posted on July 13, 2001 09:17:14 PM new It's good enough for him.
If he decides it is, yes.
There are lots of people who overcome adversity, hardship, prejudice, physical handicaps, etc. to attain their dreams and goals. They do it because they want to.
The story would be tragic if Mr. Gibson had tried to get schooling and had been turned away, or if in the article he lamented the fact that he was never able to read or write ...
But he doesn't seem to be unhappy, regretful, or feeling deprived. From what I read, he's okay with his life.
posted on July 13, 2001 09:24:45 PM newdonny: no, that's not it. The man is an adult. He's had all his adult life to learn to read (he did have to go to work at a young age--as so many others of that era regardless of color had to). And *we* don't know that his employers, his wife or his kids didn't try to help him. Or whether or not he availed himself to the literacy courses often at public libraries & through night schools held at local high schools or junior colleges. But: it is obvious that he did make a good life for himself & his family *and* that he is justifiably proud of his achievements. And if he *wasn't* happy in his job he would have left it long ago (he is in his 70's now, right?)--but there he remains, coming in on a part-time basis when he could be retired.
Whatever the reason that Mr. Gibson didn't learn how to read, to say that he can't possibly be happy in his life or proud of what he has achieved because of the lack is ridiculous. And to intimate that he is some kind of "Stepin' Fetchit" or "Uncle Tom" for keeping the same job for over 60 years simply because he black and lives in MIssissippi is incredibly arrogant and condescending and...what was that word being tossed around? Oh, yes: racist.
edited to put "age" where it belonged.
[ edited by bunnicula on Jul 13, 2001 09:25 PM ]
posted on July 13, 2001 10:09:07 PM newWhatever the reason that Mr. Gibson didn't learn how to read, to say that he can't possibly be happy in his life or proud of what he has achieved because of the lack is ridiculous. And to intimate that he is some kind of "Stepin' Fetchit" or "Uncle Tom" for keeping the same job for over 60 years simply because he black and lives in MIssissippi is incredibly arrogant and condescending and...what was that word being tossed around? Oh, yes: racist.
posted on July 13, 2001 10:22:36 PM new
My, but don't we take that writer's nice interpretation to be the truth of how Joe feels!
The writer says: "Gibson is proud of the way he's conducted his life", but notes that Joe doesn't say so.
And, according to the writer, again, "There's pride in Gibson's appearance as well. Greeting a campus visitor on a hot spring morning, he's wearing a crisp, beige work shirt, clean blue jeans and an Atlanta Braves baseball cap that looked as if it had been polished and waxed", but is that Joe's expression of pride? Maybe it's adherence to a dress code.
When Joe takes the visitor to the plaque on the wall saying "I got something to show you", is it pride that brings him to do that? Maybe with a good sense of the irony
"Gibson smiles".
"He can't read it, but he knows what it means". Bet he does at that.
posted on July 13, 2001 10:57:22 PM new
"From what I read, he's okay with his life"
Would you be okay with that? If your children grew up, unable to ever read a book, would you be okay with that?
Compare again the two stories that this discussion evolved from, George Dawson's, and Joe Lee Gibson's. George Dawson was notable because "George Dawson, Learned to Read at 98, Wrote Book." That's where this discussion began.
Then another story was offered, as a companion piece. What were the similarities? What were the differences? The difference in the two stories is the very thing that made George Dawson's story notable, and Joe Lee Gibson's ironic. What inspired us about George Dawson's story, what made us glad for him, is the situation that, in reverse, makes me feel sad for Joe Lee Gibson.
It looks like Terri offered up Joe Lee Gibson's story without realzing the difference between the two stories, and seeing merely the surface similarities.
Bunnicula, you've addressed me in your post, and gone on to ascribe to me all sorts of things I never said. In particular:
Whatever the reason that Mr. Gibson didn't learn how to read, to say that he can't possibly be happy in his life or proud of what he has achieved because of the lack is ridiculous. And to intimate that he is some kind of "Stepin' Fetchit" or "Uncle Tom" for keeping the same job for over 60 years simply because he black and lives in MIssissippi is incredibly arrogant and condescending and...what was that word being tossed around? Oh, yes: racist.
I have never intimated that he is some kind of "Stepin' Fetchit" or "Uncle Tom," nor have I said that he can't possibly be happy in his life or proud of what he has achieved.
Call me arrogant and condescending, but, please, on the basis of what I do say and not on your ascription.
posted on July 14, 2001 12:22:06 AM new
The response to "This man has the misfortune of not being able to read, and it is a misfortune. Under a cloak of non-judgementalism, what the real message is is - It's good enough for him". that
"If he decides it is, yes" is troubling to me.
We aren't talking about chosing a favorite ice-cream. In that case a decision between two flavors may be made, but this presumes an ability to chose between being able to read or not to be able to read. How can a decision such as that be made when the person chosing has never tasted one of the flavors.
Too, to propose that Joe had ample opportunity if he wished "to avail himself to the literacy courses often at public libraries & through night schools held at local high schools or junior colleges" could only come from someone who as much as slept through the civil rights turmoil of the 1960s. Joe could have had these chances if he wanted? Well, James Meredith did 'wanted' but it took the the passage of federal law and the intervention of federal troops in Mississippi to give him the opportunities at "Ol' Miss" so that's claimed to be so freely available to Joe Gibson in the same state and during the same period and before. Before the state of Mississippi was forced to admit that one black kid into school Joe Gibson had already been at work for over 24 years.
posted on July 14, 2001 05:27:58 AM new
Instead of sitting back taking pot shots at Joe Lee Gibson from behind a computer screen, why don't these educated, well to do, white men do something. There is a link at the college to a person in charge of adult education. Why don't you write to them? See if you can arrange for a tutor for Mr. Gibson. If Mr. Dawson learned to read at 98, surely there is plenty of time left for Mr. Gibson.
Then while you are on the bandwagon for literacy, why don't you go tutor in your local schools and help catch some of those functionally illiterate kids that are being passed throught the system by those teachers who really don't care or don't want to know that their students can't read.
posted on July 14, 2001 05:55:47 AM new
I'm curious to know who is being refered to with "why don't these educated, well to do, white men do something"?
Sounds almost like hate speech to me.
I'm also curious to know what makes the poster who uses that phrase think that whomever it refers to is taking pot shots at Joe Lee Gibson.
posted on July 14, 2001 09:20:35 AM newkrs: In case you hadn't noticed, the 60's were four decades ago. And even during that period, there *were* night schools for black people--there have been since the end of the Civil War. And even before that, when it was highly dangerous & illegal, there were some who taught those who were brave enough to read (yes, slaves too).
To learn to read, one doesn't need bright brand new books. One doesn't need a fancy state of the art building. One doesn't need a college trained instructor. What is needed is a book, the willingness & ability to learn, and someone who already know how to read (my 12 year-old sister taught me to read when I was 3 years old).
It *is* sad that Mr. Gibson had to leave school and go to work so young. But then, during that time, many kids of all colors had to do the same so that they and their families could survive. And in that context, he was one of the lucky ones--he got a job in a time when many were scrambling for them. No job was considered too "menial" when there was no food to put on your table.
In 1932 sociologist Thomas Minehan disguised himself as a hobo and set out to research the lives of transient, homeless men. Much to his surprise, Minehan found that "a great number" of hoboes ''were youths and even boys.... And as I left....to live in hobo railroad yard camps or jungles and river shanty-towns, [where the homeless stopped as they wandered across the country I found more and more youths and not a few girls... -- children really -- dressed in army breeches and boys' coats or sweaters -looking, except for their dirt and rags
Experts on youth, such as Homer Rainey, director of the American Youth Commission, estimated that during the early Depression years "40 per cent of the youth (16-24) in the whole country are neither gainfully employed nor in school."
posted on July 14, 2001 09:42:18 AM new
bunnicula,
You make it sound as though it was a millenium ago, but it wasn't.
I didn't know that Joe Gibson "had to leave school and go to work so young", was that from the subject article?
Certainly there were high levels of unemployment and displaced people during the depression. But what has that to do with this? Joe Gibson wasn't unemployed nor was he displaced, he was well ensconsed at an institute of higher learning, and, as you say, was "he was one of the lucky ones".
I guess what you're saying is that it's only Joe's fault, or doing that he can't read. He didn't "have the willingness & ability to learn" or he wasn't 'brave' enough, and because of those failings no one need be concerned about him.
posted on July 14, 2001 10:13:48 AM newkrs: as has been said many times in this thread, by several people, none of us here know that nobody (family, employers) tried to teach him how to read.
No, the Depression--and the 60's--were not a millenium ago. But they ARE in the past. Now, *you* brought up the 60s. Yes, a turmoiled time. Full of hardships. Yes. But that was 40 years ago--to use it as a crutch is ridiculous. BTW, I noticed that you didn't mention illiterate adults of the same age who *aren't* black when you used the 60's as an example of literacy-depriving hardship.
I guess what you're saying is that it's only Joe's fault, or doing that he can't read. He didn't "have the willingness & ability to learn" or he wasn't 'brave' enough, and because of those failings no one need be concerned about him.
We don't know that Mr. Gibson *didn't* try. But....concerned about him? KRS, the man is in his 70s--he's put all of his kids through college, he's doing something he likes to do, has pride in himself & his accomplishments. You make him sound like a pathetic, simple-minded beggar that can't survive unless someone holds his hand & guides him through life. As if without some great *white* father-figure to lead him to adult reading classes he wouldn't have been able to find them for himself.
Talk about stripping a person of pride and dignity...
posted on July 14, 2001 10:21:26 AM new
"As if without some great *white* father-figure to lead him to adult reading classes he wouldn't have been able to find them for himself."
posted on July 14, 2001 10:36:16 AM new
[i]"You make him sound like a pathetic, simple-minded beggar that can't survive unless someone holds his hand & guides him
through life. As if without some great *white* father-figure to lead him to adult reading classes he wouldn't have been able to find them for himself"[/i].
I'd like it if you would show where it is that I've expressed anything of the sort.
Or where it is that you feel that I've said anything even resembling "As if without some great *white* father-figure to lead him to adult reading classes he wouldn't have been able to find them for himself".
My whole objection to this article is and has been its farcical presentation of Joe and the great accomplishment of having worked all of those years at a university all the while unable to read. The very fact of that place holding him up before the world as a model of accomplishment is an absurdity almost beyond imagination.
Again, put a white person in Joe's place and not only would there not have been such an article there would have been an alarmed reaction on the part of the people who run that institute of higher learning coupled with a probably concerted effort on THEIR part to do something about it whether that person welcomed the attempt or not. But with Joe, a black man, well, there's no need of that, give him a plaque. After all, he had a chance but didn't take it.
posted on July 14, 2001 10:53:37 AM newkrs:I'd like it if you would show where it is that I've expressed anything of the sort.
All along you've harped on the fact that Mr. Gibson works for a college. The college you say should have made sure he could read. The private, mostly white college. Then you drag up the 60's as an example of the oppression that made sure he didn't learn how to read. Certainly sounds as if you think some white authority figure is responsible. Completely ignoring, of course, him, his family and the black community.
My whole objection to this article is and has been its farcical presentation of Joe and the great accomplishment of having worked all of those years at a university all the while unable to read. The very fact of that place holding him up before the world as a model of accomplishment is an absurdity almost beyond imagination.
It is *ironic* but not farcical. What is sad is people who would take Mr. Gibson's accomplishments (& they *are* accomplishments) and say they are meaningless and pathetic simply because the man can't read. There's a modern prejudice for you: a person is worthless & his work nothing because he can't read.
posted on July 14, 2001 11:27:46 AM new
All along "you've harped" on the fact that Mr. Gibson works for a college[/i].
Harped, you say?
"The college you say should have made sure he could read. The private, mostly white college.
Wow! I didn't even realize that this was a "private, mostly white" college, and I've never said that the college, whatever it is, "should have made sure that he could read"
"Then you drag up the 60's as an example of the oppression that made sure he didn't learn how to read. Certainly sounds as if you think some white authority figure is responsible"
Actually, I "dragged up" (as you put it) not the 60s but the Civil rights movement, to point out to those perhaps too, err, young to know, that it's only been a few short years since the oppression of "some white authority figure" was so severe as to require the action of courts, the law, and even the military to begin to effect a change from it. And you bet I believe that that oppression was instrumental in Joe's inability to read. I guess you don't mean me when you refer to "some great white authority figure to hold their hands" but instead mean the justices of the supreme court, the president of the United States at the time, and the voting people of this country who had to do that.
"Completely ignoring, of course, him, his family and the black community".
Ah, so there is a different community, one separate from the community of man as well as separate from all others in this land who should have held his hand but didn't.
"It is *ironic* but not farcical. What is sad is people who would take Mr. Gibson's accomplishments (& they *are* accomplishments) and say they are meaningless and pathetic simply because the man can't read. There's a modern prejudice for you: a person is worthless & his work nothing because he can't read".
Makes me wonder just who's ability to read might better be addressed here than Joes. Where is there a comment even about Joe's accomplishments other than to acknowledge that he did what he had to do?
posted on July 14, 2001 11:56:03 AM new
Just curious -- who or what do we blame for the hordes of illiterate white people who have come and gone, and who are still out there even today? Are they victims of racism?
posted on July 14, 2001 12:29:24 PM new
I believe that the ability to read has enriched my life immeasurably, and that if I were unable to read, my life would be the poorer without it. Who here doesn't believe that about their own lives?
And I believe the same about Joe Lee Gibson, that his life would have been, like mine, immeasurably enriched if he were able to read and that, lacking that skill, his life is the poorer without it. <b>This</b> is what it means to see someone as your equal, not this "it's good enough for him" mentality.
Yes, he has accomplishments and achievements but, plaque notwithstanding, they're not in his working life, but in the raising of his children. To come to a job at 15, cutting grass and picking up trash, and doing that same thing, in the same place, 65 years later, (except doing it for 4 hours a day instead of 8) isn't achievement, it's stasis.
Of course, if you consider him lucky to be working at all, and you place the standard there, then doing this same job for 65 years is an achievement. And, he's also clean and has never been in jail! Those are achievements also, are they not?
posted on July 14, 2001 12:51:08 PM new"who or what do we blame for the hordes of illiterate white people who have come and gone, and who are still out there even today? Are they victims of racism?"
Bias certainly ,but remember that the application of the term 'racism' was not made in reference to any ability to read or not.
Bias in the distribution of money for educational purposes is decidecly a factor in the rate of illiteracy in this country. It's why there is busing, it's why parents select homes in one school district instead of in another. Would anyone deny that a graduate of a high school in an affluent area stands a better chance for college admission than another from a less well heeled district?
It doesn't take great distances, or differences between states to find the result of that bias. I went to Redwood High School and because I did I stood with a decided advantage over students who went to Tamalpias High School even though the schools were only ten miles apart. Very much the same thing exist in cities. I lived with a woman, a Catholic white woman, a graduate of the Richmond High School system in San Francisco and taught her to read myself. She was a graduate and could not read. Completely illiterate. Had she lived just four blocks away from her home she very likely would have been able to read upon graduation as the school system that had that 'jurisdiction' is ranked quite high by national measuring criteria. Her neighborhood had a lower tax base and so had a lower education budget.
posted on July 14, 2001 05:28:08 PM new
"I've never known a person who's business it was to teach who could stand by and let a person go through life unable to read without doing what they could to correct that by teaching." (KRS)
I guess you forgot about all your girlfriend's teachers.
posted on July 14, 2001 05:54:25 PM new
No, I never knew them, (d..u..u...h), we were together some four years later, but the fact of her having gone through that school and not learning to read appalled me just the same. She enrolled at the junior college while we were together and graduated with an AA, but by then we had split. I bought her figurative shoes and she used them to walk out on me .
posted on July 14, 2001 06:42:29 PM new
"Joe Lee Gibson came to Millsaps College for the
first time when he "was nothing but a boy."
Sixty-five years later, at the age of 79, 80 or 86 (no
one seems to know for sure) he's still there."
The article may smack of good old boy down south racism but the inability to read has nothing at all to do with it.
If this article is correct and he is 79 to 86 [depending] and he has worked for 65 years then he was at least 14 when he started to work there. If he had been in school up till then then what was he learning? I know that we all ,in this area,learned to read in the first grade...age 6. I learned to read before that as I have always loved it.
Looks like most of the posters here are avid readers or else why would we be here pouring over the writing of complete strangers for our entertainment? Anyone that does not enjoy reading would not waste their time here. They would be out doing something else. [so who's smarter, them or us? ] So to us a person who could not read is practically criminal. To others it may not seem so bad.
KRS, I graduated from a very good school here . Affluent you bet! [we were not affluent but I was able to go anyway] Way before I ever got to high school I could read. I can tell you that there were many who ~even in 1969 ~left that school unable to read. My ex-brother-in-law for one. Same school. Never learned to read. Really had no desire to. He was able to somehow get along without.
Not being able to read does hold one back no doubt but you cannot always blame it on the schools or the neighborhood or even the times. Some people just do not want to read.
Anyway my point here, if indeed I have one, is that the inability to read in and of itself has nothing to do with racism. It was purely the way the article represented the man. That is what appeared racist.
posted on July 14, 2001 06:51:37 PM new
If I could put myself in Joe's shoes for a moment, I think I would find this whole thread ridiculous. WHY are you so indignant FOR Joe, (those who continue to disagree with what you think Joe MAY feel or think), when Joe seems to be satisfied with his life. If he wasnt, would that article have been done? I dont think so. Isnt it up to JOE to be indignant? Or does he not have the capabilities to feel indignant to your way of thinking? Next, *you* will say he doesnt know any better and thats why he doesnt feel ashamed of his life, which is just another slam at HIM.
Myself, I wish Terri WOULD contact him and he "assure" those who think hes being an "Uncle Tom" that in fact, he isnt (as if he needs to tell a bunch of strangers to stop thinking and feeling FOR him).
posted on July 14, 2001 07:11:45 PM new
Hi Hepburn --
I know I'm joining in late, but I wanted to respond to this:
Or does he not have the capabilities to feel indignant to your way of thinking? Next, *you* will say he doesnt know any better and thats why he doesnt feel ashamed of his life, which is just another slam at HIM.
Not that I agree with any one viewpoint in this thread (I think the "truth" lies somewhere in the middle), but I don't think it's a slam to suggest that some folks like Joe (of his generation), who are/were subject to institutional racism, or oppression, might be conditioned, to an extent, to just accept things the way they are. It's not his fault, and it's probably unavoidable.
posted on July 14, 2001 07:19:52 PM new
Hi Julesy (long time no see)
I guess what amazes me is the assumption ALL of us are doing regarding Mr Gibson. Granted, the article may smack of racism towards some, but I didnt see it that way myself. Not being black, nor ever living in Mississippi, I cant know what Joe's life was like. But I DO know that he has my respect for what he did, how he did it without knowing how to read and in general, surviving those times as well as raising a family he sent to college to learn what he couldnt or didnt learn himself. None of us will know how Joe feels or thinks unless Joe himself says so. And not through some newspaper person writing the story..from Joe himself.
edited to add that when I stated that quote you did above, Julesy, I meant it in a sarcastic way that "some" might think he doesnt have the capabilities.
[ edited by hepburn on Jul 14, 2001 07:23 PM ]
posted on July 14, 2001 07:59:23 PM new
Hepburn, no one is saying he should be ashamed of his life, and no one is slamming him. I think you, and others, have totally missed the point that Krs tried to make with his ice cream analogy. Let me try to put it another way.
Let's say that tomorrow morning, when you woke up, you were, for some reason, suddenly unable to read and that that condition persisted (think something along the lines of one of the conditions in "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat," if you're familiar with that book.) Groups of letters that had once immediately evoked an image now to you looked like nothing more than meaningless shapes. The memory of being able to read remained, but the ability was gone. Would you miss it? Would it leave a hole in your life? Would you be satisfied or dissatisfied with that condition, knowing what you already knew about the experience of having otherwise meaningless shapes convey information?
It's not really that we think, as you put it, that he does not "have the capabilities," to know what he's missed. It's that since he's never had the experience of being able to read, he literally can't know what he is missing. How can we overemphasize what the ability to read means?
posted on July 14, 2001 08:08:23 PM new
I understand rats can be "conditioned" to run through mazes too.
So now Joe's been conditioned to be happy. He can't help it, it was unavoidable. All that "Uncle Tom" training you know...
Donny,
Are you now saying that being a school custodian is not a job that you would find shameful if you child took it? Perhaps it sounded like a better job since it was offered to a white man with two college degrees and he actually thought about taking it.
posted on July 14, 2001 09:05:14 PM new
It's amazing to me that this has gone as it has, since my objection has been from the start to the conduct of the presentation of the article. The question was whether it was thought to be a work of racism by the author and promoted by the school and I still think that it was that.
In many ways it's not about Joe, or about whether or not he can read, but it is about enduring attitude that would bring an institution of education (thereby government) or government to present this scenario as one in which that institition holds up for the world to see with pride in it's accomplishment.
As I said in answer to that question:
"Nope, not a word of racism. Not unless you see it as a piece of show, a display, or an attempt to display just how non-racist they are. "Look! See! We have given honor to a black man (hurry up and see if we can get this on the news!)".
Oh, Hepburn,
"Or does he not have the capabilities to feel indignant to your way of thinking? Next, *you* will say he doesnt know any better and thats why he doesnt feel ashamed of his life, which is just another slam at HIM"
Is that some sort of practice that you're doing toward becoming a seer? If it is, well, you know what they say Hon.......don't quit your day job.
"Myself, I wish Terri WOULD contact him and he "assure" those who think hes being an "Uncle Tom" that in fact, he isnt (as if he needs to tell a bunch of strangers to stop thinking and feeling FOR him)"
Great idea! But be sure that Terri takes along a copy of Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel to read for him so he can make an informed assurance.
posted on July 14, 2001 09:54:53 PM newIs that some sort of practice that you're doing toward becoming a seer? If it is, well, you know what they say Hon.......don't quit your day job.
Thats funny. You asking me if Im attempting to be a seer. Looks like you are doing the same thing yourself.
Pot, kettle, black. Its all a matter of opinions and we differ in ours, do we not, darling?
This topic is 8 pages long: 123new4new5new6new7new8new
] So to us a person who could not read is practically criminal. To others it may not seem so bad.