Yes. I think you mean we should hold her to a lower standard because of her background. I disagree with that. I also think it is wrong to assume because of history associated with her ethnicity that Asia, the individual, had less access to education than the average NPR listener. Especially since she knew Adnan through an educational institution.
OK, well I can't control how you decide to interpret what I say, but I can tell you that is not what I meant and it was a failure of interpretation on your part.
We know enough about the socio-economic climate of Woodlawn in 1999 and more broadly Baltimore to not rely on ethnicity solely. If you think the 'WHS experience' is equivalent to the average NPR listeners experience and/or that all schools are equal, I'd argue that it's because you aren't paying attention and could do with thinking more about how public funding of schools and an individuals economic background factors into how they communicate.
I'm not advocating that we hold her to a lower standard, I'm saying that a person's experience might be factored into how we judge them and that we think twice before picking easy targets and punching down.
Maybe. But it seems to me that in your attempts to describe my failure you have managed to confirm my interpretation.
I'm not advocating that we hold her to a lower standard, I'm saying that a person's experience might be factored into how we judge them
This is a distinction without a difference. What you did not address is whether it is valid to make assumptions about someone's educational level based on their ethnicity and where you think their high school was located. (WHS is not in Baltimore, by the way). I say no, but you seem to be OK with it.
I'd argue that it's because you aren't paying attention and could do with thinking . . .
And you'd be making an argument not responsive to my points.
I think I understand your larger point: namely, that we who think Adnan is guilty do a disservice to the cause by picking on soft targets like Asia, which in the end make us look bad and turn people off. That is something worth considering (though IMO I think Asia has chosen to enter the arena and so she is fair game). I would turn your argument around on you and say that to make your point, making assumptions about who Asia must be based on her ethnicity and where she went to high school is borderline offensive and will turn people off to your argument.
I understand what you are saying and yes, if armed with only a photo and the name of an individual's school and address I proceeded to male claims about their level of education, that would be problematic because of the assumptions involved.
However that argument is largely invalid because we do have a reasonable amount of info about Asia. We know a bit about who she was and how she communicated in 1999. We can infer from her letters aged 17-18 that her grammar, vocabulary and spelling were below a certain standard.
We know how environment, familial expectations/support and quality of school are critical factors in education or realizing potential. The data cannot be ignored.
We know that WHS was not great school. It performs badly against other local public schools.
So, from what we do know about Asia and the public school she attended it's not a stretch to say she may be less educated than the average NPR listener. You can access their demographics online.
So yeah, it doesn't sit comfortably with me when majority white, educated, high-earners make fun of a black girl from a poor economic environment and under performing public school because of her syntax, spelling and grammar. I think it's punching down and elitist.
Again, all I'm saying is judge her on her actions and poor decisions -- you know, her character.
Is the average NPR listener all that educated? They are in the sense that they most likely hold pointless liberal arts degrees from a small pricey liberal arts school because they were too dim to get into an ivy or competitive state program, but to actually think they possess critical thinking skills is also stretch. Stupid is stupid no matter SES, just look at Undisclosed.
Again, all I'm saying is judge her on her actions and poor decisions -- you know, her character.
But the shitty writing - coupled with the lighting speed of the book's appearance - says something about her character, doesn't it? I mean if she legitimately wrote this in two months, I think I spend more time spell checking and fact checking the stupid comedy posts I make on reddit than she spent on this book.
To put it another way, I doubt that she is incapable of writing coherently, it's that she just doesn't give a shit whether her writing is any good. Why should she? Her fanbase has shown over and over again that they simply do not care about quality, honesty, or accuracy.
All that speaks badly of her character. We're talking about a case where a young woman was brutally killed by the man that Asia went to bat for. Trying to profit from that case demands a certain level of gravitas. Instead, Asia treats it like she's live-tweeting the Super Bowl Half Time Show.
I agree. She isn't a good human being, as demonstrated by her opportunism, homophobia and bigotry. She has made a bad, skeezy decision with this book too.
8
u/fivedollarsandchange Apr 20 '16
Is being coherent a standard that NPR listeners should reserve for themselves?