The discussion involved many speakers , but starting off the conversation was Anthony who said when he came to Davidson he was fighting for desegregating the bathrooms in the laundry rooms in 1992. The fact that this issue was still prevalent on campus took me by surprise. However he had also mentioned that although the campus made it feel like he didn’t belong he still went to go seek opportunities and take up space with intent of creating a better future and campus for those who followed him .Even though there were, and still are, struggles that people of color face today, I liked the additional narrative of their experiences in Africa. This piece had depicted a way in which they became more humble or came to the realization that they had the privilege to be able to study within the U.S. This made me think of the many opportunities I myself am blessed to have, such as being a first generation student in college and having the opportunity to further my education and create a better future for myself and my family as well. Once Mr.Ferguson began sharing stories of his work on activism and within the courtroom it made me tear up. The stories of segregated schools (even after Brown v. Board of Education) , the violent acts attempted in courtrooms and the dangers they faced on a daily basis. It’s haunting to imagine that these incidents were less than a century ago. Yet the amazing part about it all is that Ferguson was able to fight through it and advocate for civil rights and social justice. One of his closing remarks stuck with me and that was “ I don’t have hate, I’m too busy.”. Regardless of all the struggles he’s endured he still manages to remain positive and that itself is an empowering concept.
The panel presented many different viewpoints pertaining to personal narratives that each student faced. This panel included many backgrounds however there was a comment mentioned anonymously saying that there was no latinx representation, I wondered the same thing. Regardless I believe the event opened up the conversation, not only for students of color but for their potential allies as well. They brought up the issues that they , as students, experience in Davidson and even the issues which arise for faculty of color as well. Who tend to take on an additional role as a support or advocate for students of color, aside from their official positions within the school. Some topics made me feel small, mad and sad due to the topics. Although I’ve only been in the state for a short while I can see vastly different attitudes regarding racism compared to my home in California. It’s scary to think that there are some faculty who tend to have these bad habits of singling out students of color and it’s hard to see how some students manage when they have issues with another student and the professor may not get involved at all or advocate for the student. It’s a sensitive topic, but students of color experience these levels of discomfort constantly within a PWI and if their allies could become more involved in these situations and even advocate for those students of color even when they aren’t present ; I believe it’s a step in the right direction.
By Lilly Sandoval
I believe it would be accurate to say that Galileo’s view is what distinguishes science from humanities. Humanities to me seems to be a broad interpretation differing between the views or perspectives of each individual. While Galileo’s approach to see the physical world in mathematical abstractions completely eradicates the qualitative features, By doing this it seems to be set in facts and figures, rather than qualities and theoretical assumptions or interpretations. It helps keep the science and humanities distinct and separate, however at times they have a chance at intersecting. Which leads me to my question – if qualitative features are different , such as size and shape wouldn’t that affect the wind resistance in a way ? How can these two topics actually stay separated?
Going into the talk that evening I never imagined conversation of conflict as storytelling. It forces one to analyze themselves and have a better outlook on life, rather than being uncomfortable or angry with clashing ideas. Since so many people use the fragments of their knowledge or what they learn from history as their whole version of the story, when in reality there are so many different outlooks to it. It all depends on one’s perspective, since there are so many stories which can be pulled from a single artifact. By approaching every one of these situations as a storyteller, or listener of one, then many conflicts of ideas can be resolved. However, it’s important to be aware that this may not always be the case for everyone, because sometimes they may not be susceptible to change their point of view or way of in taking information.The example used, which was effective, was that of older people versus college protests. Old people could see protests as young people being so sensitive to what’s happening in society. Yet students have been affected in so many ways recently, such as school shootings, therefore it’s believed that speech very quickly becomes action. Hence the overall take away from the talk was that we must view each other as different but also be able to view them as worthy of affirmation as well.
The reading I found most interesting was “Black Skin, White Masks” by Fanon. The way in which he started off his introduction with an honest comment on how he is not an all knowing being, followed by the fact that there are many who believe themselves to be superior and called them idiots. Yet throughout his work he depicts all of their reasoning and it’s baffling to hear what comes up. Statements that say those who are colored should experience declivity so that they may grow to be better. It is believed to be the fault of the colored man for his struggles, because he holds onto problems of love and understanding, which are the things I believe that make us human, is the ability to face these emotional situations. However it seems Fanon, like Locke and Kant, believe reason is what makes us human. Such as learning French to be closer to “human” , which is linked to being white. To them I must ask: Why must colored people prove their intellect to others? Don’t you think the life experiences of these people allow them to be better human beings and more empathetic creatures? Why must human worth be based on intellect or how much one can reason?
Locke: Chapter 9.95
” Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent …to join and unite into a community for their comfort-able, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left, as they were, in the liberty of the state of Nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.”
I chose Locke’s section on the ends of political society and government because it made me stop and think about how one still has freedom, liberty or “equality” under governmental laws and how that changes their identity. After looking back at Professor Quillen’s notes on chapter 8 , which relate to the political society, it allowed me to see that maybe their reasoning of joining was for the common good and the fact that all in the society had a common interest. Throughout the chapter Locke explains the benefits obtained by joining a society, there are certain protections and securities obtained when one joins. It reminded me of the group mentality mentioned in Brooks The Power of Peril and Identity , how people are branded based on selected life experiences or what they associate with. Therefore those in a political society are a unit, in which protect their property from those who are different, or still abide by the state of nature. I think Locke’s example of establishing a community supports one of his main themes of legitimacy through power of the governed, due to the fact that with a society there are laws all agree upon and must abide my. Hence creating more structure than the state of nature allows. I believe that the passage addresses the question ‘how do identities fall into a power structure’, because now these members are a part of a community which they see as law, anything different would be a conflict to their society and they would look down on those who aren’t apart of their society (creating a divide in groups or hierarchical system).