Who am I?

I am a first generation American of parents from Trinidad & Tobago. I lived in NYC practically my entire life but I was born in Maryland. My mother was a school teac her for nearly 25 years in the NYC Department of Education. Although I never really thought that I was exceptionally bright or anything, I was fortunate because I grew up in a household that was rich in books. My mom nurtured my love for books. I remember as a young kid going to the grocery store with my mom and running to the book aisle and selecting books that I wanted my mom to buy for me.  I believe that it was this intense love of books, and the worlds that existed in them that made me who I am today.

When I was in high school I was an average student. I still possessed my love of books, but I was aimless for a good part of that time. I was not extremely athletic, but I was a very tall boy for my age. I made friends fairly easily and I think that this is what got me through the boredom of teenage life. When I was 17 and in the eleventh grade, I was doing dismally in school, specifically in physics and pre-calculus.  My mom attended a parent teacher conference with me. At 17, I thought I was quit clever and was able to prevent my mom from seeing my report card for a couple of quarters. However, because she was a school teacher, to try to keep parent teachers conferences from her was like trying to keep the tide from the shore. Eventually it all comes crashing in.  It was my computer science teacher, Sheldon Pasquale, who bore the same name as me, who told my mom that I was quite good at being social, but I held no true talent for computer science, which is something that I figured out my first semester in the major. Later that year, my guidance counselor suggested that I go to a community college.  That guidance counselor stirred something deep inside me that I wouldn't truly understand until a few years later.

  Two things happened to me that changed my life.  The first was the statement from my guidance counselor. While I do believe that she was correct that I was underachieving at my high school, I disagreed with her assessment of where I should attend college.  I understood her as saying that I couldn't attend a four year college. The worst thing you can ever do is tell me I can't do something.  While I was an underachiever, I believe that it was because I just didn't know enough about what I wanted to do in the world and had little guidance on how to truly find myself.  I knew that the world held something for me, but I just hadn't found it yet. But her statements to me started a fire that I could never put out from that point: to find what was right for me in the worked on my own terns. The second thing that happened was that I took my first sociology course and with that my world changed.  My professor told stories of a world that I didn't quite understand but I wanted to know. It was stories of a world that I lived in and saw so many things that were contradictory to my experiences. When I was a freshman in college, so many things were happening in the world.  There was the Rodney King beating, the L.A. riots and the first Iraq War, OJ Simpson happened shortly afterwards.  However I was able to understand all of the things that were happening to and around me through sociology.

I think it’s interesting that I became a professor at a community college years later.  I am so grateful to teach here among students who probably grew up like I did in New York.  I have witnessed so many talented, special students since starting at this college three years ago and it is a privilege to teach here.  If it hadn’t been for that guidance counselor, I would probably be somewhere else.  She helped me to find what I loved! I want you to remember that they’ll always be someone around to tell you what you can’t do, you just have to tell yourself that you can!

 I hope that sociology will do the same for you.  Happy blogging this semester and let’s talk again.  If you have questions or comments, blog it out!

Post Racial America or the Same Package in a Pretty Bow?

I was elated to see the election of the first multi-racial president, President Barack Obama, named as the President of the United States in November 2008.  The amount of pride for my country, hope for the future and opportunity to see a significant ideological shift in the way we see "race" and ethnicity was all tied to the election of this extraordinary man.
    To be honest, I never envisioned this happening in my lifetime. Even as  a first generation product of the civil rights movement and integration, I never saw it happening in my lifetime. I'm not sure if this is because everything that I had been told by the generation of blacks who came before me or because of what I have witnessed personally and peripherally through my studies and observations, I just couldn't imagine another way.
I'm glad to say that I was wrong.  President Obama's election signified all of the beautiful things that this country is capable of becoming and is. His fathers  Nigerian ancestry epitomizes the belief in the principle that you can come to this country as an immigrant and make a better life for your family. His biracial heritage shows that the schism of race and racism can be narrowed.
    After the election, reporters, politicians, and scholars alike hailed this period as a post-racial America. This is when I was pulled back to reality. The reality that I speak of is demonstrated in the readings that you have examined over the past week, the news accounts of stories like the Jayvon Martin shooting, desegregation, and the Immigration laws passed in states like Alabama and Arizona. How is it possible for me  to experience both the biggest problem of the twentieth century as WEB DuBois so eloquently pointed out about race and live in a post-racial America simultaneously? Is it an either/or situation or both.
 I think it's both. We still face injustices based on race and ethnicity in the 21st century.
Be mindful that because there is more diversity in American society, we will face more racial and ethnic conflict, compare to societies that are more cohesive, which leads to more equality because the members of the society are similar in the values and culture.  Because of this competition, racial and ethnic groups vie for resources, wealth, power, and prestige as Weber wrote many years ago. Yet his writings, like Karl Marx, are as relevant as anything contemporary scholars and writers have written about in recent decades. Social stratification ranks us in society and what this means is that we are assigned both opportunity and unequal treatment in our society as a result of race and ethnicity( as well as class and gender, which we will discuss next week). This inequality (and opportunity) is present throughout society and found within its social institutions.
    Most of you are younger than me and for you I hope for a better world, one that is free of racial and ethnic divisions. It is through my teachings and the readings we shared that I hope to impart you with a deeper understanding of "race" and ethnicity.   Through your knowledge, you will have the ability to see beyond the things I couldn't see about race in America while growing up.  Through you and your generation, perhaps we can truly achieve the goal of a post-racial America, one that is truly equal and affords all Americans the chance for a better life and social justice that each human being deserves. Until next week...

Check out this story about Crown Heights and the experiences of some new immigrants and their interactions with the Hassidic Jews in their community:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/rookies/2012/may/02/

Social Class- a Matter of Status or Something More?

     By now (hopefully), you watched the smart and funny documentary "People Like Us". The documentary discusses class in the United States and looks at it from various points of view. I don't want to discuss the documentary too much because it's your job to discuss the documentary this week on your blog. I do want to discuss the key point of the documentary.  What does social class mean in the United States?
     Based on the discussions that we had in class, it seems that class means a lot of things to different people.  For some, class is represented in what we can afford to buy, irrespective of our income or occupation. For others, class represents how we carry ourselves, our education, occupation, the family we belong to, etc.
    This question was key to both Weber and Marx's theoretical frameworks. Weber believed that class is comprised of wealth, power, and prestige (please refer to your text for details), while Marx believed that class was represented by two groups who owned the means of production and those who worked for wages for their survival.  Additionally, Marx believed that the owning class and workers were in constant conflict as the owning class continues to suppress the wages of workers in an effort to increase their own profits.  Both theorists wrote about class during the onset of the Industrial Revolution as they witnessed the growth of capitalism. However, their writings are relevant to today's society and the world economy.
     Today, we still face an economic crisis worldwide. We see the gains of workers being retracted on a daily basis in the form of loss wages, benefits, and in many cases layoffs and unemployment. We've seen in the last two decades American jobs and workers replaced by workers overseas who are willing to work at lower wages to survive.  In the last year, we've witnessed a call to action by the Occupy Wall Street Movement to reduce the advantages of the One Percent. At the same time, we see politicians (and average workers) defending the earnings of the One Percent, as they believe this group creates jobs and opportunities for advancement for the other 99%.  Yet and still, we are constantly bombarded with images of living the glamorous life through luxury cars, jewels, homes and clothing. What is going on? What is class and what does it look like today? Who truly benefits from the glamorous lifestyles that we as Americans try to create for ourselves and who loses?   Check out this link on two issues: The Buffet Rule: http://www.npr.org/2011/09/20/140627334/millionaires-in-congress-weigh-new-tax-on-wealthy
and the New Poor: http://www.npr.org/2012/04/22/151166529/poverty-in-america-defining-the-new-poor
and then you decide.  Whatever you think, class affects all of us in the United States and worldwide. I also added some links to podcasts that discuss poverty in the United States.  Until next week...

New Measure Shows Higher Poverty Rate In US 
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/07/142105558/new-measure-shows-higher-poverty-rate-in-u-s
Poverty Spiked to 15%
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/13/140428940/poverty-rate-spiked-to-15-1-percent-last-year-highest-since-1993

To be Deviant or not to be Deviant, You Decide.

    A couple of weeks ago, I was stopped on the street, not once but twice, by police officers in my neighborhood within the space of five minutes. It was early in the evening at around 5 pm. The funny thing about it was that I was stopped on my way out of the grocery store a few blocks up the street from my apartment.  I was expecting some friends and family over and went to the grocery to pick up some last minute items for the event.  As I walked out of the grocery, three police officers stopped me and asked me about a stabbing.  I told them that I didn't know what they were referring to and asked why I was stopped. One of the officers said that I fit the description, which sounded like a cliche from a bad cops and robbers tv show.  I asked them to describe the person that they were looking for and how I "fit" the description. Another officer said that the perpetrator had dreadlocks. I laughed to myself even though I was furious. I couldn't let my outrage show or else I would be down at the tombs for the evening while my friends and family waited around for me at my apartment.  I asked the officers in what other ways did I "fit"the description. The officer told me to listen to the profile and I would see how I fit the description. At that moment, the radio buzzed with the description. The perp had on a blue short sleeve shirt with blue jeans. I had on a pair of gray sweatpants with a velcro blue sweat jacket. Somewhat flippant, I said to the officer that the only thing that I had in common with the perp was that I had dreads. The officer told me to calm down that they were just doing their job. I told him that I didn't need to calm down and that I was being harassed. I said that I clearly did not "fit" the description and that I was leaving. At this point, I had to be careful because anything I said or did would trigger the cops to escalate the situation even though I wasn't the person they were looking for at the moment. The officers let me go with no apology or acknowledgement that a mistake had been made.
    I started walking to the Duane Reade located one block away to get some cash. As I walked out of the Duane Reade two officers stopped me and asked me to stop and that they needed to talk to me. At this point, I was really hot under the collar. I explained that I was stopped literally one block away five minutes ago and that I wasn't the person that they were looking for. One of the officers, a black man, told me that they needed to search me. I asked him why. He explained that he was doing his job and that he needed to see my ID. I told him that he was racially profiling me. At this point I didn't give a damn about being taken into custody, I wasn't going to have my rights violated. He asked me what I was talking about and explained that he was doing his job. He then proceeded to write down my name and identification information. I asked him why he needed to do that and he said that it was the procedure that all officers had to do when they stopped someone. What he didn't realize was that I had just been stopped and the officers never collected any of my personal information.
    How does this relate to deviance you may ask? Well let's review some of the themes we discussed throughout the semester. I was stopped because I fit the description, but what does this mean? Because I have dreads? Because I am male? Black? It could be all of these things or just one. Clearly, the officers believed that they are doing their job. On the other hand, it seems that as a member of a sub-culture, men like me are stopped constantly because we "fit" the description. Oftentimes, because we are black and male. At that moment, it doesn't matter if I am a professor, a resident of the neighborhood and an owner, I'm just a black man. The deviant behavior or role that I carry isn't something that I earned but is something that was ascribed to me simply because I was born black. While some of you may argue that the officers had a legitimate reason to stop me, you would be outraged if you were stopped for whatever attributes you possess, especially if you have no say over being a part of the group that is being characterized as deviant.
    The other thing to remember is that deviance is often the result of the rules/norms that the dominant culture decides as appropriate for the society. These rules are enacted through policies such as "stop and frisk", where the minority group has little if anything to say on the rules, even if they are wrong or unfair. Data shows that stop and frisk policies show no difference in crimes committed by blacks and Latinos compared to their white and Asian counterparts. The question becomes, why have the policy if it doesn't result in any difference in the people who are stopped or who is actually committing crimes. This is a question you have to ask yourself. 
     I want you to think of instances where you are labeled deviant. Is it because of something you did or some other reason? Does it  have to do with you violating a social rule or society deeming norms that don't fit with the status that you have been assigned? Until next week...

Socialization and other things...

Hi folks,

Well, we're almost at the midpoint for this class and I hope that you have learned a lot so far.  I hope that you learned not only from me, but from the readings, your classmates, and the videos and blogs that you have been sharing with one another. 
     I don't have much to write about this week, simply because I want you to come to your own conclusions about socialization and especially as it relates to gender.  I think it is important to remember that our socialization process (as individuals) varies by race, class, and gender.  So, we don't turn out all the same. 
     I read this very sad story in Sunday's NY Times.  It is, however, completely relevant to our units on socialization and culture.  It also is strongly connected to Tony Porter's TED presentation.  Please read it.  If you do, it will add to a very lively discussion for tomorrow.  The link is below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/opinion/sunday/a-boy-to-be-sacrificed.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
     I was truly horrified to read this article, but it isn't surprising.  Please read it and let's discuss tomorrow.  There are some other articles that I ran across that I want to share with you.  This one relates to interaction and the socialization process. More importantly, this article demonstrates the interplay between nature and nuture.  Check it out:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/the-brain-on-love/?partner=rss&emc=rss
     Well, have a great and productive day.  Your next exam will most likely be next Thursday, April 5, 2012.  It will cover chapters 5 and 6.  See you soon...
Professor Applewhite

Capitalism: A Part of the American Society

     Last week in Wednesdays New York Times, there were two important articles that address the current economic crisis, more importantly and related to our class, the articles demonstrate the connection between social institutions, namely American capitalism and our values,  and the various other social institutions that make up the social structure of American society.

      The first article, written by Thomas L. Friedman, entitled, “Capitalism, Version 2012” asks readers about the type of America we want to see in the future and directly ties the alternatives to the Capitalist system in the United States.  Click the link below to read the story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/friedman-capitalism-version-2012.html?_r=1

     One of the chief features of the article is the notion that the there are three types of capitalism. Each version offers different applications of free market principles. In addition each version provides different benefits to Americans and is grounded in cultural ideology. In other words, the different versions of capitalism described by Friedman offer different visions of American and strategies to obtain them based on one’s cultural beliefs and rely on capitalism to enact the vision.  For example, some readers believe that the government should not provide a safety net for its citizens (I.e. welfare, public education) and there is a version of capitalism that meets this vision. While other versions of capitalism offer a partnership between the private and public sectors in order to provide a safety net for Americans, as well as to regulate various social institutions such as the banks to ensure that economic crises such as the recession of 2008 do not happen.
    What's interesting about this article is that it displays the ways that the various social institutions interact with one another to create the social structure, in this case the economic and political systems in the United States. The type of capitalism that the United States embraces is a reflection of the political institutions and the choices its members select, while citizens will decide on the politicians that they will choose based on their personal ideology (culture).  These various systems are interacting with one another to shape the social structure.
      Okay, I've talked way too much during this entry. Read the next article on your own and tell me how this article is related to sociology, and specifically our chapter on Society. The name of the article is “Why I am Leaving Goldman Sachs”. The link is listed below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?pagewanted=all
     Both articles show how the various social institutions are connected to make up American society. Until next week...

Survivor - Merely a social game or a look at how sociology is all around us?

So, it took me awhile to think of something to write for this week's blog.  Quite frankly, there are so many things happening in the world today, that there is a lot to write on this week.  I decided to keep it light-hearted and write about one of my guilty pleasures - Survivor.  Yes, I do indulge in the reality show that has teams compete on a weekly basis on a deserted location, trying to survive with little food, shelter and are subjected to the hazards of mother nature. 
     What strikes me about this season of Survivor, and what has always drawn me to the show, is how it reflects the ways that human beings are also social beings.  So while each contestant tries to make it through 30 days in the wild individually, the objective of the game is to survive by relying on others until eventually you are selected by your peers as the ultimate survivor.  Contestants are voted off each weak until there is just one sole survivor.  The funny thing is that contestant are often voted off for violating the norms of the groups they belong to.  Remember from the reading that norms are simply rules and expectations a society deems fit.  While values are explain why the rules exist.  The same concepts ring true for Survivor.  Contestants are often voted off of Survivor for violating the rules or not knowing the rules, just like in society.  Sometimes contestants are eliminated for not fitting in or for being weird or bizarre.  Whatever the case may be, it often comes down to not meeting the expectations of the dominant group or culture.  You will typically hear the contestants say that Survivor is a social game.  This couldn't be more true.  While you have to depend on the typical attributes to win the various challenges each weeks such as strength, stamina, intelligence, and will power, you must also master the game by bargaining with others, cooperation, teamwork, and at times through straight up lying.  Contestants make alliances with one another and team up with people who will help them advance in the game.  Here's  a link to the latest episode:
                                                 http://www.cbs.com/shows/survivor/video/
     It's not terribly different from what we have to do in everyday life.  Oftentimes, we have to cooperate with people we don't like, follow rules, work together and sometimes be dishonest to meet our objectives. 
     There are a few things that stand out for me in this season's Survivor.  First, the contestants are separated into "tribes" by gender and with it comes all of the expectations and stereotypes of how men and women should behave.  And as if written on cue, the men start of the competition by relying on their brute strength and physical prowess to eliminate members from the women's team.  But what makes Survivor so intriguing this season is that while groups organize themselves in a similar fashion to the ways we organize ourselves in society (i.e. gender), there are also several sub-cultures that emerge among the groups.  For example, among the men, the alphas (extremely masculine, fit guys) form an alliance, leaving out the weaker men.  With the women, the younger women band together against the older women players.  This is reflective of what happens in society everyday, we form sub-cultures based on similar characteristics or attributes that standout from the dominant culture. 
     What is truly fascinating on the show however, is one of the characters from the men's team who is gay and makes no qualms about it.  When the show first starts he defiantly declares his affinity towards the women's team.  He openly goes back and forth between the teams and negotiates his position in the game by playing the men against the women.  He also convinces the women to give him an amulet that protects you from being eliminated in the games by telling the women that he is considered the weak link among the men.  However, this couldn't be further from the truth.  He uses his own attributes - intelligence, manipulation, is affinity towards the women, to advance in the game.  What results is that he emerges as one of the strongest contestants in the game and works with the weaker men to knock off some of the alpha men. 
   Survivor is entertainment and at times seems hokey and even fake.  But for me, it represents some of the biggest lessons about society.  Check out the show yourself or better yet, take a look at another television show and see what concepts you recognize from what we've learn so far this semester.  I think you'll see that sociology is all around us!