My jones for Bomani notwithstanding, I agree with him 100%. I just want to share my thoughts and feelings now, since they're . . . more readily accessible to me at the moment.
Now, there is a reason we jump to defend people with "pristine" images: wider (ie, whiter) America can support Rosa Parks whereas Claudette Colvin presents something of a problem. For them. Me? I got a lot of respect for Colvin, and all the other men and women who've challenged, intentionally or not, our racial status quo.
As well as all the innocent and unarmed men and women who've been shot and killed by the folks who're supposed to serve and protect. And in some cases, watch.
Cause I'm sure Trayvon Martin didn't have this in mind, talking on the cell to his girlfriend while walking home with some skittles (Taste the rainbow?) for a younger brother and a can of Arizona (ironic, huh?) iced tea.
And I hella know George Zimmerman was only supposed to watch. That's watch as opposed to surveille.
No, I am not about to post about zebras! Nor am I about to discuss the importance of working together across races and ethnicities to create a just society. I just figured for fun, why not throw up a pic! (May start using pics more often. Kinda like having a pic.)
But I do have a point. And it this: are you familiar with the law of parsimony or Occam's razor. Maybe you've heard the saying, "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras?" What it boils down to is that the simplest answer is the right answer.
I bring this up because I've heard people respond to a description of the impact of racism by saying something to the effect, "Have you considered any other explanation?" I find that response insulting, as though I'm so intellectually lazy or even so stupid that despite the obviousness of other explanations, I choose race for the hell of it. In fact:
By Tuesday morning the heat was becoming too much for Bartholomew to handle. Second District GOP chair Gary Byler told the Virginian-Pilot that Bartholomew "agreed to resign because the e-mail had become a distraction to the Nov. 2 election." He offered this to the paper by way of explanation for the racist email:
The e-mail was dated March 15 and sent from the address that Bartholomew uses as party chairman. Bartholomew forwarded it without reading the contents when "he was first getting familiar with the Internet," Byler said.
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.
Right now, if you do a web search of the words "racism" and
"USDA," the majority of links will steer you to coverage of
this week's Shirley Sherrod affair, in which the African-
American U.S. Department of Agriculture staffer based in
Georgia resigned after a conservative website reversed the
meaning of a speech she gave last year to imply she would
deny farm loans to whites.
It's an astonishing development given the history of race
relations at the USDA, an agency whose own Commission on
Small Farms admitted in 1998 that "the history of
discrimination at the U.S. Department of Agriculture ... is
well-documented" -- not against white farmers, but African-
American, Native American and other minorities who were
pushed off their land by decades of racially-biased laws and
practices.
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."
. . . cause I have. If a person can't debate the impact of racism on the facts, they resort to citing the potential for acquiring a "victim mentality" as the reason blacks shouldn't dwell on racism. 'Cause,' the rationalization goes, 'if we think about it too much, we'll just give up and not try to succeed in life. ' If the inherent racism of such notions weren't bad enough, the sheer ignorance of history is. Just in case you have heard it and want to add some extra pop to your retort.
Another thing I find insulting about this argument? Those who mention it acknowledge the extent the racism, even if unintentionally; but, they never talk about ending racism or ways to counter it - just that we shouldn't talk about it. Oh, and they don't suggest not talking about race or racial topics, just not racism.
Now, I haven't finished the article yet, but Tim Wise is a favorite anti-racism activist of mine. But since I did skim it putting in the links and section titles, I can tell you that he mentions the ignorance of history, too. Great minds think like mines! ~ No1KState
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.
. . . yes, I'm comparing our first black president to a anti-semitic mass murderer even though at no point in US history have black Americans systematically murdered and terrorized white people."
Meanwhile, just today I talked to the lady behind the counter at Subway. We actually started joking about the "$5-Footlong" song. Then, in the course of our conversation, I learned that she and her husband have 5 boys between them, he just lost his job, she only works part-time, and so they have no healthcare.
Hardworking, white, Americans. No healthcare. They make too much to qualify for medicaid, for now at least, but not enough to afford private insurance. 5 boys. 5. No health insurance.
So let me know when you're ready, all of you afraid of losing your country, for a serious discussion about all of us looking out for each other; not just ourselves or the ultra-rich.
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!
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.
