Villanueva and Royster

Rhetoric of Racism is an intriguing and enlightening read that challenges my concept of what multiculturalism in the classroom actually is. I like that Villanueva began with a historical approach with the Aztecs and the Spanish to demonstrate the consequences of forced assimilation. We tend to think of rhetoric and composition in the terms of ancient times (Aristotle, Plato, etc.) and modern times. Rarely do we stop to think about the impact of rhetoric on this country's early history. Anyway, back to the point. Villanueva states that there is no "reverse discrimination" to make things equal, and the statistics speak: 64% of Latinos never graduate high school. Granted, this was published in 1999, so the statistics might be older, however as a teacher on the front lines with this demographic, I can say this statistic has not changed much. I think and still believe that they don't value education, however Villanueva seems to think this is a colonialist point of view. I think my students would value education a lot more if they could see the doors it would open for them. So are they just content with their lives? Are we the racist ones for telling them that they should want something better? Sometimes I am not sure.

I also enjoyed the analogy that the U.S. is like the parent to Latin America, the 'child' and that somehow they should revere the U.S. for their guidance and showing them the 'way'. We really do sound pompous and its easy to see why so many other countries hate us. As for his analogy of the Mexican philosopher and the French philosopher holding more weight, I have to say the French and for a good cause: Generally speaking, more French than Mexicans are formally educated, and with the exception of Mexico City, we tend to think of Mexico as a whole to be a corrupt, drug infested country that doesn't believe in democracy or education for its people. France is associated with education, aristocracy, art, cuisine, democracy, and liberalism. Until that changes, the association will stick. I'm all for change, but until non-colonialist voices step up and educate themselves no one will take their trend-bucking seriously, and unfortunately that is the society we live in. The intelligent students in my class are ruthlessly made fun of. There's a stigma with being smart, with bringing books to class, and doing work. Its not 'cool'. I don't know how to change that attitude, and being an outsider to their culture, I don't feel it is my place to do it.

As far as Royster, I feel she makes many valid points about voice. We can not assume just because someone lives amongst another culture and observes, that they are justified to somehow report on it. She states, "I have come to recognize that when the subject matter is me and the voice is not mine, my sense of order and rightness is disrupted." It must be incredibly irritating to read something about being black from someone who is not black or even a part of that culture. Someone who is speaking for you, but doesn't have a right to. "We must be trained to respect points of view other than our own." Perception is everything, and being aware of your surroundings and where you stand as the subject position is important for conveying information. I also agree with Royster's call for respect, codes of behavior, and manners when it comes to the field of composition studies. Even if intentions are good, sometimes the way something is written, be it the voice or a connotation, it can come off as condescending.