subculture identity. He can call me, he can read a book (I suggest starting with "The African Origin of Civilization") and he can take advantage of the fact that he is in school ­ and learn.

Fox-Davis is a first-year women's studies and pre-medical student.

Comments

Post a comment