Looking at the recent Supreme Court ruling on Affirmative Action in the United States, it’s hard for me not to see the subtext of what occurred. Contrary to what certain people may think they have achieved, the problems that they believe existed have not been solved. Not so long as things like legacy admissions are still in play.
I have nothing more to offer on the matter. And even though this video is a few years old, I believe Hasan Minhaj said it all.
Years ago I became obsessed with the multi-lingual video for “Let it Go”, the hit song from Frozen.
I watched it repeatedly, many, MANY times. loved seeing the passion that each singer brought to their performance.
Meanwhile, today, I discovered this video.
Overall, I loved Halle’s voice. Yet with technology being what it is, I can’t help but wonder (assume?) that her voice was translated via AI. Somehow, this both delighted and scared me.
So much about it has had me mesmerized. I like to think that officially, I’ve never believed that rich people were smarter than me.
Yet as revelations about the Titan have come in, I’ve started to realize something: It isn’t exactly that I’ve been too naive about the world’s wealthiest people. Rather, certain things have become crystal clear to me.
One thing this situation reminded me of was a comment that Michelle Obama made while on her book tour in 2018.
So many of us have been duped into believing that because someone is ultra-wealthy, or in an incredibly important position, they’re wiser than the rest of us. Yet from where I sit, everything about this disaster proves that the following assumptions are false:
Given the opportunity to be innovative, wealthy people will seek access to–and use–the best technology.
Whenever possible, wealthy people heed the word of experts who are wiser than them.
Wealthy people value their safety. When embarking on–or organizing– endeavours that involve a degree of risk, they do their due diligence.
Ultimately, I see this tragedy as a reminder: We are all prone to mistakes, naïve thinking, and hubris. And problems are bound to arise when people engage in the latter two attitudes. There’s no telling who their actions will affect.
Meanwhile
Like so many other humans after a horrific event, I crave closure.
The questions in my mind keep collapsing on themselves. One thing I’ve wondered is what’s next? How many more dubious things are influential people preparing to unleash, without considering the repercussions? (Hello, social media!) How many such things have already been released, but the general public isn’t aware of them?
And at the root of my curiosity, there’s this:
If the Titan was an unregulated vehicle, how did Stockton Rush gain permission to offer it to tourists for excursions?
I mean, I can imagine how. (Immediately, I think it’s a matter of privilege. But maybe the details lie in one of the articles that I’d skimmed???)
I honestly don’t know the hoops Rush had to jump through. But no one could stop him.
And that detail leads me to another question: WHY?
Also, how much research had the passengers done on his vehicle? And how much information about it was available that wasn’t prepared by a PR firm? It feels as though so much information about the Titan’s true nature was revealed this week—since it went missing. But what about beforehand?
Leave it to the internet algorithm to bring something foreboding to my YouTube homepage last night.
This week the news of Titan, the missing submersible, has been on many people’s minds. And this story only deepened my fears about the situation’s outcome.
The tourist submersible that went missing while exploring the Titanic wreck was previously the target of safety complaints from an employee of OceanGate, the parent company that owns the sub and runs tourist expeditions of the wreck. That employee complained specifically that the sub was not capable of descending to such extreme depths before he was fired…
The concerns Lochridge voiced came to light as part of a breach of contract case related to Lochridge refusing to greenlight manned tests of the early models of the submersible over safety concerns. Lochridge was fired, and then OceanGate sued him for disclosing confidential information about the Titan submersible. In response, Lochridge filed a compulsory counterclaim where he alleged wrongful termination over being a whistleblower about the quality and safety of the submersible.
It’s disturbing to think that someone was fired due to their concern over safety precautions.
Meanwhile, Netflix released a trailer for a film about freediving. If it came out any other week, I would be fine. And normally, I’d be curious. But a part of me wants to tell them to read the room.
OceanGate’s CEO is a man named Stockton Rush. He was on board when his vehicle went on this week’s voyage. I can’t help but wonder if his fellow passengers were aware of how he perceived safety.
Yesterday via social media, I saw the the following quote. And eventually, I found the article it came from. I admit that I skimmed to find the content, and looking at it in context I was horrified. Commenting on the Passenger Vessel Safety Act of 1993, the article states that
The law was well-meaning, Rush says, but he believes it needlessly prioritized passenger safety over commercial innovation (a position a less adventurous submariner might find open to debate). “There hasn’t been an injury in the commercial sub industry in over 35 years. It’s obscenely safe, because they have all these regulations. But it also hasn’t innovated or grown—because they have all these regulations.” The U.S. government, meanwhile, has continued to favor space exploration over ocean research: NASA today gets about $10.5 billion annually for exploration, while NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research is allotted less than $50 million—a triumph of “emotion over logic,” Rush says. “Half of the United States is underwater, and we haven’t even mapped it!” (emphasis mine)
The little that I’ve read about Mr. Rush has left me with a portrait of a man who was eager to make his mark in his industry. He wanted to be an innovator. But his comments above, combined with the previously-linked article suggest something sinister: He so longed to be a pioneer in his field, that he saw basic safety regulations as an enemy of his success.
It’s good to be ambitious. But Dear Reader, I implore you: Don’t be so desperate to be the first to do something, that as you pursue your goals, you consider yourself a god.
We humans are exceptional and can do all sorts of things. But at the end of the day, we have limits. We cannot defy the laws of nature, God, the Universe—whatever you care to call it. We mustn’t idolize our desire to be unique to the point where we ignore experts’ wisdom.
Some like to say that rules were meant to be broken. But is that attitude worth it if it results in risking people’s lives?
I’m someone who has taken swimming lessons as an adult, and in order to be truly safe in the water, I know that I need to take more. And throughout this saga, a part of me couldn’t help but think of swimming as a comparatively simpler aquatic activity, and a point of contrast.
Remembering certain drowning cases involving adults has made me want to ask a question. At the risk of insulting the Titan’s passengers, did they truly understand what skilled swimmers take for granted?: Navigating the water isn’t remotely the same as going for a walk or even existing on land.
It’s all too easy to meet your end if you aren’t properly prepared.
I’ve always thought the ocean was beautiful, from afar. But right now, if I were given the opportunity to voyage out into her depths, I’d rather keep my distance.
I keep writing and NOT sharing random rants on the worst of the manosphere. Long story short, I’m tired of the negative influence that certain figures have on society. Meanwhile, it often feels like some men (people) are so eager for leadership, they will tolerate and defend folks who exhibit all sorts of behaviour.
One of the movement’s figures has been in the news lately. I couldn’t help but think it’s high time I shared one of my drafts.
You know what I would like to see?
Please Note: I would actually NOT like to see this. I think that we have more than enough poison in this world.
But anyways… Just for example’s sake, imagine a woman. Strong, gorgeous, professional. Imagine seeing her come up. Literally. From obscurity to becoming incredibly famous. She’s both a beauty—and an intellectual. Envision her hitting her stride. Imagine her having massive audiences, and being the talk of virtually every woman you know.
Let’s call her Lady Laura.
Picture a large number of the women in society, regardless of background, hanging on her every word.
And then, every now and then, repeatedly and without fail…
Imagine what would happen if Lady Laura said something off-colour about men. Her statements could range from specious or absurd, to utterly vile. But regardless of whatever she says, she’s entirely unrepentant.
And when she says these things, they come out of her mouth more than a handful of times. In fact, her horrible commentary on men is very well-known.
So well-known in fact, that every brother, son, father, uncle, random dude that you know is flummoxed. Some are even a bit anxious.
“Have you seen this ish….?” they say to their sistren. Yes, yes we have.
But we laugh and let it slide ‘cause Lady Laura gives GREAT makeup tips! She’s crafty, and one helluva cook, too!
If such a woman ever were to exist, I wonder what kind of media coverage she would receive. I wonder if reporters would actually be concerned about this woman’s ability to influence the public’s views on men for the worst. Or… Would the (mostly male) worriers’ fears be ignored?
Would Lady Laura have a podcast or a book deal? Would she be the talk of major media circles?
Because there are male public figures who have been skating by on the fact that their audiences think they’re incredibly entertaining, or rich, or God Knows What Else. All the while the media completely ignores things like their horribly outdated takes on how bigotry works. And they are not influencing society for the better.
It’s a Spotify exclusive, ’cause I’m using some of their music–from Jessie Ware and Beyoncé, to be more precise. And I’m proud of the damn thing, even though it’s awful. Awkward “Am I really doing this?” voice? Check. Pointless pauses? Check!
Really. I feel like I need an answer to this question. And if anyone knows who might have some answers, please tell me.
I’ll also admit my ignorance: The premise for this post is an honest question. Therefore, if “Black identifying” is an older term with a respected history, I apologize. Yet I’ve heard it only in a contemporary context, and I can’t help but consider how it might be manipulated.
Where I first heard the words
A few weeks ago marked the second time I’d heard a Black person use the words “Black identifying” in reference to other Black people–during a radio interview. The first time was on TV, surrounding the dustup over the National Arts Centre’s Black Out Night. After both instances, I felt uncomfortable.
There’s a part of me that wants to believe that “Black identifying” is a phrase that emerged out of a desire to welcome people of various complexions who have African ancestry. Yet regardless of its origins, I fear that its use will open the door to people who engage in blackfishing and other forms of race-based mockery.
Overall I wonder why we need to use this term. And who decided that there was something wrong with just saying “Black”?
And just how did “Black identifying” come into the public lexicon? Was it because of an over-extension of certain Black folks’ desire to be inclusive or accepted by others?
“Black identifying” – Beginnings?
To ask it in another way, who coined this word? Who decided to view the signifier “Black’ as something vague or offensive–so much so that it needs to be changed? And if they think that Black needs to be modified, then why, and for whom?
At this point I honestly don’t even feel like looking up a definition. If I try, I think I’ll probably end up finding something that’ll make me go, “So, you actually mean to say Black, but…?”
My concern is that a push to use “Black identifying” feeds into the idea that using “Black” as a racial identifier–regardless of how accurate it is-is somehow offensive. There are people out there who insist on twisting notions of Blackness, and view them as signifiers that are designed to restrict or otherwise intimidate others. It feels as though “identifying” has been brought in to soften Black’s potentially drastic impact. (Yet “drastic” for whom?)
Meanwhile, although some may find frank talk about Black folks troubling, I’m afraid I’m sorry not sorry. If a circumstance concerns Black people, I’m going to tell it like it is. Why lie and say that I’m referring to Latinos or Indigenous people?
The cultural tensions that we are experiencing within society aren’t happening because people are merely being honest about their lives and experiences. They come from certain folks’ determination to cast such truth-telling in a negative light. Just because a conversation is uncomfortable, that does not automatically mean that it is bad. And yet, time and again I’ve seen expressions of Blackness interpreted as a threat or an attack. It’s tiring and deeply unnecessary.
The Heart of the Matter
Quite frankly, the first thing, or rather person that came to mind when I heard “Black identifying” is Rachel Dolezal. For those of you who don’t know or remember, years ago Ms Dolezal was in the news. Throughout a portion of her adulthood, she claimed to be Black, and even did her best to disguise herself accordingly using extensions and makeup. Her scheme was successful for a while. And yet it was ruined after her parents verified that she was actually Caucasian.
I mentioned “blackfishing” beforehand, and I feel the need to expand on my concerns.
It’s hard for me to keep from wondering: Do some of the people who use the words “Black identifying” think that being is Black a form of amusement, something that everyone gets to play at? In some way, to me, it sounds like whoever invented that phrase is trying to extend a hand to certain people who aren’t actually Black. I can almost hear them trying to reassure someone, saying, “It’s okay. You can be Black, too.”
It’s as though they’re encouraging people to be delusional about something that people like me don’t have a choice about–and that something is a vulnerable status, given the existence of racism within our society. Those who wish to engage in being trans-racial–another term that’s fraught with its own issues–are taking advantage of a choice that actual Black people do not have.
As alluded to earlier, another small part of me wonders if the use of “Black identifying” has anything to do with the at-times complicated relationship that can exist between a person’s Black ancestry and their physical appearance. Are people trying to make those who hesitate to lean into their Black heritage feel comfortable?
That doesn’t sit well with me. Even if at first glance, someone doesn’t look as though they are Black, they know their ancestry. Meaning that most people know if they’re Black or not. And unless someone is engaging in some Dolezal-level deception, most Black people don’t have a problem with people of various hues who choose to claim their roots.
Hence, I’m willing to question the use and actual usefulness of “Black identifying”. In spite of any potentially innocent origins, I am concerned. Black people tend to know who they (we) are. So who is it really for?
Behind the scenes on this website, I’ve been doing some restructuring. This led to me looking up the very first post that I shared, which in turn led to me realizing how old this blog really is.
And, yikes. It’s been a small lifetime! A child and family likely would have been a wiser investment of my time.
I remember, I was around 6 or 7 when I knew I was supposed to be a writer. Maybe younger.
When I was in school, I wrote and read aloud a story about a little alien. As I recall, the alien’s experience was supposed to be analogous to mine. Some time later–or perhaps before that, who knows?–my teacher chastised me over a little book that I’d made. I think she even called it “nonsense”.
She was so confident in her decision to dismiss me. Yet whether someone is an adult or a child, the vision that’s given to them about their destiny isn’t necessarily anyone else’s. As I’ve seen various pastors say, “God’s calling on your life wasn’t a conference call. Others don’t have to have heard it!” Meaning, people who know about your dreams may think they’re are crazy–even loved ones. But never mind what they think: Your dreams are yours and no one else’s.
Whether I love or loathe the process, I know that I was born to write. I’m still here, and I have the keen sense that my true purpose has yet to be fulfilled. And I’ll never know what my true destiny is if I don’t continue to explore my talents. That’s why I’m thankful for this website: It makes a fine place to play!
claire.she.goes 