Main points:

          The United States, which is about 1/8^th the size of China and India combined has more prisoners than those two countries put together. The United States, which only a little but bigger than Indonesia in total population, incarcerates 14 times more people than that nation (x). The United States ranks second in the rate of incarceration for every 100,000 people of population. The United States incarcerates 707 people out of every 100,000 (xi). Most nations other than Russia and the United States that have high incarceration rates are small and poor. The US’ crime rate is lower than Germany’s and almost the same as Germany’s (xiv). The average yearly salary for a correctional officer is $38,970, or $749 a week (xvi).

so my books arrived shortly after break and i'm reading through them right now ... there's not much to update on, except that i think i'll be leaning away from vivek shraya's even this page is white (even though it's a great book!) and towards everything i never told you, by celeste ng, instead... 
i'll update this after i've finished both books and am ready to continue. i find myself overwhelmed by the idea of this paper and i think i need to take small steps towards finding again what i need to write about.

edit: an updated version of my books and articles list:

Managed to not post last week, but I want to do/am doing my independent study around third culture individuals, nationalty and the role it plays (or doesn't, or is assumed to) within identity, privilege surrounding questions around From-ness... stuff like that. I'll be using Americanah and a TEDtalk by Taiye Selasi, "Don't ask where I'm from, ask where I'm local," as my primary texts. I will be supplementing these with texts from Taiye Selasi's reading list attached to the TEDtalk, like Moustafa Bayoumi's ""Where are you from' is not the right question" and Josef Joffe's "Rethinking the Nation-State: The Many Meanings of Sovereignty," as well as the reading list as a text of its own.

I liked the note that Anne left me on my last post about Appiah's "[refusal of] the binary that structures Said's thinking...by calling "overdone" the conventional contrast...between 'rootless cosmopolitan' and the rootedness of traditional societies." I picked up The Ethics of Identity from the library and I've been flipping through it to find some thought-provoking quotes:

"By freedom from unreal loyalties is meant that you must rid yourself of pride of nationality in the first place; also of religious pride, college pride, school pride, family pride, sex pride and those unreal loyalties that spring from them." (Appiah, 222)

I've finished reading Americanah, and it left me wondering, "Why did Ifemelu go back?" Throughout most of the book, it seemed natural to me that she would want to return home, but at some point when she was back in Nigeria, it stopped making sense to me, and now I'm wondering if the only reason was to see Obinze again. I'm also curious about Ifemelu's self-righteousness, the way she uses her position as an outsider to judge both America and Nigeria.

One main point that Latour makes is about the connection that humans have with the environment. It is important for us to realize our impact and not create a barrier between us and the rest of the world. Also, as we are realizing our impact on the world, we must be proactive to make change. We can't wait for positive change to occur unless we act and make a difference on our own. Otherwise, the Earth is doomed. Another important point that Latour makes is about how society and nature are seen as two completely separate entities and this misconception needs to change. Society is part of nature and it makes no sense to try to separate them. Humans are a part of nature and humans make up society, therefore there is not a clear distinction between society and nature.

i am gathering reading and videos togethr to be able to bring together my "blog post" on how i came into my black womyness (at 20), I am lookign to hopefully post this on my own personal blog as a come back post, as i have been taking a break from it soo this would be a wonderful way to get back in the game. i will be writing a manifesto of sorts, but not something that is instructional, but rather a tag along if that makes much sense. i will be writing it as a enjoy writing the most and will be brining in some fo my writing from my first paper, buecaus that piece was very important to me and i had already started bringing in other works to work in conversation to what i think it an important aspect of my identiy.

So since last week I read a couple of theoretical pieces:

"Transgender People of Color at the Center: Conceptualizing a New Intersectional Model," by Kylan Mattias de Vries - using the image of a multifaceted prism, de Vries talks about intersectionality and standpoint theory, using them as lenses to explore the experiences of a number of trans POC whose experiences differ drastically from white trans folks who are interviewed (thus unsettling popular notions of "trans experience"). Importantly, de Vries names the fact that many trans POC may not identify their gender identity as identity that is most significant to them, particularly in a society where racial profiling is often the initial cause of violent interactions with white authorities. 

i've been exploring different adaptions of the color purple and am trying to dig into what about this narrative has made it a commercial success & a work that has been canonized as "serious literature" 

so far i have:

• read the book
• familiarized myself with the musical adaptation
• begun compiling critical responses to the book/film/musical & other additional texts

going forward i need to: