Great article. I disagree that the majority of white Southerners aren't to blame for voting for their own misfortune, but other than that, aces. ~ Blaque Swan (@No1_BSwan)
Protecting the prerogatives of the Southern economic elite and the politicians it owns from external interference is the rationale for the defense of states’ rights, in the 21st century as in the 19th and 20th. While they demonize “the federal government” as though it were some external force, Southern conservatives are actually afraid of democracy — national democracy. They are afraid of their fellow Americans outside of the region they control. They are afraid that national majorities will impose unwelcome reform on the South, at the expense of their profits and privileges, as national majorities did during Reconstruction, the New Deal and the civil rights revolution.
On April 17, conservative columnist Ross Douthat wrote on the opinion page of the August New York Times:
Historically, the most successful welfare states (think Scandinavia) have depended on ethnic solidarity to sustain their tax-and-transfer programs. But the working-age America of the future will be far more diverse than the retired cohort it's laboring to support. Asking a population that's increasingly brown and beige to accept punishing tax rates while white seniors receive roughly $3 in Medicare benefits for every dollar they paid in (the projected ratio in the 2030s) promises to polarize the country along racial as well as generational lines.
I'm not a Douthat reader, and I've been trying to avoid overdoing politics again. My nerves can only take so much stupidity. But the title of Bloice's, "Beware of the Racial Demagoguery & the "Middle Ground," caught my attention. I couldn't finish his take before letting out my on aggression.
First of all, Douthat's right that the more homogonous a country is, the easier it is to pass social programs. Think of this - everything was going fine with America's social safety net, labor, and even the tax system right up until the social movements of the 60s and 70s. Then, the white South abandon the Democrats, joined, the Republicans, and have been refusing to pay for "welfare queens" every since. That is no coincidence.
Second and most importantly, isn't this country, one of the most racially and ethnically diverse in the world, already racially polarized? Nothing new is gonna happen by the 2030s. So I can't believe he had the audacity to come accusing future workers of color of racism. Like white folks ain't racist - just people of color? As though a whole bunch white folks ain't right now trying to undo the FDR's New Deal. As though white folks haven't been alleging that "taxes = white slavery."
Where has he been? I mean, is he serious with this? Aren't people of color the base of the Democratic party? The ones trying to keep and strengthen the social safety net?
Okay. So usually, I'm just sick. Since my last post, I've been sick and desparately trying to get my thoughts together. And quite honestly, if I spent less time commenting at other blogs, I probably would have more energy for my own blog. The problem with that is that I'm not sure of the quality of the work I'd do. I mean, here's an example of my free flowing thought process when trying to put my thoughts to words. I'll use bullet points to help us both out.
It's just that I have so many thoughts going through my head. It's hard to pick one thing to write on and then to stay focused on that thing. Especially if I'm trying to find some references to source.
But in my constant search for the truth, I did come across another very important new study (h/t Tim Wise) titled, "In Blind Pursuit of Racial Equality?" Basically, being colorblind renders us impotent to dealing effectively with race. Sure, there're other studies that find the same basic thing. But, with all those people who just swear that talking about, thinking about, or even acknowledging race/ism only increases the division between racial groups, the more evidence, the better.
I've said before the first tip-off to the racism of the tea party "movement" was that they were reaching to a time antebellum, before that awful war of "yankee aggression." That others tried to deny the racism was to me a joke, but at times I did entertain them. I wanted to display an open mind. My mom used to tell me, "Seek to understand before you seek to be understood."
I imagine a media appealing to millions of indignant citizens who regularly take to the streets and offer solidarity with suffering Haitians – demanding not US military- conducted aid programs (after they have “secured” the areas) but empowerment of Haitians and of themselves. I am dreaming of course – the American dream, which happens only when you’re sleeping.
Mr. Williams recently applied to a Dallas money management firm that had posted a position with top business schools. The hiring manager had seemed ecstatic to hear from him, telling him they had trouble getting people from prestigious business schools to move to the area. Mr. Williams had left New York and moved back in with his parents in Dallas to save money.
But when Mr. Williams later met two men from the firm for lunch, he said they appeared stunned when he strolled up to introduce himself.
“Their eyes kind of hit the ceiling a bit,” he said. “It was kind of quiet for about 45 seconds.”
The company’s interest in him quickly cooled, setting off the inevitable questions in his mind.
I'm not really surprised Luo fails to acknowledge that if companies were excited about a particular job applicant until they see him, then the problem is with the interviewers, not the applicant. After all, have you listened to the way people talk about slavery? Almost as though the country just had black slaves running around with no white slaveowners. As for today, this whole problem that black men with amazing resumes are having a harder time finding jobs than white men isn't white people's fault. After all,
The discrimination is rarely overt, according to interviews with more than two dozen college-educated black job seekers around the country, many of them out of work for months. Instead, those interviewed told subtler stories, referring to surprised looks and offhand comments, interviews that fell apart almost as soon as they began, and the sudden loss of interest from companies after meetings.
And plus,
There is also the matter of how many jobs, especially higher-level ones, are never even posted and depend on word-of-mouth and informal networks, in many cases leaving blacks at a disadvantage. A recent study published in the academic journal Social Problems found that white males receive substantially more job leads for high-level supervisory positions than women and members of minorities.
See? None of this alleged "discrimination" has anything at all to do with some supposed racist conspiracy white people have against black men with degrees from Yale and MBAs from the University of Chicago. No! White employers would love to hire more Morehouse me, but
. . . [they simply gravite] toward similar people, casting about for the right “cultural fit,” a buzzword often heard in corporate circles.
After all,
they conceded, there are times when their race can be beneficial, particularly with companies that have diversity programs. But many said they sensed that such opportunities had been cut back over the years and even more during the downturn. Others speculated there was now more of a tendency to deem diversity unnecessary after Mr. Obama’s triumph.
In fact, whether Mr. Obama’s election has been good or bad for their job prospects is hotly debated. Several interviewed went so far as to say that they believed there was only so much progress that many in the country could take, and that there was now a backlash against blacks.
Now that you've gotten the basic gist of the article, I can share my true feelings. Of course, I absolutely agree with the "blacklash" theory. Also, are we really gonna consider being black "beneficial" just because some company has realized they've already met the quota for white men? Cause actually, diversity improves performance and profits.
And what the hell is "cultural fit" and doesn't it already raise a red flag?
Essentially, the phrase refers to an employee or applicant who shares the employer's business attitudes, values, goals, and overall view of how the particular business should be run. Every workplace has a style that is reflected in the way its employees act and dress; how they deal with clients, customers, and each other; and how they comport themselves in the larger work world.
Team orientation -- hierarchical versus egalitarian.
Management style -- collaborative or commanding.
Customer orientation -- a nuisance as opposed to reason for being.
Political style -- the importance of what you know versus who you know.
Attitudes toward things like learning and risk taking.
Lack of cultural fit is largely due to a misguided hiring process supported by ineffective execution. Even the best-intentioned organizations - those that focus on competencies and relevant behaviors, in addition to education and experience -- frequently don't assess the issue of cultural fit accurately. Failure to do this minimizes the likelihood of arriving at a successful match.
He mentioned, for instance, that he was extremely fastidious in his working style, and would stay long hours to ensure that he always produced work of the highest quality. Admirable within some companies, perhaps, but others might see it as being detrimental to team spirit if James were not able to prioritise, or to relax once in a while if the work he was doing at the time wasn’t critical.
He also mentioned that he liked to take initiative and present the people around him with highly-polished work. But if the organisation was used to getting everyone involved in the problem so that the solution was jointly developed, would James accommodate this or not?
So, although the recruiter could be more helpful to James in the feedback which is given to him, there is nothing underhand going on. In fact, the recruiter is working in James’s interests to ensure that he does not join a firm where he will not fit in and excel.
So black men, here's some job advice, based mostly on what I've laid out and in the spirit of this particular post (Which I hope you realize is mostly sarcasm . . . about the reasons for the disparity in employment between black male college grads and white male college grads, not the disparity itself.).Don't demonstrate initiative.
Don't be so committed to high-quality work that you stay extra hours on the job making sure you get things just right.
Send a white guy as a stand-in for your interviews and talk into his ear using blue-tooth.
Use initials if you have an ethnic name.
Don't mention any awards you've received or organizations you've joined as a high achieving minority.
And if all else fells, don't get a college degree. Particularly one from a prominent university.
No, sarcasm aside, we really do need more black male teachers in our public schools. But I'm not sure I'm okay with black men going into teaching as a last resort. What are we supposed to tell our kids? You can be anything you want, just stay in your place? Cause no matter how much you accomplish, you can still be arrested in or protested against in your own home.
I think it's not talked about a lot, though Macon D does on occasion, but racism is bad for white people, too. Especially white kids. Now, let's be clear. Child abuse knows no racial boundaries. And so the truth as truth doesn't surprise me, it grieves me.
Forced migration, displacement, and racial social engineering are ugly modern phenomena that we typically associate with the denigration of oppressed racial and religious groups.
But we recently got a glimpse of a colonization effort that in some ways inverted the brutality of the imperial project. From the 1940s through the 1960s, the British government sent thousands of children—many of them from poor and distressed homes—to Australia in a program that blended social reform with manifest destiny. The massive migration was part of a scheme to transplant“good white stock,” to outer territories, including New Zealand, Canada and Rhodesia, because, as one clergy official reportedly explained, “we are terrified of the Asian hordes.”
In personal narrative on the “Lost Children of the Empire,” Eileen Fairweather recounts stories of forced migration in language that smacks of the child welfare crisis in communities of color:
Only a third of the child migrants were actually orphans - the rest had been abandoned by their parents or effectively stolen from them. As was common at the time, some parents put their children into care during hard times - a situation they hoped would be temporary. But when they returned for them, they were often told the children had died.
To make matters worse, the young migrants' documents were frequently destroyed, so they did not even know their parents' names and had no way back into the lives from which they had been ripped....
Michael's worst tormentor enjoyed holding him naked upside-down over a river while beating him, so that the water drowned out his cries. 'He told me it was easy to drown and accidents happen all the time.' Another enjoyed setting his dogs on him.
So this was where Britain's great experiment in replenishing the colonies had led. It was a brutal yet predictable outcome for the little boy abandoned to predatory priests.
The wholesale removal of children from their communities and into alien homes condemned many to devastating physical and sexual abuse. They were captives in a land to which they were supposed to deliver civilization and the great white hope. We'll never know exactly how many children and families were harmed. But the Australian government's recent, long-awaited apology for inflicting this trauma (coupled with apologies to others institutionalized by the country's cruel, discriminatory child welfare policies) suggests that the scope of the injustice, generations later, has barely begun to come to light. As with other struggles to redress historical grievances, demands for reparations haven't brought recompense for survivors.
The child migration system reveals the monstrous consequences of British imperialism's white-supremacist ideology, not only for indigenous peoples but for the colonizers' “own kind” as well. Mythologies of race privilege corrode society from within and dehumanize everyone--even “good white stock”--in the name of the grand hypocrisy of empire.
Posted at 5:47 AM, Nov 26, 2009 in Child Welfare | History | Immigration | Youth | Permalink |
The good news is that some of the kids complained. The bad news is that one child teased the only black student in the class. Personally, I don't know what's more racist: that the teacher decided to use the picture, or that the teacher claims to have seen nothing wrong with it. Trust and believe, he had other options. I had to get to page 6 to find the picture myself.
In trying to find more information on the matter, since it did happen almost a month ago, I came across one blogger who commented that the fact that the mother went to the NAACP hurts her credibility, even though it was the county office. Don't get me wrong, this particular blogger ultimately decides what the teacher did is racist, but he also disagreed with the mother of the only black student in the class keeping her child out of school. So, I think I'm gonna have to do some of my best work.
Now, if you don't find the picture offensive, then I don't know what to say about that. I can hardly stand to look at the picture myself. I'm only displaying it to grab your attention.
But here's the thing. Blacks in Bucks County, PA where this happened make up just 3.2% of the population there, 10 points less than the national average. Now, there's a general feeling of vunerability among black Americans. Being less than the national average can only make things worse. I don't blame the mother for bringing in her county's NAACP office or keeping her child out of school. And this is allegedly one of the best schools in the nations. It's not about fear of physical danger. It's about the psychic toll such an assault can have on the child. It's not an emotionally safe place to learn. As someone who's had to learn under similar circumstances, I can tell you it takes extra mental juice to overlook something like that and learn. Think of it the same way you think of sexual harrasment. Would you have your daughter in class with a teacher who plastered Pamela Anderson on a homework assignment?
Listen. We're not going to solve race by colorblindly acting like it doesn't matter any more. So stop denying that it exists. And if it shows up in an 8th grade math teacher, it's probably down at those tea party rallies, too.
And so this teacher gave us a perfect example of how this operates. He pastes this picture on a math worksheet. He probably really didn't see the problem with this disparagement humor. (Hint to white people and men, if your "joke" puts someone down, it's offensive. Don't get me wrong, I can understand how white people would find jokes about smelling like wet dogs offensive. But, first, I feel quite safe in saying you don't know our white jokes because you haven't heard very many. After all, Bernie Mac and the man from 227 went through a list of "nicknames" for white people, but Ashton Kutcher told 4 jokes. And if your anti-black jokes work the same way our yor-mama jokes do, then I know there are hundreds of other jokes, maybe more; and, the ones Ashton told have are probably no longer in fad.) White people rarely do, even if the only way to get the "joke" is to already be familiar with the historicraciststereotype of black people and watermelons. (If you're not, I mean really not, please watch this mockumentary.)I guess that's because if you tell the same joke dozens of times around white people, it may never occur to you that others would be offended.
I've been away a while, yes. Being sick sucks. I hadn't actually planned to blog until tomorrow at least, cause today has not been a sunshine day. But I came to this article titled Even Babies Discriminate via Tim Wise (But it's not by Tim Wise) and had to comment.
There's a lot in the piece that's intuitive; like, this idea that not talking to kids about race is the way to raise "colorblind" children. Sorry, white Americans, I didn't realize you guys were doing that. How crazy is that?! I could've told you it wasn't gonna work. I know the present logic is that by not calling attention to race, we diffuse its significance. But that's just like this notion that sex-ed should be abstinence-only, and we see how that's been working out: it hasn't.
Look. Your children aren't blind, even if you have sons who are colorblind. They see the difference in skin color and since you're not saying anything, they're attaching their own meaning to it's significance; and that meaning goes something like this: if you're white, you're alright. Or, to make it sound less hostile: "if you have skin like me, you're okay." Well, that's if you're white. As for black kids, we should all be aware of the babydoll test, so hopefully I don't have to spell that out for you.
Which also brings up the idiocy of not explicitly talking about race with your children from a young age - the media. Or just society in general. Do you leave your children to learn about sex from the media/society? And if so, how many grandkids do you have? Do you not tell your little girls that girls/women can be anything they want to be? You don't get all "everybody's equal" vague then, do you?
So since we now know that not talking to toddlers about skin color is a bad idea, let's disabuse ourselves of this fantasy of a "colorblind" society. And listen, if you don't wanna reinforce, nonsense, then don't say something like, "Not all [fill in the blank] people are [fill in the blank]."
Let's go back to sex-ed for kids, right? And by that I do intend "age appropriate" sex-ed. But when kids ask where babies come from, "the mommy's stomach," is usually sufficient, right? You don't go into the details about ejaculation and menstrual cycles. And when your child asks about the difference between boys and girls, hopefully you don't feed them emptiness like, "Girls are made of sugar and spice." Hopefully you just say girls have vaginae and boys have penises. And depending on your child, you may not have to say that much. Though, it sure would've helped me! I can't remember how, but I somehow got the idea that the difference between boys and girls was that boys could be standing up. Can you guess how a childhood me felt about that? "How convenient!" I can't remember how old I was when I gave up on the idea that I, too, should at least have the option of peeing standing up; I continue to await the invention of the female urinal!
So when talking to your kids about race, stick to skin-color. You don't have to recount slavery; though, for older kids, dealing with history truthfully is a good thing. Just say something like, "America has people from all over world. Our ancestors are from [fill in the blank], that's why our skin looks like this. My/your friend's ancestors are from [fill in the blank], that's why his/her skin looks like that." And for all you multi/bi-racial Americans: "I/you have ancestors from [here] and [here], that's why you have that color!"
You know what else this article discusses? It talks about the fact that black parents, or any parent of a child of color, preparing their child from discrimination is a good thing. That's why you can find just about any Black church pastor mentioning racism on any given Sunday. Now, don't get me wrong, you can overdo it and get negative results. But here's the thing far too many white people don't know or don't want to admit: black folks don't spend our all the time talking about "white devils."
So anyway, it's a great article. I haven't given away much at all, I promise you.
Sorry I haven't written much. There're a few reasons. One is that I had a back and forth going on another blog with this racism-denier named Darin Johnson. I think I must have "won" the debate because he hasn't challenged anything I've said in about a week. In his last couple of posts, he tried to act as though he and I were on the same side all along - equal opportunity for everyone. But, we weren't.
The other reason is that I've had so many thoughts about the townhalls and healthcare reform, or now, health insurance reform, that it's been hard to keep everything straight. Lastly, and ironically, I haven't been feeling well as of late.
But with all the (white) idiots comparing Hitler to Obama even though it's not accurate and makes no sense, I think it's important to point out that Hitler was a WHITE SUPREMACIST! Obama is half-white!
Note: The will be a sudden change in tone as I discovere more while writing this piece. ~ No1KState _____________________________
Folks, it's worse, much worse, than I had expected. I'm sort of embarrassed cause I should've ranted about this a month ago! I've had this article in my "read ASAP" file since it came out, but am only just now reading it all the way through. Cause the money quote comes on page 4.
Also, remember all the white, male racialvictimization played out during the Sotomayor hearings based on just 2 comments that I can think of, and only one which pertained to race, the comment about the "wise Latina woman"? I mean seriously. Were white men, who were members of one of the most powerful bodies in the world, really whining about anti-white and anti-white male bias? Yeah. See, they had their cake and ate it, too. Now, about that other cake that is yours . . . technically. . .
You know my biggest problem with that comment? Besides the fact that it's not true. It represents what so many white people fear from black anti-racist activists. They think we wanna turn the table against them. We don't, and the suggestion that we do is a not just a bit insulting and not just tad racist in and of itself. Do we wanna fire all the white power-brokers and replace them with people of color?
I'm sorry. That's not a good question, or rather, it wouldn't have resulted in a good answer. So let me say this. We don't want to rule the world. We'd just like to have fair and just say in our own. Is that too much to ask?
In light of Scalia's comment, could it not be the case that the Court did just what Sessions and Grahams feared it would? Except, to the benefit of white men (and two Latinos) and the disadvantage of men of color? And didn't Sessions, Grahams, and Pat-B all carry on as though the decision, handed down by four white men and man who wishes he were white, were some sort of vindication for white males?
Tell me again someone, preferably not someone I already know is racist, how is that not racist? Or, in the least, a prime example of white power and privilege, and the protection of white supremacy? How is that not racism at its finest? James Crowe, II, Esquire.
Update: This is the most recent info I could find. Now. There are several out there who feel the whole ordeal was Gates's fault, that had he just complied with the police and been polite, he wouldn't have been arrested - police don't like to be shown up no matter what the other person's race is. All that junk, you'll have to google on your own.
Me? I hope this finally convinces those individuals who believe that it's not about race as much as class that race does indeed trump class. I personally don't believe the police account that Gates became combative and accused the police of racial bias - mostly because Gates doesn't believe in the overarching construct and impact of racism. But assuming Gates did become belligerent, do the cops really arrest every person who becomes belligerent. Are there no white people who became belligerent with cops and didn't get arrested? I know that's not the case because I've already read a few personal accounts to the contrary.
And it's widely documented that white people accept more disrespect or combativeness from other white people than from people of color. It's also widely known, amongst black people at least, that any sign of resistance will be met with a billy-club and handcuffs. Like I said, I can hardly imagine Gates being belligerent. And the plain truth is he could've done everything the police asked and been as perfectly polite as Emily Post instructs, that does not mean that a request for the cops name and badge would not be met with handcuffs. Or maybe, considering all the cases of police brutality that I've seen and heard, I just think a black person has to give 110% effort at demonstrating their cooperation and respect for the police. Including but not limited to keeping your hands visible at all times. I mean for real. I know of a 19-year-old black guy who was the passenger in a car driven by a white person, and the black guy ends up dead. I'm not even sure the white driver was arrested. I know of a situation where a woman was in some kind of state of medical emergency, I can't remember if she had overdosed on some drug or was in a diabetic shock, but she was shot several times by the police and killed even though, and the police say because, from start to finish she did not move.
The other issue that convinces me this was about race is the neighbor. I mean, why was it necessary to describe the possible thieves as "black?" Whatever it may be and whatever the race of the neighbor, there are racial implications and reason for describing a suspect as "black." Maybe you didn't know you had any black neighbors and you're using the descriptor to indicate the people you're calling about don't belong there. Or, maybe you know that saying "dangerous black male" will get a quicker response. And just who is this neighbor and how long has she been living there? Maybe it's because I've lived in the same neighborhood all my life, or because my eyes are wonderfully healthy, but I'd be able to recognize my neighbors across the street even if it were just by their silhouette.
But there's another issue to address, and this no matter how racism-deniers (You know, like holocaust-deniers? My term, my term.) respond to this, is what it says to black kids and maybe even all kids of color. White people don't know it, but within the black community, adults do stress the importance of education. Work hard, go to college, be the best "you" you can be. We tell our young people that the sky is the limit, they can become whatever they want to become, racism is an obstacle but it has been, can and will be, overcome. In fact, I go as far as to say one of the many strategies of assault on racism is to use education to learn how the "system" works and be able to manipulate it, whether from the inside as a lawmaker criminalizing racial profiling or from the outside as a community activist. But here's the hard-hitting truth, the part of Pres. Obama recent speech to the NAACP that mainstream media ignores: at the end of the day, no amount of education or success can shield you from racism. And especially if it's coming from US senators during your confirmation hearing on your nomination to the Supreme Court and you're a wise Latina woman. _________________________________________________________________ I just heard about this. Just heard about this. Here's what racismreview has to say . . . my thoughts, and a Michael Jackson song, later.
A witness, 40-year-old Lucia Whalen of Malden, had alerted the cops that a man was “wedging his shoulder into the front door” at Gates’ house “as to pry the door open,” police reported.
None of the reports I’ve read online describe Ms. Whalen’s race, or why someone from Malden was doing calling the cops about a man entering his own home in Cambridge, but apparently it was her call that began this series of events. Here’s what happened next, according to several reports, this one from HuffingtonPost:
By the time police arrived, Gates was already inside. Police say he refused to come outside to speak with an officer, who told him he was investigating a report of a break-in.
“Why, because I’m a black man in America?” Gates said, according to a police report written by Sgt. James Crowley. The Cambridge police refused to comment on the arrest Monday.
Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him,” the officer wrote.
Gates said he turned over his driver’s license and Harvard ID – both with his photos – and repeatedly asked for the name and badge number of the officer, who refused. He said he then followed the officer as he left his house onto his front porch, where he was handcuffed in front of other officers, Gates said in a statement released by his attorney, fellow Harvard scholar Charles Ogletree, on a Web site Gates oversees, TheRoot.com.
As this story has begun to get out on the web in the last 12-24 hours, it seems to be touching off a tsunami of outrage at the persistence of racial inequality in the U.S., even for one of the most well-known and accomplished scholars. If this could happen to Skip Gates, at his home in Cambridge, Mass., it does not speak well for the state of racial progress in the country as a whole. As Rev. Al Sharpton said, “If this can happen at Harvard, what does it say about the rest of the country?”
But, make no mistake, this outrage is not universally shared. Almost as soon as this story broke, the undertow of white backlash to the reality of racism began to counter the outrage. For example, Bruce Maiman, writing at The Examiner, contends that the Cambridge police were just doing their job, responding to a call about a break-in to a home, and that Prof. Gates escalated the situation. Here’s Maiman:
So I ask you: Who’s the person who caused this encounter? Professor Gates is now being represented by another distinguished law professor from Harvard, Charles Ogletree, and they’re going to claim that this cop was racist and mishandled this situation because the fact that a black male was involved.
I don’t see any racism, do you? Tell me where? No names were called. Nobody was hassled or pushed around. Legitimate requests were made and cooperation was not forthcoming from a man, Henry Louis Gates, who know better than most people on this planet what happens when you escalate a confrontation with the police. But he does it anyway.
Is there racial profiling in America? Sure there is. But if you justify the behavior of Henry Louis Gates because other black men have been hassled by other police officers unfairly and thus you assume every black man has a right to a chip on his shoulder every time he meets a cop, you are asking for trouble.
This doesn’t appear to be racism. It sounds to me like a colossal case of extraordinarily bad judgment on the part of a distinguished African American historian who happens to teach at Harvard, and who certainly should’ve known better.
Here, Maiman’s interpretation of these events is completely steeped in the white racial frame. He says, “I don’t see any racism” and, of course, he can’t from the WRF. He only sees a black man “with a chip on his shoulder,” not the racist behavior of the cop. Maiman further diminishes Gates by referring to him as someone “who happens to teach at Harvard” and questions his judgment because he “certainly should’ve known better.” Known better than to what, try and enter his own home? Maiman is simply wrong on the facts here, and wrong on his interpretation of the events. Maiman is like other whites, as philosopher Charles W. Mills writes, “unable to see the world he has created,” unable to see how his not-seeing-racism contributes to the problem of racial inequality.
The research on the racial inequality in policing, arrest, and incarceration in the U.S. is starkly clear (as we’ve recounted on this blog hundreds of times): those who are black or brown, particularly men, are much more likely to be stopped, frisked, harrassed, arrested and convicted than whites. And, this inequality in criminal ‘justice’ is part of a larger pattern of racial inequality that operates systematically throughout U.S. institutions. The irony, for those that have followed Gates’ scholarship closely, is that he has tended to downplay the significance of institutional racism in the contemporary U.S. Reports are that Gates’ is “shaken” by this experience, as anyone would be. This is a horrifying, and yet all too common, experience for black men in this country. Perhaps Gates’ next volume will be called “Harvard Professor, Still a Suspect.”
More good sociological analysis on this case (and others) from City College Prof. Dumi Lewis, here. ________________________________________________
As a history student, and nerd, I know Gates and hold him in fairly high regard. However, I've always been disappointed in his views, or maybe his lack of outspokenness, on systemic racism. I wonder if this will do anything to change his thinking. Though, regardless, whatever it matters and to the extent that I can, I got his back like black.
A commenter, Gloria, said something very interesting.
I'm gonna cut and paste cause it's easier than trying to explain it to you myself. Now, of course, she denies systemic racism. I guess this is a rhetorical question:
You truly believe the United States of America is full of horrible white supremicists who systematically practice white racism each and every day?
So of course no one had said that. That's what she thinks we think. I'd like to know if that's what all white people think of black anti-racists. But that aside, the answer to her question is fairly simple: yes.
Does this mean we think all white people are evil little devils plotting and planning how to keep black Americans from being as successful as white Americans. No! That'd be silly!
:DDDDDDD
Do I think the majority of white Americans would freak-out and have a meltdown if African Americans enjoyed the same privileges that have? Yes. You saw those "tea parties" after the first ever black president. You've heard of the recent spike in hate crimes and DHS's concerns about right-wing extremism. Can you imagine if there were employment, housing, education, and lending equality? Can you imagine if their were equality in the justice system? Can you imagine the unemployment rate being the same for all racial and ethnic groups? I mean, do I need to remind you of the race riots throughout history?
I probably do, huh? There've been anti-black race riots in Detroit, Boston, Wilmington (NC), and Tulsa (OK) just to name a few. I hope you've seen the movie Rosewood at least once. I get so angry, I've only been able to watch it once.
And recall, the construction of the interstate highway system uprooted black communities and destroyed thriving black business districts. I'll try to get more info to you about that, but this link will have to suffice until then. And there's more. I just need to move on.
So you see the historic reaction of white America to black progress.
So, no, black people don't think all white people are evil, mis-shapened creatures who only look human to us. We just think y'all are complicit and guilty in maintaining a system that by its very nature disadvantages us. If you don't like that, then stop being so complicit in the racism happening around you, and we'll think differently. Don't get me wrong. We don't think this of each and every white person. Tim Wise is cool. Joe on racismreview is cool. A couple of my high school teachers, Prof Janken at UNC. Here's a cat who seems to get it, both he and his student. Big ups to the white folks who protested the Valley Club. I mean. Every black person know at least a few white people who are honestly anti-racist. But there're 70 of you to every 13 of us. You do the math. (No seriously. My head is buzzing and AP stats is fuzzy.)
Anyway. Back to Gloria's comments.
I am a teacher during the school year, and in the summers I hostess at a restaurant here in town. I have worked with some lovely black hostesses. I have also worked with some black hostesses who celebrated being black in a negative way. They enjoyed talking the black street talk that Bill Cosby ( read my former post) detested. They knew better because they didn’t speak that way to the guests. However, they spoke that way to their fellow employees and To Me.
I’ve heard them say, endless times, if the manager reprimanded them for being late or leaving their post to take a break while the restaurant was slamming busy, “He racist! Dat why he doin’ me lak dat.” OK..so would someone respond to that please? Is poor behavior excusable Because You’re Black?
I did respond. I pointed out that what her coworkers were probably referring to was that when white workers were late or left their post, the manager didn't speak to them in the same disrespectful, condescending tone. I asked if possibly there were a difference in how the manager reprimanded everyone. Gloria didn't answer my question.
Here's the kicker and what inspired this post:
I know many lovely black people. Funny..I never hear them yell racist! They just go about their business of working hard, getting an education, and being good friends and nice people.
I should tell you that Gloria's had a wide-range of experiences. Her grandfather is an Italian immigrant. Her father was held up by a group of black teenagers. None of that excuses her racism; I just thought it would only be fair to Gloria to give you a bit more of her frame of reference. Also, she said a whole lot more. Much of it absent any facts. And a good chunk I didn't read. Sorry.
Now, let me get to the meat of this post. I'll have to share with you my line of thought, if only just to have it here where I could read it. My initial reaction to that last comment is that that's how the overwhelming majority of African Americans conduct ourselves. We don't complain about racism to our white coworkers, neighbors, or friends. We complain at the barber or beauty shop. We complain at church. And it's not the topic of every conversation and we don't think about it every day or even every week or month. But when we do, we don't complain to the white people in our lives.
Then it occurred to me that I hear and read that a lot from white people, that they have black friends who don't complain abour racism and what's wrong with the rest of us. So I'm thinking, maybe black people should complain about racism to the white folks in our lives. Usually we don't because we're already upset and if we have to hear our white "friend" tell us we're probably "over-reacting," we're gonna "pop go the weasel till the weasel go pop!" (That's a shout out to Bernie Mac.) But I'm thinking, maybe we oughtta go ahead and risk it so more white people can understand how frustrated it can be to be judged negatively based on the color of our skin. And don't even go there. The little bit of irritation most white people feel when the learn, or remember, that most black people regard them with suspicion is jelly beans compared to what we go through.
Then I have this sudden, crystallizing thought. I don't think I've ever heard or read a white person say they didn't no any black person to complain about racism. They do the same thing Gloria did: separate black people into good and bad, and decide that it's the opinion of the(ir) good blacks that matters.
Which makes sense on the face of it, right? No one who really wants to know the news goes to Fox for information, cause Fox is bad. If two kids get in a fight, you may ask both what happened; but you only really take the word of the kid known to be good.
But, there's a problem with what Gloria and others like her do: just complaining about racism makes you a bad black person. Go back and look at what she says about the black hostess at the restaurant.Really think about what she says about them. They seem to perform their duties well. It doesn't seem as though she tried to get to know them personally, even though they did reach out to her.
(Huh? Where did I get that from? When we're talking to a white person, we use standard English. We know what white people think if we don't. Even I use standard English with all my white acquaintances. I can only think of 2 white friends I'd use black English with, and we're fairly close friends. So to talk in our vernacular at the workplace to a white co-worker shows so effort, or expectation at least, at comraderie.)
Gloria doesn't really have anything bad to say about them except that they will come to work late and not stay at their posts during busy hours. That's not really bad. I'm sure their were some white co-workers who showed up late and left their posts during busy hours, too. So really, there're only 2 complaints Gloria has with these hostesses: 1) They dare speak black vernacular to her; 2) They assert that the only reason the manager spoke to them the way he did was that they're black. Even notice that. She doesn't say that they complain about being reprimanded at all, just that the manager did them "lak dat" [sic]. So part of what makes them untrustworthy for Gloria and folks of her ilk is their complaining about racism. You can't have a formula where whether or not you trust someone's take on racism depends on whether or not that mention it in your presence. And if you do, it can't be that the ones who don't complain about racism are the ones you listen to. Cause like I said, black folks generally don't complain about racism to our white acquaitances. Though, maybe we should.
Plus, it's not like Oprah and Bill Cosby and President Obama don't acknowledge racism. They do. They just focus on achieving inspite of. So referencing them in your "there's no systemic racism" argument only shows the selectivity with which you listen to black people, in the few ones in positions of power.
So stop saying you know (these certain) black people who don't complain about racism (to you) and so therefore it must not exist. That's just plain ole ign'rant logic.
Don't get me wrong. On one hand, to keep talking about the notion that Sotomayor is racist does lead credence to the lie. On the other, not to talk about the fallacy of logic would be to miss an opportunity to education:Not only are conservatives lying about Judge Sotomayor, they're lying about the current and future status and prospects of white men.
I mean, take Patty B (Pat Buchanan) for example. He's said:
There are a few problems with this statement I think we should break down.
Who decided that half of the great lawyers and judges are white males? Is it really that many? Isn't it racist to assume it's that many without actually knowing?
Let's say it is that many. Does that mean that women and minorities are less likely to make good judges? Or, does that mean that we need more women and minority judges?
And let's say it is that many. Doesn't it mean that white males are over-represented on the Supreme Court? How is that not racist?
Isn't it strange that with all the barriers women and people of color face in this country, the only time conservatives/Republicans really speak out against racism and/or sexism is when they perceive it's happening to white men?
And let's not delude ourselves. This is NOT just a run-of-the-mill conservative attack against Democrats. This is an attack against anti-racism - that's why they're stealing the language of anti-racist activists. This is an attack against racial and gender progress and equality. This is an attempt to maintain white male supremacy in the US.
Don't get me wrong. They know these attacks won't keep Sotomayor off the bench. What it will do is galvanize whites and their lackeys of color against Democrats; against Pres. Obama's next political move; and most especially, against future attempts to ensure equality and justice for all.
They are protecting their positions of power. And that is wrong, I know.
Okay, so here's what bothers me about all the white male conservative whining over Judge Sotomayor: at the end of their logic is this - the only people who can render objective (not objectionable, which would be hilarious, right?) are white men. This means that white men's reality is reality and correct me if I'm wrong but that's what's gotten this country into trouble even as recently as 2008 with 2 unnecessary wars and economic collapse: white male "reality." Tim Wise has an elucidating, if a bit gruff, piece here.
That said, I am a bit trouble about the fact that her ruling against minorities in discrimination cases 80% of the time is talked about like it's a good thing. Sure, it proves that the whiners are lying. That said, don't the facts of life - the minorities experience a hefty amount of discrimination and much, much more than whites face "reverse" discrimination - how is it a good thing that she ruled against the minority 80% of the time. Is that the national average or something? That only 20% of the minority-discrimination cases brought before the circuit court or legit?
. . . cannot stand. You know the saying. Well, here's my point. The Latin and African American communities have to work together to end structural and systemic racism. We all face the same pro-white, anti-us bias. We can't have this:
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A Latino street gang waged a racist campaign to eliminate black people from a Southern California city through attempted murders and other crimes, according to federal racketeering indictments unsealed Thursday.
"(Varrio Hawaiian Gardens) gang members take pride in their racism and often refer to the VHG Gang as the `Hate Gang,'" the main indictment states. "VHG gang members have expressed a desire to rid the city of Hawaiian Gardens of all African-Americans and have engaged in a systematic effort to achieve that result by perpetrating crimes against African-Americans."
