At my Christian college, we "focused" on cross-cultural understanding. Every couple months, an African-American speaker encouraged us to sit with people from different backgrounds and remember that "Heaven will be multicolored."
Despite my tone here (and aside from one over-zealous black man who seemed to think his purpose was to "fix" we uneducated, bigoted white students), I didn't have a problem with the push to appreciate diversity. After all, Heaven WILL be multicolored. There is neither man nor woman, Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, in Christ's body. We're equals.
Equals UNTIL...
President Obama was elected. That's when a black student ran an article in the school paper about how happy she was to see this day in history. Why? Because "her people" had once been oppressed, and things finally were looking up for them. It was--I quote--an "African-American victory." If you don't understand the problem I have, imagine John McCain had won office and I--a white student--wrote about the great victory for white people...? Would it rub you the wrong way? (There is a chance you decided to read this post because those four words caught your attention.) It should offend you!
That's racism!
I hate racism for the same reasons I hate ageism and sexism. Regardless of who does it, whether celebrating or lamenting, if you make an issue out of a person's physical body, you are drawing lines. AND, when you separate us with traits no one can control, you've created a very exclusive club. Unlike in Christianity (into which, all are welcome--truly equal.) I have no hope of being a member of this woman's "people." In her eyes, whether she was aware of it or not, John McCain and any other white person started out with a disadvantage... So much for equality.
Unfortunately, most people who talk about desiring diversity quickly fall into the trap of elevating the minority. That's why the unnamed male student I mentioned got on my nerves. That's why feminism` generally makes me want to remove my high heels (the ones forced on me by chauvinist pigs) and assault most of the East coast senators with them. Most of the time, people repeating "equality, equality, equality" only mean "more perks for people who look like me!" And that attitude doesn't encourage compassion for "the oppressed." I don't much feel like celebrating the election of a black president based on black-ness alone.
Yes, disapproval of someone based on skin color, the year he was born, or what she keeps in her panties makes no sense.
But neither does considering these things "victorious."
What about people with lime green skin? You don't have a problem with the "greenies"? Statistically, it's usually the green skinned people who band together to form undead hordes and eat the flesh of the living. As one of the living, I have a huge problem with that!
ReplyDeleteThat depends: do the undead, greenies ALWAYS eat the living? Is the green skin indicative of their food preference without fail? If so, I also feel a bit threatened by their presence in America.
ReplyDeleteBut I want to clarify I would have no problem voting for a green-skinned, vegetarian candidate for president, if he promised to downsize the government.
Whoops. I should have said "...if he OR SHE promised to downsize the government." Wouldn't want the East Coast senators to know how much I hate women.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at statistics of poverty, who is in power, who has health insurance, who lives close to quality grocery stores, who gets raped, who gets killed by their partner, who dies younger, etc you start to notice trends. That's what -isms are. They are societal indications that different people are given different opportunities. If you agree that black people or women or Native Americans or anyone else is not INHERENTLY less capable, then you have to admit that society plays a big role. That's what racism is. Racism against whites is logically impossible because white people are statistically better off. That doesn't mean there aren't stereotypes against every group. That doesn't mean individual acts of discrimination don't occur.
ReplyDeleteWhen we have NEVER elected a black president, it is exciting that a group of people who have been left out of the power structure are seeing signs that they have more access. It's a win for African Americans in that this group has been oppressed during and AFTER slavery. Do you remember Jim Crow? Do you remember how long it took for de-segregation to occur? These things happened fairly recently. It is impressive that someone who grew up in a racist society was able to become president. That's why his race mattered - he overcame inequality to succeed.
Thanks for the comment, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteBut I have a couple questions.
1. Where did you get your definition of racism/sexism? The dictionary says racism is, "A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the races determines human achievement." (I guess your sentence should have read, "If you agree that black people or Native Americans or women are not INHERENTLY less capable, then you are not racist or sexist.")
2.Do you really believe white-racism and male-sexism is the only possible explanation for poverty, murders, and early death?
3.In light of the dictionary definition (one race believes it's superior), do you still think blacks CAN'T fit this description?
1. There are different definitions of racism because words are inherently subjective. If you believe oppression is a real concept, then your definition of racism corresponds. I acknowledge that oppression is a real concept evidenced by trends in our society (ie some people as a group are more poor, experience more violence, etc than others). None of your examples show blacks saying they are superior to whites, just that they are happy their oppressed group is gaining access. Those are very different statements.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that racism/sexism/other -isms are the reason that there are different statistics for different groups of people. So yes, if that's what you're asking.
3. I think that blacks and anyone else can have racist ideas (though I don't think the ideas you describe in your post are racist, see #1), but I think that because society clearly favors certain groups over others, our SOCIETY cannot be racist toward white people unless the statistics (realities) change. I am essentially saying that context matters.
I don't feel like arguing about definitions.
ReplyDeleteBut whatever convenient new meaning one tries to give racism, I think we agree it's a "bad" thing. The problem with using statistics to prove "oppression is a real concept" is that stats only tell you what things look like now. They cannot explain WHY. There are THOUSANDS of factors affecting data. That's why blaming racism or sexism is too easy. It's just as vague and improbable as blaming the homeless for graffiti. (There is lots of graffiti in big cities; also there are a lot of homeless people. So OBVIOUSLY it all makes sense.)
If you wish to continue believing white supremacy is the issue, then I'd ask you to consider and explain two things. 1. "Society" is not an abstract idea--it's just a term for all American "people." So, society can't favor certain groups without all or most of its people favoring those groups. Where are these racists? Why do many blacks live in poor neighborhoods? Is it because all or most real estate agents believe blacks are inferior and won't sell nicer houses to them? Or is it because they can't afford to move? Why are many blacks and women struggling for money? Is it because all or most heads-of-business believe them to be inferior and won't hire them? Or are they usually less qualified for well-paying jobs? Maybe this issue of inequality starts in schools, then. Do all or most teachers spend more time with white students than black ones? If not, then WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE OF SOCIETY WHO FAIL TO TREAT EVERYONE EQUALLY? In other words, where is the racism?
2. If most individuals are racist, what about those who DO overcome the odds? Why aren't 100% of blacks and 100% of women poor and mistreated?
Instead of looking for racism that isn't there, here's what we should do: Tell blacks, women, Hispanics, etc "You're just as capable of success as anyone else"--no aside about how things are "unfair." (I'd say "tell Asians and Jews," too, but they're too busy taking advantage of The Land of Opportunity to obsess over the fact that--once upon a time--they were discriminated against, too.)
Then go on to explain that EVERY choice has a consequence, and only an individual can decide how far he/she will go. Period. There are 1,000's of choices a person could make which may help or hinder their success, but each person is responsible for his/her own destiny.
Using reverse racism to create victims doesn't help. Why assume there's a disadvantage instead of teaching the lower class how their successful peers have done it? They're desperate for education, and well-meaning but misguided whites only encourage them to be passive victims without offering any SOLUTIONS. (P.S. Don't take my word for it. Here's a black woman who's helping others escape the numbers by teaching them YOU AREN'T oppressed--you are capable: http://www.urbancure.org/starparker.asp)
This is an article that says almost exactly what I say in my post--written by Star Parker, a black woman.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.urbancure.org/article.asp?idCategory=3&idsub=1&id=3282&t=Blacks%27+dilemma+with+Obama
Certainly racism/sexism/other -isms are complex. There are many reasons that there are dramatic differences in power. But the underlying reason is that we live in a racist/sexist/etc society. There are many reasons that more black people live in poorer neighborhoods. You should look up some peer-reviewed research on this since you seem to have many questions. For example, there was a study in which they took the exact same resume and put names associated with African Americans on some and names associates with white people on others. The resumes with African American names were denied dramatically more often then the resumes with white names. That's racism.
ReplyDeleteHere's the citation:Bertrand, Marianne and Sendhil Mullainathan. “Are Emily And Greorge Employable Than Lakisha And Jamal? A Field Experiment On Labor Market Discrimination.” The National Bureau of Economic Research. July 2003. 10 Nov 2010 .
You should also look into the incidence of hate crimes against Jews. It's dramatically higher than other groups. Racism against Jews is alive and well, unfortunately. Here are 2009 stats from the FBI: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/incidents.html
Citing one black person is like saying you're not racist because you have one black friend. Like we discussed, people of any identity can have any opinion. There's a concept called internalization, where people of an oppressed group believe the idea that they are at fault for their position in society. Sure, we can try to change things. I am all for that. But "more successful peers" exist within a system that benefits them, so of course it's easier for them to be more successful. Some people are put at a disadvantage, and if you did some research you'd see it's very well documented. That's not to say individual decisions don't make an impact, but as you say there are a lot of factors. Yes, there are always exceptions: Not all black people are poor, not all women are raped, etc. But as I keep saying, if you acknowledge that oppressed groups are not inherently inferior, then you have to also acknowledge that there must be some societal forces putting them in an inferior position. That's crux of believing oppression is real.
I really challenge you to do some research and look at peer-reviewed literature to see some research done on these social issues.
I guess your answer to whether all or most employers are racist is "yes?" :) That's your interpretation of the data.
ReplyDeleteBut I do NOT have to acknowledge societal racism causes the discrepancies. The biggest "force" besides choice comes from vote-hungry politicians and "compassionate" whites pitying Lakisha and Jamal instead of teaching them HOW TO BECOME more employable.
Businessmen are stats-minded. With highschool dropouts, violent crimes, and the other things you listed, the ODDS say a black person could make a rough employee. Blacks shouldn't be mad at white employers about that--they should be mad about the bad choices of other blacks, polluting the data...
The difference between our two interpretations is that yours encourages passivity and mine promotes action. Yours tells minorities all they can do is hope society changes. Mine empowers them to take control of their lives and change things themselves.
I'm not saying blacks have it "easy."
But I'm sick of playing "whose-life-is-worst." In America, it's illegal to discriminate based on physical traits. My point is, ELEVATING some groups is still discrimination. And because I believe blacks and whites ARE inherently equal, I don't think any of us gets to shout "Victory for my people!" as if we're competing. When we believe someone is smart and capable, we don't give them exceptions. They don't need them! We teach them to make the same choices which helped others in the same dilemma. (That's why I posted Parker's article...she spent 7 years in poverty, believing she was a victim, until someone empowered her. The laws didn't change. Her choices did.)
Here's one more article--about yet another member of the black community begging the others to realize race isn't holding them down. They can better themselves as individuals instead of waiting for 'salvation' from D.C.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3416/come_on_people_bill_cosby_is_right/
1. Oh girl. You are out of control. You think that a black person should be judged based on their race, since statistics show that a certain percentage of their race is in X situation. That's called racism. When you judge an individual based on their race rather than their merits (ie their resume, which was exactly the same as the white person's resume) then you are discriminating based on race. And what's scary is you don't even know how out of control you are. Yikes. All I can say is read some research about poverty, racism, etc. Or read the law. Or something based in reality other than someone's opinion online. I know I'm not going to convince you of anything in the comments section of your blog, but at least I can be one voice saying: Girl, you need a reality check scary-bad. I know it can be very threatening to acknowledge that something other than your perceived reality does, in fact, exist. I'm not saying its easy. I'm also not saying its your fault for being born white. I know you mentioned that was something that really threatened you in college.
ReplyDeleteHere's a basic definition of discrimination since you like dictionary definitions so much:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination
2. You think you can boil down the differences between us into active/passive based on this short exchange. Amanda-the-all-knowing strikes again. Apparently you don't even know what discrimination entails, so I am not sure how you think I have time to talk about my theories on how to improve society (which involves a lot of action, don't worry). We can't start to discuss solutions if we can't even agree on the problem.
3. Please note that your last link has zero evidence in it. Hmmm... I am noticing that you use no (peer-reviewed) evidence to support your claims. This should be a sign to you that you have a warped perspective and might need some reality-checking.
Conclusion: Why should anyone care what you think if you can't back it up? If it's just your opinion, with no research or statistics to back it up, then how is that legitimate? How are you satisfied with your perspective if you have zero reality checks? Clearly, no one can force you to use critical thinking, but you should consider that you might get sued some day. Or think about how arrogant it is from a religious perspective. I bet there are a ton of Bible verses on being arrogant. I don't know... there are some many reasons to be a competent thinker.
I'm so blessed, being able to spend time with those in need rather than with those who claim to represent them. People in poverty aren't looking for a peer-reviewed article. (And neither are most of us, unless they back up our already-held beliefs.) The poor don't attack those on their side. You're concerned about the marginalized, so this should be good news: you and other non-needy folks are the only ones offended. The poor know that welfare doesn't work. Affirmative action isn't working. Voting for a black President doesn't work. But, biblical principles DO work 100% of the time. I'm blessed to witness success often, once minorities stop listening to those trying to keep them victims.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the thoughts, Nony. I DO care about your opinion, even thought we disagree. I don't think you're some space-case caught in an alternate reality. I'm sure you're a competent thinker. I sense your frustration with me, and I'm sorry about that. However, the reason you won't change my opinion is because it isn't wrong.
I think the discussion has run askew of the original premise. Is the election of a black US President a victory for black Americans? If yes, is it a victory for non-black Americans as well? I don't have the statistics, but I'm certain there were a number of non-black Americans who voted for Barack in 2008. Mandy's article suggests that the free election of ANY President represents a victory for all America because the democratic system has allowed the will of the people to be asserted. Do we agree that it's racist to claim an election as a victory for a specific color group?
ReplyDeletePeer-reviewed just means there are standards to evaluation so that someone can't do a poorly designed study and get away with it. Having standards for research is not a liberal thing.
ReplyDeleteAgain, lots of statements with no fact involved. You can't just make stuff up.
Example: "The poor know welfare doesn't work" - First of all, you have zero evidence that shows whether or not you have any idea what "poor people" (all poor people? 91% of poor people?) think. How exactly have you mind-read all poor people and come to this conclusion? It's fascinating to me that you think you can tell me that you know what others are thinking and feeling. It's also interesting that you assume my stance on welfare.
John - I agree that the election of President Obama is a win for all Americans. But it especially a win for people of a specific group who have been discriminated against for hundreds of years because it symbolizes progress for them. If white people had been enslaved and then endured Jim Crow, we'd be especially happy that a white person was able to become president.
Let's just agree that I'm hopeless, Nony. My thoughts on this blog have absolutely no merit. It's useless, offensive dribble, and I'm sorry somebody forced you to read it. (Also I have very bad taste in shoes.)
ReplyDeleteNever mind we already agreed stats don't prove anything because of different interpretations of data. Never mind I easily could reverse the attack and demand proof I'm wrong (That is, if I were interested in a "discussion" in which both parties simply parrot back and forth, “Oh yeah? How do you know?”) It’s obvious I'm just out of touch.
My only chance is if you'd start a blog of your own to show me what good advice looks like. (To be safe, I wouldn't say: "[white people] would be happy a white person became president..." It sounds a little like mind-reading.) On the other hand, you probably won't run into much opposition anyway, if you tell everybody what they want to hear. Just agree everyone has a rough life, through no fault of their own, and the real problems stem from "politicians" or "big companies." Real change starts with individuals, but at least everybody will like you.
I think I finally understand my error in THIS post: It's okay to single-out blacks as long as you’re giving them an advantage. It is NEVER okay to say "victory for white people." Got it.
But, if I STILL have it wrong, send me the link when your blog is ready. (And don’t forget the articles! We all know how impossible it is to have a basic chat about racial attitudes without LexusNexus.) I need help scary-bad, and it would be nice if someone who DOES have the answers would set me straight.
What's awesome is that I don't pretend to have all the answers... and I think people who are arrogant, speak for people they don't know, and say racist things PUBLICLY are in a position to be criticized.
ReplyDeleteI am also too busy actually doing social justice work in my day-to-day life to write a blog. I skip this fun middle step of telling the world how it should be run, and instead I go out and work with people. (Yes, poor people... though notice I don't speak for all poor people...) I write letters to the editor on occasion because I know I will reach a FAR larger audience than a blog of my friends, but that's pretty much the extent of the regular lecturing I do to the world. Sometimes I will comment on outrageous blogs that I accidentally happen upon (like this one). That's because I feel ethically obligated to say SOMETHING. Thankfully, this is rare.
You mention in your other post that most of your readers already agree with you. I'm glad you realize that you are preaching to the choir (and oh how you love to hear your own voice and preach as if God had validated all your ideas). Why publish all these thoughts you have in a public forum when the vast majority of your readers already agree with you and are probably people you know in "real life"? It just seems pointless to me, especially if it upsets you so much when someone is willing to call you out on your bullshit. Just make your blog private and then you will not have to worry about people like me.
I should also add that I learn a lot from working with oppressed people. It takes a lot to survive when you are put in terrible situations. I don't pretend that I have all the answers for them. It's more about empowerment than teaching them the ways of the people with power in our society.
ReplyDeleteWhich is another reason I know you don't actually spend much time with poor people (or probably many people at all)... you don't realize how much you have to LEARN. You are all about your teachings and your ideas. Listen, girl. You might learn some surprising things when you're not busy lecturing people about personal responsibility.