Crucifixes, gnawing on my neck

I've been restless for what feels like ages, but it's only been approximately two weeks.

Finals are over. Finished my craptastic write-on: for those who had the common sense not to go to law school, the "write-on" refers to the amazing writing application process in which 1Ls try to write onto one of the law journals at school.

Lawyers and upperclass students tell us journal status is necessary, and I suppose that should be gospel for us 1Ls who just want to make it into biglaw[read: one of the fabulous law firms where you make tons of money and have little time to spend it]. Maybe I'll write about my feelings about the law in a bit. Deserves several posts.

I finished that process on Monday, barely making it to a midnight post-office, and have been brain dead ever since. Reading stuff at Top Law Schools and beating myself up over not having good grades, and really just wanting to lie around. And watch Chinese TV.

--
I was somewhere, though, somewhere online. And I remembered a conversation I was having with a friend, Adaora, about Avatar, the movie. Of all things, eh? I'm not a fan of the movie, and think it's pretty much a rip of Ferngully/Dances with Wolves/WHATEVER-- white man goes to native land, falls in love with the native girl, becomes a hero, etc. Of course, there're other qualities that make Avatar stand out-- the cinematographic brilliance, the relation it has to the current state of affairs, the environmental themes[I guess? I seem to also recall some animal hunting, but my memory's off], and of course that it's been able to capture the hearts and minds of so many people.

To be honest, I'd rather leave the film conversations to the actual professionals-- I'm just a layman and I'm very simple. In fact, I'm worse than a layman: I don't like movies. The total number of movies I actually enjoyed watching probably hovers around 15-20-- everything else has my lost my attention at one point or another. So, I'm a bad example.

The last movie I enjoyed in a movie theatre was probably Revolutionary Road, and that's because it's very faithful to the book.

Anyway, in the conversation, we were going back and forth, and at some point something comes up about "an African perspective", and that I and an African-American female who also disliked Avatar "didn't get it." "It" being a referent to the African perspective, or her perspective as an African, or what an average African would think about the movie, or whatever it is that she meant. I asked for an explanation, but she refused, at which point I suppose any meaningful line of conversation on that line broke down.

I was angry about it: it felt like a copout for someone who couldn't explain her point well enough. Bring up some identity issue that clearly disables your opponent from rebuttal-- all smoke and mirrors for a weak position. But, I think one thing I've learned is that people from underrepresented groups are not required to educate the ignorant masses[ie: me] about whatever misunderstandings we have. We need to educate ourselves; this burden shifting to the people with knowledge on the subject[ie: Adaora] is unfair and a vestige of privilege. Or so the liberals would say.

I think it's because I can understand this line of protest that I didn't write off her entire argument as rubbish.

It did have me thinking about African identity though, and that is a good thing.
--

Now, I think I've been a bit naive about "black." Actually, I think I'm naive about nomenclature in general-- liberals like to make a big deal about the power of words, the attachments they have, all that jazz. This is when my conservative impulse kicks in and I start to say "f*ck it", but I can somewhat get it, even if I'm not persuaded. The issues with "queer" or "gay" for example-- the images they're associated with, or whatever gripes people apparently have with the terms.

ETA: Actually, I suppose it is persuasive as I think about it: there's probably a deserved anger at being coopted into a movement that doesn't even recognize that you exist, pretends to tell your story even though it has nothing to do with you and refuses to engage you while subsuming you. I was being overly being derisive; this is very persuasive. I guess I'm not entirely convinced that nomenclature rejection is the way out, but. But.

I guess I've been similarly under the interpretation that Black wasn't really an objectionable term. If you have a drop of Black blood, you're Black. Of course, self-identification is a component, but this reclassification of people with mixed ancestry as something other than...Black is a revision of Black history and ignores the fact that Black people are and have been mixed for centuries.

Anyway. A definition with the term it defines in the definition, how useful is that? Black, I thought, was African ancestry of some sort-- whatever that means. There, catchall.

Of course, nomenclature issues. I think I've vaguely been aware of the fact that there are people who fit my understanding who don't identify as Black, and I've been trying to brainstorm as to why. One of the reasons is the more obvious one that I've known for a while-- African Americans are pathetic, to speak harshly. The lack of education, the health afflictions, the incarceration rates, ghetto culture, the current state of hip-hop and the negative impression we apparently leave upon every other demographic in this country.

Fine. I get that.

I imagine another is that "Black" as a movement, term, or whatever, is a fiction created by African Americans. I guess what I mean is that non-African-American-African-descended people["NAADP"] might be hostile to being subsumed into Black because they have had very little part in its construction. It was invented by African-Americans, largely discusses the African American experience[whatever that is? Neither am I sure of its veracity], and makes no reference to the lives that NAAADP people live. It's based on an American conception of race that most of the world doesn't even acknowledge, so the entire point of view of some greater "Black" diaspora is invalid.[Though, I'd imagine a Pan-African something or other would have more credence]

Or maybe that it's presumptuous-- should we all just identify as African instead?

Alright, I'm losing clarity and this entry is being unwieldy for me to continue a proper discussion. The point is: Black is simple. I assumed there was an automatic concession that the Black experience is varied and complicated, but that may be false. I imagine African-African-American relations must also play some part-- ignorance on both sides, whatever. I certainly remember some of the horrible things my classmates said about a classmate who came from Kenya when I was in middle school. Though, they were mainly Caribbean-American, so...is that a different issue?

Another reason I wanted to move to China: Americans, including the immigrants who move here, are so touchy for one reason or another. Didn't really have any issues with the Tanzanians and the Ethiopians I hung with, but I also didn't identify them as Black, at least out loud. So maybe that made things easier? We didn't really need a conversation about race.

These conversations, man. To quote Ke$hia: "Blah blah blah."

Sorry, also: the quality of this entry is much lower than I expected, but my computer also crashed and I lost most of what I originally wrote, so. I'll try to keep things at a higher standard as I get back into the swing of things.

Deuces.