Jump to content
IGNORED

US: A Nation of Cowards on Racial Matters


beemerman2k

Recommended Posts

Dave McReynolds

Same time period. There was the story that at the Two Wheels Only campground a black/white couple was staying. The owner recommended they leave, because a rough rider group is booked for the weekend, and it might not be safe. The couple left. The worst part is, the couple sued the TWO owner for discrimination.

 

Works both ways. I've always sought as many diverse experiences/adventures in my life as I could possibly pack in. I push the envelope as far as my own safety is concerned more than my family would like, but less than some others do, given my desire to live long enough to collect Social Security. I wouldn't mind experiencing more black culture. I'm pretty sure, though, that some of the places I might visit would push my envelope of safety beyond the limits I feel comfortable with.

 

Back in the Marines, I had a black buddy on Okinawa. I was a 3.5 rocket gunner, and he was my loader. We did everything together on base, and a little bit together off base. There was a notorious black area of Okinawa called "4 corners" or something, and one time I asked him if we could go there. He said we could go there, but I would end up getting stomped and he wouldn't be able to do anything to help me. 'Nuff said.

 

Could have been similar to the owner of the 2 wheels campground. Maybe he would have been willing to go to bat for the mixed race couple if worst came to worst; maybe not. Apparently they thought not, or they wouldn't have sued him. Maybe he was just trying to be realistic, like my buddy's warning to me in Okinawa.

 

Of course, the difference is, I can sit here and think about how my life might be enriched by further exposure to black culture, but I have many, many other potential sources of enrichment if that exposure would come at too high a cost. Black people generally have to become immersed in white culture if they want to progress in America; they really don't have a choice.

Link to comment

Good thread.

 

I'd like to note that the divide between blacks and whites will give way to the divide between hispanics and non-hispanics, for just a brief while.

 

Then the divide will be between rich and poor, regardless of race. And that divide will be with us for decades.

Link to comment
Then the divide will be between rich and poor, regardless of race. And that divide will be with us for decades.

 

Already is. In some situations it's very hard to separate the education/economic divide from the racial divide, hence the term "socio-economic".

 

 

Link to comment
Then the divide will be between rich and poor, regardless of race. And that divide will be with us for decades.

 

Already is. In some situations it's very hard to separate the education/economic divide from the racial divide, hence the term "socio-economic".

 

 

It ain't nothing like what it will be. At least that's my prediction. Stated otherwise, it won't be socio-economic but just plain ol' economic.

Link to comment
I was in the Air Force in Omaha, and I was meeting my good friend Charles Williams for lunch at some swanky West Omaha restaurant that my girlfriend recomended. Charles and I got there at the same time, and as he entered the restaurant with me walking just behind, I noticed a restaurant-wide momentary pause. It was one of those EF Hutton moments, where everyone quieted, glanced, then went back to their lunches.

 

I can accept that such an incident could make the person at the center of attention rather uncomfortable. But what does it say about the people in that restaurant? Later in your post you suggested they were "unforgivably ignorant." Is it possible they were merely...curious? This was 1960's Omaha, Nebraska, right? I'd imagine a black man in that restaurant during that time was probably very unusual, and there was probably a lot of hushed murmuring - "A black man? Really? Where?" as people craned their necks to bear witness to the most unusual thing they'd seen all day.

 

Again, even as uncomfortable as you and your friend must have felt, the most I'd be willing to accuse those people of was bad manners (hey, it's not polite to stare). I can't think of a good reason to impute malice, prejudice, racism, or anything of that sort.

 

As a person living in Nebraska at that time I have to agree with Mitch. West Omaha is certainly less than 5% black today, 20 years ago is was probably less than 2%. Most Nebraska towns are less than 1% black. I imagine this was a pause because of the novelty rather than hostility at his presence. I vividly remember when I was in 5th grade a group of school inspectors came through our crowded cafeteria. One of the men was black and that cafeteria went dead silent and everyone stopped to look. That was the first time most of us had ever seen a "real live black person!" We were all quite amazed at our good fortune to see someone so unique today. Bad manners of us to stare, no doubt, but I don't think it was racist in any way. Sadly, I'm sure the black man left thinking we were a bunch of racist hicks and the experience probably shaped his outlook in a negative way.

 

Link to comment
So why do you refer to yourself as a black (Black) American? Why not just 'American'?

Why not just 'Person'?

 

My point is when categorizing people into groups, usually done based on personal opinions of what characteristics makes one person belong to the group and another not, everyone has a different ‘line’ where they consider doing so acceptable or not acceptable. You (maybe subconsciously) imply that referencing a person as “a black (Black) American” is unacceptable, but referencing them as “American” is acceptable. Why is drawing the line at one point not acceptable but drawing it at another point is?

 

People ARE different (thank gawd) and attempts to prompt blindness to those differences is both futile/impossible, and IMHO actually counterproductive.

 

Where we as societies, and individuals, get in trouble is in assuming a (usually) negative attribute is common to all members of the group. I.e. – stereotyping. An assumption that is always wrong.

 

We need (not just this nation (the US) but globally) to get past viewing differences as a bad thing and to recognizing the value in them. And in that, sadly, we have a long, long way to go.

 

 

I'll go back to my corner now...

 

Link to comment

My daughter volunteers at an inner city Christian ministry center in Washington DC. Several of the children there used to stare at her and ask if they could touch her hair; they had never seen a white person up close. You can almost see the Capitol from where they are but they may as well be in a different world.

Link to comment

My wife's co worked had just received her masters and was throwing a big party. Food, drinks and dancing in a big hall. The wife wanted to go and I said sure. I asked her if we would be the only white people and she said does it matter?

We arrived to a huge gathering and we were the only white people. I knew some of the people there from previous jobs and one girl said to me "David what brings yoooou here. We laughed and talked about the new graduate. No one stared at us, we ate next to strangers that treated us like family with much conversation and laughs.

It was obviously a big deal to every one there that this women had earned her degree. Her teachers came and spoke as did her family and friends. Pride was everywhere.

Then we got to drinking and dancing and had a ball.

I learned a lot that night and was damn glad I went. I can honestly say now I know what it feels like to be the odd ball.

Well maybe because I have always been odd.LOL

David B

Link to comment

[quote=Pilgrim

Pilgrim

 

 

I am not so sure if we disagree all that much on the general principle of the US ideal which broadly speaking is that of tolerance amongst all cultures, races and religions. After all, we here in Canada are pursuing, with varying degrees of succes, those same lofty goals.

 

Our differences are a matter of degree as to what constitutes a reasonable level of observing (as per our first 'encounter') the obvious, eg.that the President is, well, black. Given the above US ideal, it ought not to have been such a big deal (Canada's Governor General is black and female and not much was made of it in the press).

We may also differ in our perceived need to reassure each other at nausia of our infinite tolerance and color blindness. Actions speak louder then words.

Finally, we may differ in our level of acceptance of the relentless regurtitating of old grievances.The way forward is forward.

 

Where we do disagree wholeheartedly is with your appeal to 'lets ignore kids and what they think and how they react. It's irrelevant to any adult consideration - they have no life experiences, good or bad, to shape their thinking'. All I can hope, is that we do not take your advise to heart. When it comes to racial harmony, we, as adults, can learn a whole lot from the kids and if we would foster that harmony and not poison their journey into adulthood with old concepts and prejudices, we would have this whole racial thing licked in a generation, or two.

Link to comment

Ken,

 

 

I didn't use the word nor was I implying that using 'black American' is 'unacceptable'. You were reading too much into my question. Beemerman said he 'generally' refers to himself as a black American and I was curious as to just when he would do that. When I have occasion to tell someone I'm an American, I don't put 'white', 'left-handed' or 'tall' in front of it because they don't affect the quality of my being American, nor are they, IMO, particularly relevant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Same time period. There was the story that at the Two Wheels Only campground a black/white couple was staying. The owner recommended they leave, because a rough rider group is booked for the weekend, and it might not be safe. The couple left. The worst part is, the couple sued the TWO owner for discrimination.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect this occurred when Frank was running TWO. He wasn't the subtlest person in the world. The first time I ever stopped there (in a car, to check it out), he yelled at me, "Can't you read the damned sign?" When I told him I was between bikes, selling an FT500, and buying a HawkGT, he warmed up a little.

 

The current owners are a little easier to get along with.

Link to comment

Just like some religious leaders who refuse to speak up when their members commit terrible crimes (honor killings), I find that I can not accept the fact that leaders in the black community do not speak up.

 

Except for Bill Cosby, few, if any, black leaders are addressing the number one issue that keeps the culture of poverty alive and well. Single mothers. Any way you analyze it, a single mother has the deck stacked against not only her, but her children as well. This is not an issue that will be solved by government programs, compassionate whites (liberal or conservative) or other well meaning non-blacks. It can only be solved by the black community and will only be addressed when the community refuses to let it be the norm.

 

It also saddens me to see the statistics of the percentage of young black males in prison. A whole generation is being lost.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
John Ranalletta

Luckily, I've had work to distract me from my hobbies.

 

IMO, racial discrimination is a function a person's inability or unwillingness to

question one's own ideas and assumptions. Racial discrimination does not

stand up under critical, fact-based, intellectual scrutiny. Cultures and geo-

graphic regions that exhibit low levels of intelligence and/or low levels of formal

education tend to be fertile manure beds in which discrimination flourishes.

 

In those cultures and regions, critical analysis, questioning of assumptions and

intellectual pursuits are replaced by superstition, religious beliefs and handed-

down traditions and (mis)beliefs.

 

In short (and maybe too broadly) discrimination is a result of ignorance and the

willingness to remain ignorant.

Link to comment
Luckily, I've had work to distract me from my hobbies.

 

IMO, racial discrimination is a function a person's inability or unwillingness to

question one's own ideas and assumptions. Racial discrimination does not

stand up under critical, fact-based, intellectual scrutiny. Cultures and geo-

graphic regions that exhibit low levels of intelligence and/or low levels of formal

education tend to be fertile manure beds in which discrimination flourishes.

 

In those cultures and regions, critical analysis, questioning of assumptions and

intellectual pursuits are replaced by superstition, religious beliefs and handed-

down traditions and (mis)beliefs.

 

In short (and maybe too broadly) discrimination is a result of ignorance and the

willingness to remain ignorant.

 

I find your association of low intelligence with religious beliefs discriminatory.

Link to comment
Dave McReynolds

In short (and maybe too broadly) discrimination is a result of ignorance and the

willingness to remain ignorant.

 

Did you mean to say racial discrimination, John? Because if you didn't want to limit it that way, there must be an awful lot of ingorant rich people who are members of an awful lot of exclusive clubs that discriminate against an awful lot of people who don't "fit in."!

 

 

Link to comment
John Ranalletta

There will always be economic discrimination based upon one's wealth or earning power, but those things are not intrinsic human characteristics as are race, hair or eye color, height, etc.

 

I will broaden the term (for my use) to include intrinsic human characteristics.

Link to comment
I was in the Air Force in Omaha, and I was meeting my good friend Charles Williams for lunch at some swanky West Omaha restaurant that my girlfriend recomended. Charles and I got there at the same time, and as he entered the restaurant with me walking just behind, I noticed a restaurant-wide momentary pause. It was one of those EF Hutton moments, where everyone quieted, glanced, then went back to their lunches.

 

I can accept that such an incident could make the person at the center of attention rather uncomfortable. But what does it say about the people in that restaurant? Later in your post you suggested they were "unforgivably ignorant." Is it possible they were merely...curious? This was 1960's Omaha, Nebraska, right? I'd imagine a black man in that restaurant during that time was probably very unusual, and there was probably a lot of hushed murmuring - "A black man? Really? Where?" as people craned their necks to bear witness to the most unusual thing they'd seen all day.

 

Again, even as uncomfortable as you and your friend must have felt, the most I'd be willing to accuse those people of was bad manners (hey, it's not polite to stare). I can't think of a good reason to impute malice, prejudice, racism, or anything of that sort.

 

As a person living in Nebraska at that time I have to agree with Mitch. West Omaha is certainly less than 5% black today, 20 years ago is was probably less than 2%. Most Nebraska towns are less than 1% black. I imagine this was a pause because of the novelty rather than hostility at his presence. I vividly remember when I was in 5th grade a group of school inspectors came through our crowded cafeteria. One of the men was black and that cafeteria went dead silent and everyone stopped to look. That was the first time most of us had ever seen a "real live black person!" We were all quite amazed at our good fortune to see someone so unique today. Bad manners of us to stare, no doubt, but I don't think it was racist in any way. Sadly, I'm sure the black man left thinking we were a bunch of racist hicks and the experience probably shaped his outlook in a negative way.

 

Mitch, Husker Red -

 

My aversion to the situation was not that I felt any malice toward the restaurant patrons, but for a fleeting moment, I felt the weight of what Charles experiences everyday. I'll stand by the ignorance I cited (which was meant for a much larger audience than the people in that restaurant) but I'll take back my description of it being unforgivable. Charles certainly forgave them the minute it happened, and I feel that he truly appreciated that I, at least, noticed. I'm certainly not maligning the fine people of Omaha, but describing what happens everyday in America, in my town and in yours.

 

Between yesterday's post and this one, I was reflecting on this thread. What if Charles was wearing his Air Force uniform when we walked in that restaurant? You can bet the experience would have been different. Do you need to have malice to display racism or discrimination? I don't believe that. I believe ignorance is at the root of it. Visual identifiers such as a uniform, or medical scrubs would have been enough to make his presence more "normal" and acceptable, I'm sure. But in this case, it was the color of his skin. So, I agree with Mitch (but not his math!) in that there likely wasn't universal hatred being channeled toward him, but it sure felt like discrimination to this white boy. Enough to never forget it.

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
I find your association of low intelligence with religious beliefs discriminatory.
Religion and the holding of religious beliefs is not the sole domain of people of lesser intelligence. However, for many, unquestioned doctrine substitutes for critical thinking.

 

How can one explain why so many church goers are the most rabid racists? Does the doctrine to which they subscribe encourage it, condone it, excuse it?

 

Link to comment
Dave McReynolds
There will always be economic discrimination based upon one's wealth or earning power, but those things are not intrinsic human characteristics as are race, hair or eye color, height, etc.

 

I will broaden the term (for my use) to include intrinsic human characteristics.

 

Are personality and family connections intrinsic human characteristics John? My understanding is that in most exclusive clubs, the amount of money you have might get you an application, but if that's all you have, the next communication you hear from the club will start with "Regretfully...."

Link to comment
There will always be economic discrimination based upon one's wealth or earning power

 

Boiling this all down to bar-room talk, a good friend of mine opined on the human situation thusly: "People use whatever they can to get ahead. Chicks use sex, Dudes use power, and God help you if you are poor, or worse, ugly. If you are ugly and poor, you are going to be discriminated against for your whoooole life."

 

I've been formulating a pithy intelligent retort. I'll get back to you when I come up with one.

Link to comment
DaveTheAffable
How can one explain why so many church goers are the most rabid racists? Does the doctrine to which they subscribe encourage it, condone it, excuse it?

 

Not in the churches I've attended...

 

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with. Citation? Facts?

Link to comment

Last week I read Malcolm Gladwell's new book, Outliers: The Story of Success. I hadn't been all that impressed with his first book, Blink, but this raised some interesting ideas, at least in its first half. His basic thesis is that, while hard work and talent are important, the sheer luck of being in the right place at the right time, preferably with the right family background, are just as important. I've been reasonably successful in my life; I accept that a great deal of my success is due to sheer dumb luck. Life isn't fair.

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
There will always be economic discrimination based upon one's wealth or earning power

 

Boiling this all down to bar-room talk, a good friend of mine opined on the human situation thusly: "People use whatever they can to get ahead. Chicks use sex, Dudes use power, and God help you if you are poor, or worse, ugly. If you are ugly and poor, you are going to be discriminated against for your whoooole life."

 

I've been formulating a pithy intelligent retort. I'll get back to you when I come up with one.

Having been poor and ugly most of my childhood and adult life, I can sympathize with your friend's remark.
Link to comment
How can one explain why so many church goers are the most rabid racists? Does the doctrine to which they subscribe encourage it, condone it, excuse it?

 

Not in the churches I've attended...

 

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with. Citation? Facts?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention

 

The Southern Baptist Convention split from mainstream Baptism and was formed to support slavery. "A survey by SBC's Home Mission Board in 1968 showed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit Americans of African descent".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

 

The LDS Church barred blacks from the priesthood until 1978 (meaning they could have no leadership positions and could not participate in certain sacraments).

 

http://www.djournal.com/pages/archive.asp?ID=226460

 

(From 2006) "The Rev. John Stevens says Fellowship Baptist Church in Saltillo voted not to approve blacks as members during a scheduled Sunday night business meeting . . . According to Stevens, the church made race an issue after a biracial 12-year-old boy, Joe, began attending Fellowship Baptist with his temporary guardians. "

 

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/uk-bishop-attacks-church-racism/2005/08/30/1125302514054.html

 

"The Church of England is infected with institutional racism and is still a place of "pain" for many black Anglicans, according to its first black archbishop in England."

 

etc.

Link to comment

The post about the room pausing reminded me of something. Here in Vegas there is a predominately black area of town, that one of my previous places of employment was near. The surounding area was full of really good cultural food shops and being a guy that loves good soul food I decided to go and try a few of these shops out on my lunch hours. Thinking back on it, I can not remember a single time that I went to any of these places to get food that the exact thing did not happen. Now one does need to realize that I am a fairly stocky, bald and shaven smooth headed guy with pretty extensive tattoo work covering both arms completely, although on the majority of these lunch trips the tattoos would not be visible due to the suit and tie attire that was required as a member of the corporate sales force, but still I am paper white, bald, and have a goatee and mustache. Upon entering these establishments weather alone or with racialy diverse co-workers the restraunt that was in full swing would go silent and pause as the clientele and staff stopped and took a good look, then after the pause things would slowly return to normal. Being a pretty smart fella I realize that things outside of the daily "norm" of the places would cause a slight disturbance and even mild curiousity, and just went about my business with out realy caring. My point is that this happens to alot of people, weather color, body modification, or way of dress is the cause it happens. Right, wrong, or indifferent people will react to something out of the norm, and on a case by case basis there are alot of really stupid, rude, and just assinine people in this world but for the most part people are pretty decent, and alot of the time they are just plain nice.

Link to comment

My aversion to the situation was not that I felt any malice toward the restaurant patrons, but for a fleeting moment, I felt the weight of what Charles experiences everyday.

 

One of the great racial dividing points is that the majority doesn't experience what the minority experiences every day. It's easy for us white folks to say that a racially offensive comment is no big deal, that a cartoon relating a monkey to a black man doesn't mean anything, because we're not the ones the racial epithets are aimed at on a regular basis.

 

I had an enlightening experience a few years ago when one of my colleagues invited me to a weekend conference for prospective law students at Iowa. Well, who could turn down a free weekend in Iowa City? (Especially when it turned out that another of my colleagues who was along knew about this strip club in Coralville that had cheap beer and the friendliest . . . but I digress). Nobody bothered to mention what I found out when I got there - that the conference was organized by the Black Law Students Association and aimed at getting black students to think about going to law school.

 

So for the whole weekend, I was the minority. There was no overt discrimination. Everybody was incredibly polite and gracious to me. But in the mock trial that we did, every one of my objections was overruled to some glee from the audience, and my side lost in an overwhelming voice vote, and I found myself wondering, is it because I did a poor job, or is it because I'm white and they're biased against me?

 

I realized I was looking for hidden meanings and subtle indications of racism. And I realized that the question of whether I was objectively correct in finding those hidden meanings and subtle indications was unanswerable, but that the subjective feeling of being isolated from the majority was inescapable.

 

I won't claim that I've achieved total racial enlightenment. But I do understand that the perception of racism may or may not be the product of the intentional presence of racism. I understand that differences between groups can lead to a perception of exclusion whether or not there is a conscious intent to exclude. What we need is not "sensitivity", if that means simply shrinking from and avoiding conflict. What we need is enlightenment - non-judgmentally seeking to understand from the viewpoint of others - into why that conflict exists and persists.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Last week I read Malcolm Gladwell's new book, Outliers: The Story of Success. I hadn't been all that impressed with his first book, Blink, but this raised some interesting ideas, at least in its first half. His basic thesis is that, while hard work and talent are important, the sheer luck of being in the right place at the right time, preferably with the right family background, are just as important. I've been reasonably successful in my life; I accept that a great deal of my success is due to sheer dumb luck. Life isn't fair.

 

I've read both these books as well. I hated "Blink" in which I thought Gladwell was forcing "facts" to fit his opinion. Not very enlightening IMHO. I also thought "Outliers" was much of the same although I hated it less.

 

If interested in the point about "sheer luck", or to put it another way, statistical probabilities of success, I'd recommend "The Drunkard's Walk" by Leanard Mlodinow. Good stuff, very readable, and it leaves you with plenty to think about.

Link to comment
Thanks for the data David. Bigotry and piety have for too long occupied the same pews.

 

I would encourage everyone to read Dr. Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail". This particular Baptist preacher would heartily agree that too often, evils such as racism are sustained because of the silence, if not outright support, of the American church. King wrote this letter while sitting in jail having been arrested for the protests he led in Birmingham, AL. The letter addresses 6 or 7 clergymen in Birmingham, AL who considered him to be an outsider causing trouble in their otherwise peaceful city. It's interesting, segregation was often sustained and strengthend by churches, and it was likewise dissassembled by churches. You look at pictures from King's marches and you see him locking arms with all manner of Protestant and Catholic clergyment and Jewish Rabbis. Maybe religion simply amplifies the sentiments we already bring to the table? I don't know, just thinking out loud I guess.

 

Just a few closing points:

 

- I refer to myself as a black American when I find myself in the context of discussions on race. Generally, yes, I consider myself to be an American.

 

- I love Bill Cosby! And I love the model the Obamas are for the black family. These issues of raising healthy families are coming to the forefront now, and not a moment too soon.

 

- As Obama pointed out in his inauguration speech, the ground has shifted from beneath our feet -- certainly from my feet anyhow. Time for new thinking! I have learned A LOT from reading the posts on this thread, and I am greatly humbled.

 

- Please please please prepare to engage in discussions on race with black Americans. You might be labeled a racist (save this thread so you can show it to your accusers if you must), but do not lose heart. Many of us blacks still live in the past. Fear of what could happen to us if we're wrong works to keep us from seeing today's realities for what they are. Because of this thread, I now see that New York Post cartoon in a new light, and I am now of the position that it was not intended to be a racist depiction of our black President. But that's because Mitch and others had the boldness and the willingness to challenge my views. I didnt' see it at first, but now I do. Thank you!

 

Others sacrificed far more than hurt feelings for thier country, so taking a stand and challenging old school views on race on the part of everyone, blacks included, is the least we can all do. Thank you all very much for posting your healing thoughts on this thread. :thumbsup:

 

Oh, one last encouragement: Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Do not just wholesale dismiss another person's concerns and fears. If you take a minute to listen and to consider, you'll see what it is they are concerned about, and then you can properly address the issues in a way they will appreciate. This is critically true when it comes to racial matters as we all have different perceptions from common experiences.

Link to comment

OK, here's a for instance as to what I mean by the value of communication and how in time, other's will come to understand your point. I sent the link that Mitch posted out to a number of people yesterday, and here was a response I got from a good friend of mine (a black American woman speaking of the "Bush or Chimp" website):

 

"Some of those expressions on Bush's face are very funny but I stand by my outrage."

 

OK, can't win 'em all, right? Today, I check my Inbox and here's what she said in respose to my telling her that we cannot tell someone what they mean. If they tell you what they mean, then we have to accept that. Therefore, while our read on that cartoon may have been that it was racist, if the author claims otherwise, we have to listen to him and to those who understand his original intent:

 

"I agree but as Eric Holder said yesterday, we are a nation of cowards because we refuse to talk about this and if we did I think we would better bridge the gap rather than just talking past each other."

 

So there is it. Now she's sees it, too. And in fact, her complaint is that the reason the divide exists is because we fail to communicate about race!

 

So do not let yourself get discouraged. Ever. Your words are not in vain. And when you get the typically firey and violent reaction and are called a racist because you are trying to help someone see that they really have nothing to fear, do not take it personally. Just stand strong and keep going, people will come around -- some sooner and some later.

Link to comment

It was cowboy work and we were partners. For seven years I was signed in to a 340 man max security prison cell hall with a black Sergeant, and then for a year we worked a segregation unit together. It was interesting and fun, and many times we had frank disussions about race and politics. Occasionally he would be upset by something he perceived as being racially biased, after talking together, sometimes his opinion would change if I saw things from a different angle. He opened my eyes to many things I hadn't considered, such as how upset his circle of black friends where over the acquittal of OJ Simpson.

Link to comment
If they tell you what they mean, then we have to accept that. Therefore, while our read on that cartoon may have been that it was racist, if the author claims otherwise, we have to listen to him and to those who understand his original intent

 

If I believed what everybody tells me about their intent, I would be out of a job.

 

There are some affirmations of good intent that are just not believable. David Duke says he's not racist, he just favors voluntarily establishing a separate homeland for African-Americans "so each race will be free to pursue its own destiny without racial conflicts and ill will". Do we take him at face value?

 

Whether it was done through bad intent, ignorance, or inadvertence, the cartoonist should have been aware that the cartoon carried offensive racial connotations. If it was intentional, he deserves to be condemned, and if it was unintentional, he needs to be educated and enlightened. Thus, the need to communicate.

Link to comment
Dave McReynolds

If I believed what everybody tells me about their intent, I would be out of a job.

 

The road to hell is paved with what?

 

I sometimes wonder if any act ever committed in the history of the world was ever done with bad intentions.

 

I'm sure most sane people who ever committed a crime had some excuse in their own minds for committing it, and at the time, they didn't believe they were "wrong" for committing the crime:

 

"I'm sober enough to drive."

 

"I needed the money more than the banks did."

 

"She screwed my best friend, so they both deserved to die."

 

etc. etc.

 

I'm sure most insane people who ever committed a crime had some insane excuse in their minds for committing it, and probably none of them believed they were "wrong" either.

 

So we have to judge things, like the cartoon, for the effect they have on other people, and not by the intentions of the author (as distinguished from "intent" under the law, e.g. Mr. Jones went to his girlfriend's house with the intent of killing her).

Link to comment
So we have to judge things, like the cartoon, for the effect they have on other people, and not by the intentions of the author

 

Yeah, but that doesn't mean the authors intent was malicious, and intent matters! Although I think the proper response among those offended was simply to not buy the newspaper, if blacks could have seen that this was indeed the work of someone who was ignorant of history, then I think that would have prompted a somewhat different response. And in fact, that somewhat different response might happen as soon as enough blacks come to the realization that this was an ignorant, yet innocent mistake.

 

Again, this about international travel. If I go to France and intentionally offend their culture, I'll be treated differently than if I unknowingly do or say something that is considered a cultural offense. The former might result in an angry response, whereas the latter, I hope, would prompt correction. How would a French citizen know what my intentions were? By my response! If I say, "tough, get over it. And where's the 'Freedom Fries'?" That'll give them a pretty good indication of how I feel about them. Whereas if I respond humbly and ask forgiveness, it's as good as forgotten.

 

I haven't heard from the cartoonist in this matter, but given the evidence I have seen from Mitch and from TV and radio discussion (NPR and Larry King, for instance), I have seen enough evidence that suggests that this cartoonist made a grave error, but an error nonetheless. Therefore, I hope this creates an opportunity for our country to discuss our respective cultural taboos, and for us also to decide not to take every slight so personally -- which is probably the real answer to all of these misunderstandings as I know many have said over the course of this thread.

Link to comment

I am of the opinion that it does not matter what I think about a person, it is what they think about themselves that is the issue.

 

Several examples.

 

Obama. Frankly I never saw his race until it was pointed out by the media and by Obama himself.

I saw an eloquent, well educated and charismatic man, who I enjoyed listening to and felt some kinship on the issues he was addressing.

Frankly I was disappointed that he talked about his 'race' and I was annoyed that so called pundits kept making it an issue.

I suppose his life experience was such that it was an issue for him and so it was something he would eventually refer to. I didn't see him as a 'raced' man, but he saw himself as such so . . .

 

I played football with a very good friend,he was one of three others and we were inseparable off the field. I had meals at his house, he ate at ours.

One day he was very distraught. Why? My sister is going out with a black! It was the first time I saw his color, Richard, you are black. He was shocked. Richard NEVER considered himself 'black' he was Jamaican. Because he didn't see himself as black, I didn't either until he made a distinction that I had never seen.

 

My daughter in law is Chinese. A wonderful gal, certainly I noticed her race the first time I met her but very quickly she became daughter in law, doctor, great friend. About a month ago during a conversation she brought up her race. My other daughter said,you never played the race card before. Obviously she thinks of herself as Chinese, I suppose I should too?

 

Finally to all you Americans, I'm one too by the way.

Generally if you ask an American where they are from they answer Texas, CA, Iowa etc. Ask a Canadian and you will get their pedigree, German, British etc.

Interesting how people see themselves.

 

I believe we must give people the opportunity to define themselves and on that definition we interact.

 

Personally I am very grateful I have not been forced to define myself by someone elses standard. I hope that as opportunities arise for people, and education is the great opportunity, IMHO, then we will see them able to rise above the definition and stereotype to become whatever they want and be comfortable with who they have become.

If it was my stimulus package, a HUGE amount would go to education for all.

 

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
Yeah, but that doesn't mean the authors intent was malicious, and intent matters!

 

Intention does matter. That's why the concept of murder exists: person A deliberately kills person B, person A gets charged/convicted of murder.

 

But outcome also matters. That's why the concept of manslaughter exists: person A had no intention of killing person B, but the outcome was predictable based on his actions, so person A does not get to walk free, despite having had no intention of killing person B.

 

As has been pointed out by a few folks in this thread, each side seems to perceive a unique portion of any racial incident; in most cases, it seems that black people perceive only the slight, and white people perceive only the intent. Take the cartoon we've been discussion, and imagine this dialogue instead:

 

Black dude: "Look, I know you didn't mean anything racist by it, but that cartoon kind of scratches at some old wounds, you know?

 

White cartoonist: "You're right, I didn't intend any offense, but I can see why the monkey imagery might be bothersome."

 

Instead, black opinion leaders resort to immediate hammer blows, and the white cartoonist go completely on the defensive.

 

Here's something I've wondered for a while. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, it's currently considered acceptable to directly compare the physical attributes of a white person to a chimpanzee. OTOH, we're being told these days, in no uncertain terms, that it is absoluteyl NOT currently acceptable to directly compare a black person to a chimpanzee for any reason.

 

My questions:

 

Will there ever come a day - 20 years, 100 years from now - when we really don't give a rip about skin color, and it's OK to compare white people AND black people to chimps without anyone getting upset by it?

 

Will it ever be OK to take a sitting black president and compare his facial expressions to those of a chimp, as the folks at www.bushorchimp.com did?

 

Will it ever be OK to use the monkey-at-a-typewriter metaphor to criticize the actions of a sitting black president?

Link to comment
As has been pointed out by a few folks in this thread, each side seems to perceive a unique portion of any racial incident; in most cases, it seems that black people perceive only the slight, and white people perceive only the intent. Take the cartoon we've been discussion, and imagine this dialogue instead:

 

Black dude: "Look, I know you didn't mean anything racist by it, but that cartoon kind of scratches at some old wounds, you know?

 

White cartoonist: "You're right, I didn't intend any offense, but I can see why the monkey imagery might be bothersome."

 

Instead, black opinion leaders resort to immediate hammer blows, and the white cartoonist go completely on the defensive.

 

Such a discussion would have taken place if a black person knew this cartoonist on a personal level or even as a co-worker/editor, but so far as we know, no black person did know him or get a chance to review the work and therefore the cartoon went out unchecked.

 

My questions:

 

Will there ever come a day - 20 years, 100 years from now - when we really don't give a rip about skin color, and it's OK to compare white people AND black people to chimps without anyone getting upset by it?

 

Will it ever be OK to take a sitting black president and compare his facial expressions to those of a chimp, as the folks at www.bushorchimp.com did?

 

Will it ever be OK to use the monkey-at-a-typewriter metaphor to criticize the actions of a sitting black president?

 

 

I'm sure that day is coming fast. I think it will be here by the time Obama leaves office.

 

We cannot ignore the weight of history, brutal history. Some pretty mean and horrific things were done to black people, and all the while the tormentors depicted blacks as monkeys. So it's a sort spot with us.

 

Will a day ever come when a Swastika no longer bothers a Jewish person? Will a day ever come when the red communist star no longer bothers an American? Will the day ever come when the B-29, "Enola Gay", no longer bothers a Japanese person? Some pains hurt real bad and it takes a while for them to heal (imagine a political cartoon in a Japanese newspaper, drawn by an American, of an American bomber dropping a figurative bomb of protest on the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, can you imagine the outcry that would cause?! I shudder to even think about it. "b-b-but..I didn't know...I wasn't even born in 1945! We draw similar cartoons of this happening to American Presidents and no one gets upset!")

 

Now, you did stipulate a black President. When it comes to Presidents, all bets should be off, regardless of his race. The problem, though, is this: sometimes it is difficult to insult the President without also offending every member of his race or gender or religion or whatever. But I suppose if one found a way to do that, everyone would get a good laugh out of it. History never associated white men with chimps (sure, in modern times comics might have done so, but how many whites were enslaved, torchured, massacred, denied work, denied housing, or just denied anything because of such associations?), so when that web site juxtaposed President Bush with a Chimp, no one walked away thinking, "Oh, white men are chimps". And nowadays, apprently, few people walked away from that cartoon associating black men with chimps as well, but this was not always so, and that's the problem. History.

 

But the way in which we blacks often react to such pain is totally inappropriate, I'll give you that.

Link to comment
Last week I read Malcolm Gladwell's new book, Outliers: The Story of Success. I hadn't been all that impressed with his first book, Blink
FWIW, Malcolm Gladwell's first book was The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.

 

As to the intent thing: I've gotta agree with one of the comments I read from another newspaper cartoonist. He simply stated that he didn't blame the cartoonist at all, as it's not his call to make. He blamed the editor who approved it. That's their job - to determine what runs and what doesn't. The cartoonist has his/her own myopic view of the world, and he/she simply needs to be free to crank out cartoons. Whereas the editor is the one responsible for determining appropriateness and if someone will be offended by content. And yeah, the editor probably looked at it as the perfect cartoon as it melded two top news stories into one, and since the stimulus was technically written by a bunch of white guys, no one could ever be offended by the chimp reference.

 

Not really being privy to the ins and outs of the newspaper cartoon (political cartoons) side of a newspaper, I don't know exactly how much of that is true, but the fact remains that there is always an editor between a content creator and production - to avoid just such a situation as this.

Link to comment
DaveTheAffable
How can one explain why so many church goers are the most rabid racists? Does the doctrine to which they subscribe encourage it, condone it, excuse it?

 

Not in the churches I've attended...

 

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with. Citation? Facts?

 

 

In Response to David:

 

The Southern Baptist Convention split from mainstream Baptism and was formed to support slavery. "A survey by SBC's Home Mission Board in 1968 showed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit Americans of African descent".

 

40 years ago...

 

 

 

The LDS Church barred blacks from the priesthood until 1978 (meaning they could have no leadership positions and could not participate in certain sacraments).

 

30 years ago, and they are not "most churches"

 

 

 

(From 2006) "The Rev. John Stevens says Fellowship Baptist Church in Saltillo voted not to approve blacks as members during a scheduled Sunday night business meeting . . . According to Stevens, the church made race an issue after a biracial 12-year-old boy, Joe, began attending Fellowship Baptist with his temporary guardians. "

 

A church with a problem... and, I've never attended there. And wouldn't.

 

 

 

"The Church of England is infected with institutional racism and is still a place of "pain" for many black Anglicans, according to its first black archbishop in England."

 

The topic is "Americans being Racial Cowards. I've never attended church in England either... and maybe as the first black archbishop that's his perception.

 

etc (?)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

We make it a point to remind one another that it's not fair to say, "All Blacks....", or "All BMW riders....", or "All (put what you will here) ...."

 

I'm simply suggesting, that there are millions of people who have a religious faith, who are not "rabid racists". Myself being one of them.

 

 

Link to comment
Yeah, but that doesn't mean the authors intent was malicious, and intent matters!

 

Intention does matter. That's why the concept of murder exists: person A deliberately kills person B, person A gets charged/convicted of murder.

 

But outcome also matters. That's why the concept of manslaughter exists: person A had no intention of killing person B, but the outcome was predictable based on his actions, so person A does not get to walk free, despite having had no intention of killing person B.

 

I think you're off a fair bit on your distinctions here.

 

Here's something I've wondered for a while. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, it's currently considered acceptable to directly compare the physical attributes of a white person to a chimpanzee. OTOH, we're being told these days, in no uncertain terms, that it is absoluteyl NOT currently acceptable to directly compare a black person to a chimpanzee for any reason.

 

I have a difficult time understanding why this even needs much thought. We have a history of racism in the U.S. during which we have referred to blacks in America as various subhuman species, including "monkeys."

 

Now, I suppose one could make the argument that chimpanzees are not monkeys, and therefore, comparing a black man to a chimp is not comparing a black man to a monkey. That is, at best, an overly intellectual argument given the origin of the issue.

 

Alternatively, one could argue that we are simply so race-blind now that we shouldn't let such nonsensical historical legacies corrupt good political cartooning. That reminds me of an uncomfortable thread we went through here not so long ago.

 

Will there ever come a day when such imagery won't be offensive? Sure. Whenever all such historical wounds truly are healed, not just when people would like to believe they're healed for politically expedient reasons.

Link to comment

I have read this thread with interest but have almost no direct contact with it to be honest. I work and live in a world where the main racial interactions I have are between Hispanics and Whites and not Whites and Blacks so I am really not that attuned to it. Mexican culture (Sonoran really) is something I have known since I was a kid here in Arizona. It is no more foreign to me than Chinese or Swedish Culture. Having a lot of people working for me both here and in Mexico, I don't get too hung up on the Latino thing either. The only time I feel it is when I watch something that is overtly white or black. Chris Rock isn't funny to me because I don't relate to his humor because I don't have a lot of those feelings. Same with Dave Chappell.

 

Not saying racial tension doesn't exist, but in my world it is doesn't really come to bear. The black people I do work with seem about the same as the white people in regards to education and social interaction. Even with the border trouble now, I don't look at this as a brown problem like a lot of transplanted Gringos do. David Baker is right to say the economic divide is what is going to test our kids more than the racial one.

 

Tom

Link to comment
DaveTheAffable
Will there ever come a day when such imagery won't be offensive? Sure. Whenever all such historical wounds truly are healed, not just when people would like to believe they're healed for politically expedient reasons.

 

What do you think that will take? Is there anyway to quantify when it is "truly healed"?

Link to comment
DaveTheAffable
David Baker is right to say the economic divide is what is going to test our kids more than the racial one.

 

Tom

 

Well said, Tom. We only have to go back a few weeks and review Effbee's post on what happened in Argentina.

 

Any issue that can be brought to bear, to cause infighting, tension, and division, will be encouraged by those who would like to see the government step in and take over EVERYTHING.

Link to comment

Does anyone remember the black city counsel member who was mortally offended by a fellow member referring to things getting lost in a "black hole?" He demanded an apology for such insensitivity. After it was explained that a black hole is a fairly common event caused by a collapsed star and nothing to do with race, he still wanted an apology because it sounded like it could have been racial. My reaction was to wonder where I can find a list of words and phrases that are off limits to whites? To males? To tall people?

 

 

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
There will always be economic discrimination based upon one's wealth or earning power, but those things are not intrinsic human characteristics as are race, hair or eye color, height, etc.

 

I will broaden the term (for my use) to include intrinsic human characteristics.

 

Are personality and family connections intrinsic human characteristics John? My understanding is that in most exclusive clubs, the amount of money you have might get you an application, but if that's all you have, the next communication you hear from the club will start with "Regretfully...."

Personality characteristics are intrinsic yet are usually not readily discernible until one reveals them through one's behaviors.

 

Family connections? I don't think so. How we we know who's adopted and who isn't?

 

Your reference to clubs is interesting. There are at least 3 clubs in Indy where Blacks and Jews need not apply, but that's an old story, just like the fact that all the pillars of the community are founding and sustaining members.

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
Then the divide will be between rich and poor, regardless of race. And that divide will be with us for decades.

 

Though this is a hijack, David, can I ask if you're speaking globally or about the US, specifically?

Link to comment
John Ranalletta

That's interesting to me, because if true, I wonder how it breaks out between the generations. We've transferred so much wealth from younger generations to older ones, I'd suspect younger people, absent jobs, might try to reclaim that wealth through political and other means. Recent riots by young, unemployed Greeks comes to mind.

Link to comment

tall people have an advantage

 

From Psychology Today, 2003

 

 

"Height matters. Tall people get larger salaries, higher status and more respect. Furthermore, the advantage seems to be life-long.

 

Timothy Judge, a business professor at the University of Florida, calculated that each inch in height corresponds to $789 extra in pay each year, even when gender, weight and age are taken into account. An extra six inches, for example, results in an extra $4,734 in annual income"

 

But we are noticed when we walk into a room.

I have comments about my stature directed at me constantly.

Some people only see my height, not me.

Yes, the air is fine up here, I did play basketball, and I was rejected by NASA's Teacher in Space Program for being too tall.

 

Skin color as a racial characteristic is a different ballgame.

Connotation changes based on group context/makeup.

Stature can also have this type of discrimination (height/weight)but I think any negative aspect is directed more at the individual and not all tall/fat/short people.

WRT racism, I think sometimes the indivdual is not seen as an individual and therefore receives negative responses solely based on being one of them . (Whoever them might be)

I used to take a friend home after HS basketball games. We had known each other and played together for many years. He was a friend/team mate.

His family lived next to and above a well known club/bar in a certain section of Miami that was mostly populated by black families and businesses. When I took him home and got out of the car to go upstairs I was probably the only white male in a square mile. When we went into Gil's Spot I definitley was the only one.

The first time, obvious reactions to me. Over time these reactions became less noticeable and I was seen not as a white male, but as a person who liked music and had friends in the club.

End of story.

But, if I were to encounter some of the same people in a different context, I don't know how similar the encounter would be.

(This was in the 1960's so the world is very different today).

 

Link to comment
Dave McReynolds
There will always be economic discrimination based upon one's wealth or earning power, but those things are not intrinsic human characteristics as are race, hair or eye color, height, etc.

 

I will broaden the term (for my use) to include intrinsic human characteristics.

 

Are personality and family connections intrinsic human characteristics John? My understanding is that in most exclusive clubs, the amount of money you have might get you an application, but if that's all you have, the next communication you hear from the club will start with "Regretfully...."

Personality characteristics are intrinsic yet are usually not readily discernible until one reveals them through one's behaviors.

 

Family connections? I don't think so. How we we know who's adopted and who isn't?

 

Your reference to clubs is interesting. There are at least 3 clubs in Indy where Blacks and Jews need not apply, but that's an old story, just like the fact that all the pillars of the community are founding and sustaining members.

 

The point I was trying to make is that the educated wealthy from the right families seem to have at least one thing in common with your uneducated poor who are religious: the desire to associate exclusively with others who think, act, and look the same way they do. From that perspective, I see very little difference between racial discrimination and social discrimination.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...