3rd Reader's Blog

Summary:

In these readings, the idea of racial identity is focused on while each author takes different approaches towards the meanings of this subject. Cepeda attributes the rising use of the “N-word” (in hip-hop and Latino communities) to the fact that these communities still feel oppressed and that words like this are products of this inequality, especially among Latino communities themselves. Also pointing out that every expression has potential for ulterior meanings. On the other hand, Gladwell focuses on the idea of racial differences in athletics. He hits the point that generalizing one race into being “better” is simply not possible, there are too many variations and people are too complex to be generalized. He finds that often it is the personal desire and environment in which these athletes come from that influence them the most.

Comment:

The authors of both readings are writing of various firsthand accounts of what they’ve experienced in their lives. Cepeda mentions just walking through her neighborhood that the “N-word” can be heard thrown around multiple times. What I found very interesting was the fact they use it “with no meaning” but also use it against those of darker Latino origins. While both focus on the racial taboos, Gladwell attacks the widely viewed racial differences in sports. I found it interesting he starts off with the genetical variables but continues onto the fact of the environment in which these athletes originate from, with each geographic location instilling different qualities – mentally and physically – in their ways of life.

Questions:

Why does Gladwell include so many possible variables in his answer to the taboos of athletic racial differences? Is it to confuse the reader in a way to make us think, or is it an attempt to break the racial biases people are viewing within this anomaly?

For what reason does Gladwell say in the end of his writing “in some sense, its not a terribly interesting question” about the question of whether blacks are better than whites at sports? Does it discredit everything he wrote about, or does it expand on it that much more?