Sunday 12 May 2013

Discussion article for May 14th



Proof that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Had Assimilated? He Spoke Black

Black English, the most American part of our language

by John McWhorter | May 8, 2013

“A decade in America already, I want out.” This tweet of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s has helped fuel speculations that what drove him to mass murder was that America had failed to assimilate him thoroughly enough. 

In fact, whatever investigations of his psychology reveal, his tweets and texts alone confirm that he was quite the assimilated young man. This is clear not only in the typically teen male subject matter, as many have observed, but in the form of language he was so casually using—namely, the well-established but subtle new grammatical constructions of modern texting and tweeting and also, of all things, Black English.

Anyone brought to 2013 to examine Dzhokhar’s tweets, for example, would be shocked to find out that he isn’t black. His tweets are full of not only quotations from rap music—this exemplifying the “teen normal” essence of the guy—but spontaneous locutions which, before his generation, were all but unknown beyond black people.

“Yeah man we good mashallah,” Dzokhar tweeted on April 15th, when a friend innocently looked him up after the bombing. Many will look first to the implications of his use of the Arabic “good luck” term as possible evidence of his turn to violence. However, just as indicative of where his head was is the “we good”—this deletion of the be verb is a hallmark of Black English.  Likewise, a post-attack tweet that read “Ain’t no love in the heart of the city, stay safe y’all” has attracted attention for quoting a Jay-Z lyric, but the “stay safe, y’all” is Dzhokhar alone. Certainly, y’all is well known among whites as well as blacks, but there are nuances. Imagine a white kid in 1978, outside of the South, winning a call-in radio contest and giving a salutary shout-out to listeners “Stay safe, y’all!” Notice it just doesn’t translate even if the kid is from working class Brooklyn or Providence. “Stay safe ya’ll,” in most of the US, is blackspeak.

Or it used to be. Over the past twenty years Black English has become a kind of youth lingua franca in America. During the controversy over the Oakland School Board’s proposal to use “Ebonics” in classrooms in 1996, it was a novel observation that Latino, Asian and even white kids were no longer strangers to the dialect. Scholars were just beginning to analyze the white ones, known as “wiggers,” as fascinating examples of reverse crossover.

Today, “wigger” is a virtually useless term. In terms of not only speech but musical taste and even gestures—these days not only white girls but Asian girls, and all other kinds of American girls, casually do the neck-twist when stressing a point, a tendency that not so long ago was known only among black women—there is a bit of “wigger” in any young American these days.

One way we know that Dzhokhar was thoroughly American at heart is that he had soaked this up along with everything else. Language is a vivid index of identity, what one feels at one with. With tweets like “I don’t care for those people who wanna commit suicide, your life b, do what you think will make you happy”—the Urban Dictionary’s first definition of that “b” is “a greeting to one of your homies”—he indicated a perfectly ordinary Americanness.

A useful contrast would be Seung-Hui Cho, the young man who killed 32 at Virginia Tech in 2007 before killing himself. Cho had come to America from Korea at 8, an age at which people still regularly acquire the language of a new place flawlessly (as Dzhokhar, arriving here at 9, had). Yet there were reports that he spoke strangely, and oddly little. Here was someone who, in this and general social remove, was quite obviously unassimilated to the society around him. The contrast in Dzhokhar is clear.

As is the irony—that the speech patterns of black people, historically so deeply despised by mainstream America, are now what identifies the true Americanness of a humble immigrant kid from an obscure region of the Caucasus Mountains. One ongoing thread of modern black American consciousness worries about the costs of assimilation, in a fear that white Americanness will erase cultural blackness. Yet too often we miss the brownification of mainstream American culture that has occurred over the past fifteen years, such that forms of English most of us associate with hiphop and "The Wire" are heartfelt, spontaneous expression for someone named Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Dzhokhar was also quite fluent in another language of sorts, the conventions that have jelled for texting and tweeting among people exactly his age over the past ten years. “How I miss my homeland #dagestan #chechnya” strikes us now for evidence of disidentification from America, but his attitudinally fluent recruitment of the hashtags indicates just as much. Before Dzhokhar lived in America, no one was tweeting at all, much less using hashtag in irony—he learned that witty reinterpretation of the symbol in America. It is highly unlikely that he intended those hashtags as actual encyclopedic pointers to Twitter discussions of the two regions. Rather, he was using the hashtags in their newish Twitter signification as setting topic off in irony.

This is even clearer in a tweet that reads, “I killed Abe Lincoln during my two hour nap #intensedream.” The intent is not to refer us to a thread about dreams, but to suggest his experience as viewed from a distance, treated as a genre piece rather than a personal experience. Teen self-consciousness and drama? Sure – but in exactly the language that teens are currently using right here in America.

Then, of course, there was the ominous LOL that he used to answer a friend’s query before his capture. It has become a media meme of late that LOL no longer means “laugh out loud.” Rather, it is a multifarious marker of assorted sentiments that cluster around a core of empathy. LOL, which often decorates teen and twenty-something texts as thickly as “like” decorates their speech, means not “I’m laughing” but “I feel you.”

No one thinks about that consciously; they just do it, the way we use language almost all of the time. Dzhokhar had internalized the subtlety of LOL just like millions of American kids have over the past several years.

In short, despite his native Russian, nothing in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s linguistic repertoire—laced with black English and spirited usage of the brand-new particularities of smartphone language—suggested anything but, a young person as American as hot dogs, apple pie, Chevrolet, and, well, rap. The unwelcome thing is that this means that identifying what tipped him into nihilistic savagery will be that much more difficult. 

http://www.newrepublic.com/node/113157/print

Discussion article for May 14th


Here’s a map of the best and worst countries to be a mother

Click to enlarge. (Data source: Save the Children)
Click to enlarge. (Data source: Save the Children)
new report by Save the Children, a London-based NGO, gauges and ranks the conditions for mothers in almost every country in the world. Their annual report, just out, shows that Nordic countries are the best places to be mothers. Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are the worst.
The Mother’s Index, based on a wide range of data gathered from the United Nations and other sources, are mapped out above. Bluer countries are best for mothers, red countries are worst and purple are somewhere in the middle.
The report measures conditions for mothers using five different metrics: risk of maternal death, infant mortality rate, the number of years an average child will spend in school, gross national income per capita and participation of women in government. Those last two variables are built on the inferences, fleshed out in the report, that mothers with more money will be more likely to secure food and medical care, and that countries where women participate in governance are more likely to pass laws promoting womens’ health and well-being.
Here are a few interesting details from the report.
(1) In India, 309,300 babies die every year within 24 hours of birth
most first day deaths
That’s 847 per day. India makes up 29 percent of all first-day deaths around the world, part of the country’s serious issues with maternal health and care-giving. An estimated 28 percent of infants in South Asia are born underweight, which is often a product of poor maternal health and makes infant death more likely. It is also due to unusually early marriage and childbearing ages in the region – 47 percent of Indian girls marry by age 18, including 75 percent of girls in the lowest income quintile.
(2) Motherhood is hard and dangerous in bottom-ranked countries
The report provides these facts about the average mother in the ten bottom-ranked countries, all of which are in Africa:
• On average, 1 woman in 30 is likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause.
• 1 child in 7 dies before his or her fifth birthday.
• Eight out of 10 women are likely to suffer the loss of a child in their lifetime.1
(3) Northern Europe is the best for mothers, sub-Saharan Africa the worst

Much of Sub-Saharan Africa did poorly, often because of undernourishment, scant access to health care or weak legal protections for mothers.best and worstAll 10 of the best countries for mothers are in Europe, with the highest-ranking in Northern Europe. The report cites a combination of high-quality and widely available health care, state assistance for new mothers so that they can choose voluntarily whether to focus on work or caring for their infants, high school retention rates and other factors.
(4) Much more than just national wealth at play
Although rich countries generally score higher and poor countries score lower, there are clearly other factors cutting against this. The wide variation across the Middle East, for example, shows countries such as Algeria, Tunisia and Lebanon outperforming their neighbors on making health care and state services available to mothers.
Vietnam, for example, though quite poor, scored relatively well as a place for moms, in part by cutting its newborn death rate by an impressive 47 percent over 20 years. Several Latin American countries, such as Peru, also seemed to do better than comparably wealthy states.
Spain and Portugal, it’s worth noting, dramatically outperformed several Western countries that are much wealthier. But it will be worth watching to see whether they can sustain those positive conditions even as the Euro crisis takes its economic toll.
(5) Many lack access to sufficient care during birth
skilled care at birth
Having a skilled caretaker with you at birth can go a long way toward preventing a mother or child’s death. But not everyone has access to that kind of care, either because of physical location, money or local government services.
(6) The U.S. scores poorly because of inequality
Ranked 30th internationally and way toward the bottom of the industrialized nations, below Belarus and Lithuania, how can one of the world’s richest countries not better serve its mothers?
The U.S., it turns out, has the second-highest preterm birth rate in the world, meaning that babies are born too early, and the highest first-day infant death rate in the developed world. Adolescent birth rates are also unusually high. These and other poor statistical showings mean that, even if lots of well-off American mothers probably have Norwegian-quality experiences, the overall U.S. average is on par with that of some post-Soviet Eastern European countries.
Save the Children’s report suggests that the U.S. statistics may be due in part to inequality. The U.S. ranks at the very bottom of the developed world in terms of income inequality. Economically and/or socially disadvantaged mothers are less likely to have a happy and healthy experience from pregnancy through childhood, are more likely to become pregnant by accident rather than by choice and are less likely to receive the best possible care. Here’s a snip from the report:
Many babies in the United States are born too early. The U.S. preterm birth rate (1 in 8 births) is one of the highest in the industrialized world (second only to Cyprus). In fact, 130 countries from all across the world have lower preterm birth rates than the United States. The U.S. prematurity rate is twice that of Finland, Japan, Norway and Sweden. The United States has over half a million preterm births each year – the sixth largest number in the world (after India, China, Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia).
According to the latest estimates, complications of preterm birth are the direct cause of 35 percent of all newborn deaths in the U.S., making preterm birth the number one killer of newborns. Preterm birth is a major cause of death in most industrialized countries and is responsible for up to two-thirds of all newborn deaths in countries such as Iceland and Greece.
The United States also has the highest adolescent birth rate of any industrialized country. Teenage mothers in the U.S. tend to be poorer, less educated, and receive less prenatal care than older mothers. Because of these challenges, babies born to teen mothers are more likely to be low-birthweight and be born prematurely and to die in their first month. They are also more likely to suffer chronic medical conditions, do poorly in school, and give birth during their teen years (continuing the cycle of teen pregnancy). 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/08/heres-a-map-of-the-best-and-worst-countries-to-be-a-mother/

Discussion article for May 14th


Censoring Facebook: Social network's violent video dilemma

Facebook's decision to remove videos showing people being decapitated leaves the firm in a quandary: should or shouldn't it impose a wider censorship policy?
Originally the social network rejected calls from users to delete the clips saying that it wanted to "preserve people's rights to describe, depict and comment on the world".
But after the BBC revealed that one of its own safety advisers - the head of the Family Online Safety Institute - had criticised its decision, the firm announced a U-turn, saying it would remove clips showing beheadings while it re-evaluated its rules.
That potentially opens a can of worms.
Since publishing the article, readers have contacted the BBC to complain about other videos, including:
  • one that shows killings which do not involve beheadings
  • clips involving cruelty to dogs and other animals
  • a smartphone recording of a schoolgirl being punched to the ground by another pupil
In all cases they said the network had refused their requests to remove the material. A spokeswoman for Facebook confirmed its policy had only been amended in regard to decapitations.
But imposing stricter controls would open the firm up to other criticism.
Before his death, internet freedom campaigner Aaron Swartz warned of the dangers of privately owned parts of the net limiting what was posted onto their sites. He called this "corporate tyranny" and named Facebook as a specific concern.
The social network could not provide a date for when its review would be complete. The following range of opinions suggest it will struggle to please everyone.
Richard Allan, Facebook
More than a billion people express themselves and comment on the world in which we live through Facebook and most of the time this is entirely without problem.
On occasions, there are concerns about some of the content that is being shared and we have put in place a reporting system so that people can tell us about this.
The reported content is evaluated against our community standards and appropriate action is taken where our rules have been breached.
When drawing up and enforcing our approach to acceptable behaviour and content on Facebook, we aim to strike the right balance between enabling people to share information, news and content - and protecting the community as a whole.
This is a complex challenge as Facebook is a large, diverse community and we are continually presented with novel situations.
While we freely admit that we do not always get it right, the trouble-free daily experience of the vast majority of Facebook users demonstrates that our systems are working well in all but the most exceptional cases and that they are improving over time.
As we said last week, we are reviewing our rules related to content showing graphic violence.
In doing so we are clear that there are situations where it is important for people to be able to share content through Facebook even if this can at times be quite shocking.
For example, people caught up in violent incidents such as the recent Boston bombings or the ongoing conflict in Syria want to be able to report on their experiences and may use quite graphic content to do this.
This illustrates the kind of challenge that our highly experienced team deals with on a daily basis as we strive to offer a space for sharing that is mindful of everyone's expectations.
Celia Mellow, petition organiser
As a person who holds a strong sense of justice, I had no hesitation in setting up a petition for the removal of the sickening decapitation video I was shocked to find on my Facebook news feed.
What shocked me even more was the fact that I had to actually make a petition in any hope for the video to be removed.
No matter how many times my friends and I reported it, we all received the same message, stating that "it doesn't violate Facebook's community standard on graphic violence, which includes depicting harm to someone or something".
How does a video of an innocent woman being brutally murdered not "violate" this? I can only hope that there is a criminal investigation that will bring her justice.
As a loyal Facebook fan, I understand that Facebook is only allowing people to have freedom of speech. However, I think it is about time they drew a line between what is and isn't appropriate for the public.
Facebook's audience starts from children aged 13 - what I feared the most was that my younger sister could easily have witnessed that disgusting video.
No-one should be exposed to such graphic horror. Sadly, that video isn't the only inappropriate content to have wandered onto Facebook recently. I have heard of others showing extreme violence and cruelty to both humans and animals.
It's time that new stricter regulations are made by Facebook in order to remove these vile videos for good so that it might return to being the safe social network it used to be.
Jeremie Zimmermann, La Quadrature du Net
Any intervention by Facebook to remove or block access to content beyond what a court might order - while respecting basic fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality - would in practice amount to privatised censorship, and nobody has an interest in going there.
A dominant, centralised actor such as Facebook would be incentivised to spend as little money as possible determining which content would be lawful or not, suitable or not, etc.
This would raise the question of what criteria would be used. Opening such a breach would ensure that any government could pressure Facebook to consider their own criteria, whether for political, religious or other reasons.
Under such conditions we can be sure that the fundamental right to freedom of speech or the right to a fair trial would not be respected.
As surely as we cannot trust giant centralised corporations to defend our fundamental freedoms, we cannot ask them to become the judges and enforcers of what information should be shared online.
Protecting children on the net is a responsibility of their parents in the first place. It cannot be outsourced to Facebook.
It is a matter of educating them about the difference between between privacy, publicity and a circle of trust.
Since Facebook collects and stores so much information it should be able to determine when one of its members is a minor and is about to be exposed to content that has been reported as unsuitable, and display a warning message.
Users would then be free to choose to take that advice, or make a conscious choice to access the content.
Stephen Balkam, Family Online Safety Institute (Fosi)
Facebook, and most other social media sites, have explicit terms of service about what is and what is not acceptable to be hosted on their websites.
Some go further and have created what are known as community standards.
These more clearly state the rules about what kinds of content will be removed.
Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have robust reporting mechanisms so that ordinary users can flag inappropriate or abusive content for review.
What is challenging for these companies is how and where to draw the line.
This will help them determine when to invoke the "public interest" principle in keeping material - such as images from the Boston Marathon bombing - up on their site, even though they depict graphic violence.
This is new territory for us all as we navigate the rules, ethics and standards of user-generated content sites.
Andrew McDiarmid, Center for Democracy & Technology
The controversy over Facebook's treatment of shocking videos of beheadings is the latest illustration of the enormous complexity at work when it comes to promoting the exercise of human rights online.
Billions of people rely on internet platforms to speak and access information in the networked public sphere, but the platforms are controlled by private companies, whose terms of service in large part determine the contours of free expression.
In one sense, platform operators are themselves speakers that have the right to determine their own policies. At the same time, these "digital sovereigns" - to borrow a phrase from Rebecca MacKinnon - effectively govern their users' exercise of free expression rights.
Platforms have a responsibility, particularly as they grow to Facebook-scale, to consider the human rights impact of their policies and to minimise restrictions on free expression.
This is especially true with respect to government restrictions. It would be troubling indeed if government pressure precipitated the video's removal in this case.
A key step in carrying out this responsibility is ensuring that content policies are clearly communicated and fairly applied.
The horrific beheading video and Facebook's reported reaction demonstrate the challenges that arise when trying to develop and apply clear, consistent standards in the complex and multi-faceted realm of online communication.
Context matters a great deal. Different companies might draw the line in different places, and just because something is offensive or disturbing does not mean it necessarily violates a particular term. And it certainly does not make it illegal.
Because of this complexity, systems for assessing content require constant refinement to ensure that free expression is protected.
Advocates, too, must remain vigilant that the private players that provide so much public value online are meeting their responsibilities to users.
Is it complicated and prone to mistakes and close calls? Yes, but the alternative - mandated content policies and individual governments vying for control over the global internet - is untenable and fraught with risk for free expression.
Dr Lynne Jordan, British Psychological Society
The main concern, as an experienced psychologist, in working with the effects of actual and vicarious violence is a lack of awareness of violation of choice.
Material is posted on news feeds and "liked" indiscriminately without thought as to the rights of under-aged youngsters and others who may view it.
People, whether young or old, can be negatively affected by witnessing violence either on screen or in reality.
Effects include trauma responses such as replaying the images, feeling scared and vulnerable, ashamed, invaded or violated and confused, as well as angry and helpless, which is reinforced via the news feed as these things pop up uninvited.
Ethical codes are there for safety and to preserve the right to choose what is viewed when users are considered of age or able to understand the implications. Social media sites are mostly not obliged to adhere to such codes which creates a problem, particularly if they issue their own vague inadequate guidelines.
Social networks' news feeds allow material to arrive on people's pages that might never be sought by choice.
Extensive "friendship lists" develop with people who may not be actual friends but through casual contact get "befriended", perhaps out of obligation or a need to fit in, be liked etc.
The material is often posted supposedly to prevent the spread of violent crime or other violations, but in fact it can inadvertently escalate it by sidestepping the consent of the people accessing the feeds.
This is reminiscent of the "ban smoking in public places" debate with the concern of whose rights we are protecting.
In that debate it was largely about public physical health. This debate concerns public mental health and wellbeing.