Friday, February 08, 2008
Barack Obama Rally
Today I went to the Barack Obama Stand for Change Rally at the Key Arena in Seattle. It was one of the most awe-inspiring events I've been to in my life!!!! The arena was filled with an energy and excitement that was palpable. Even outside, just arriving, people were running into line, as if they just couldn't wait to hear from this man who is inspiring a nation to come together to change the way the things are done in our country. We waited a long time in our seats, watching Obama videos overhead, doing the wave, watching a crazy dance-off between two women in the stands. And finally, when Obama finally did enter the arena, there was a deafening roar, as if Obama were the biggest rock star on the planet. Key Arena was filled to capacity, 18,000 people, and there were 3,000 people out in the plaza who could not get in, listening to him speak through loudspeakers. Incredible. He speaks without notes, and when he talked about hope, that hope does not preclude being a realist, that hope is what gave slaves freedom, hope is what gave women the right to vote, hope is what gave African-Americans the right to sit at the same lunch counter as whites, my eyes started welling up. Things do not begin to change without hope.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Mind Your Asthma
For the past month now, I've been battling with my asthma symptoms.
I developed asthma when I was pregnant with my son. I've had allergies all my life, and during my pregnancy in 1996, I had a cough that wouldn't go away. I saw a pulmonologist and discovered that I had allergy-induced asthma. I was put on a corticosteroid inhaler and that lessened my asthma symptoms. For many years my asthma was under control, and I actually stopped using the inhaler for quite a while with no problem.
In 1998, after I gave birth to my daughter, I suffered an Amniotic Fluid Embolism. It is a long story, but suffice it to say, it was an experience that changed my life. While in the ICU, I developed Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, which is basically acute lung failure. I was on a ventilator for nine weeks (intubated for four weeks and on a trach for five weeks) and now have scarring in my lungs.
Because I am an ARDS survivor, my asthma has been exacerbated. Whenever I get a cold or my allergies start to act up, my asthma symptoms start to flare up. A year ago, despite the fact that I received a flu shot, I caught the flu from my children. My asthma symptoms became extremely severe, my peak flow was in the red zone, and I ended up in the ER with pneumonia.
This latest episode started when I caught a cold from my daughter. The problem is, I should be doing my corticosteroid inhaler ALL THE TIME, even when I feel good, because that is what keeps my airways open consistently. But I don't. So I caught the cold, and it wouldn't go away. I coughed and coughed. Then it turned to coughing and wheezing. And now it's at the point that I can't even walk up the stairs without becoming short of breath and doing a full exhalation. I was at the mall and I wanted to do a half-hour walk yesterday, and after 15 minutes I felt like I was having an attack, and ended up at the doctor's office. So now I'm on a short high dose burst of oral prednisone. I'm really afraid of possible side effects, but just after my first dose last night, I'm already starting to feel better.
So if you have asthma, keep taking your steroid inhaler, even if you feel okay! I guess I have to learn the hard way...
I developed asthma when I was pregnant with my son. I've had allergies all my life, and during my pregnancy in 1996, I had a cough that wouldn't go away. I saw a pulmonologist and discovered that I had allergy-induced asthma. I was put on a corticosteroid inhaler and that lessened my asthma symptoms. For many years my asthma was under control, and I actually stopped using the inhaler for quite a while with no problem.
In 1998, after I gave birth to my daughter, I suffered an Amniotic Fluid Embolism. It is a long story, but suffice it to say, it was an experience that changed my life. While in the ICU, I developed Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, which is basically acute lung failure. I was on a ventilator for nine weeks (intubated for four weeks and on a trach for five weeks) and now have scarring in my lungs.
Because I am an ARDS survivor, my asthma has been exacerbated. Whenever I get a cold or my allergies start to act up, my asthma symptoms start to flare up. A year ago, despite the fact that I received a flu shot, I caught the flu from my children. My asthma symptoms became extremely severe, my peak flow was in the red zone, and I ended up in the ER with pneumonia.
This latest episode started when I caught a cold from my daughter. The problem is, I should be doing my corticosteroid inhaler ALL THE TIME, even when I feel good, because that is what keeps my airways open consistently. But I don't. So I caught the cold, and it wouldn't go away. I coughed and coughed. Then it turned to coughing and wheezing. And now it's at the point that I can't even walk up the stairs without becoming short of breath and doing a full exhalation. I was at the mall and I wanted to do a half-hour walk yesterday, and after 15 minutes I felt like I was having an attack, and ended up at the doctor's office. So now I'm on a short high dose burst of oral prednisone. I'm really afraid of possible side effects, but just after my first dose last night, I'm already starting to feel better.
So if you have asthma, keep taking your steroid inhaler, even if you feel okay! I guess I have to learn the hard way...
Monday, November 12, 2007
A New Beginning
Sometimes we need to make changes in our lives that are difficult to make. Difficult because they go against society's expectation of what makes sense. I subscribe to a blog called 37 Days and back in February 2007, Patti Digh wrote about Letting Go of the Monkey Bar. I feel like I've just let go of the monkey bar myself, although holding on to that bar was not a desirable alternative for me. And although I'm in that space between trapezes, that space after having let go and before grabbing another one, I feel a sense of peace, a sense of a huge burden lifted.
This past weekend was great! Karina's soccer team, the Federal Way Wildcats, won their last league game to end the season with 8 wins and 1 tie. They then played two indoor games and after a bit of a shaky start trying to get used to the much faster game during their first game and playing an older team and losing 0-2, they got it together in their second game and won 9-2. They then played in the Narrows Jamboree and went undefeated in three games. Afterwards, we went to Browns Point Pizzeria and surprised Hannah and Glaysia with a birthday celebration!
This past weekend was great! Karina's soccer team, the Federal Way Wildcats, won their last league game to end the season with 8 wins and 1 tie. They then played two indoor games and after a bit of a shaky start trying to get used to the much faster game during their first game and playing an older team and losing 0-2, they got it together in their second game and won 9-2. They then played in the Narrows Jamboree and went undefeated in three games. Afterwards, we went to Browns Point Pizzeria and surprised Hannah and Glaysia with a birthday celebration!
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Racial Profiling
After a discussion I had today about racial profiling, I feel compelled to post this excerpt from an article by the ACLU titled "Racial Profiling: Old and New".
Is racial profiling real? Most Americans think so. A July 2001 Gallup poll
reported that 55 percent of whites and 83 percent of blacks believe racial
profiling is widespread. And the reports of thousands of racial and ethnic group
members across the country add credibility to the perception that racial
profiling is real. These are stories from all walks of life, not just
hardworking everyday people, but celebrities, professional athletes, and members
of the military. Also, reports of racial profiling come from respected members
of communities of color such as police commanders, prosecutors, judges, state
legislators, lawyers, dentists and even representatives in Congress, who have
been victims.
Racial profiling is a new term for an old practice known by other
names: institutional racism and discrimination and owes its existence to
prejudice that has existed in this country since slavery.
Tens of thousands of innocent drivers, pedestrians, and shoppers across
the country are victims of racial profiling. And these discriminatory police
stops and searches have reached epidemic proportions in recent years - fueled by
the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" that have given police a pretext to
target people they think fit a "drug courier," "gang member," or "terrorist"
profile. In fact, racial profiling is the first step in a long road that leads
to the heavily disproportionate incarceration of people of color, especially
young men, for drug-related crimes, and of Arabs, Muslims and South Asians for
suspicion of terrorism. This despite the fact that people of color are no more
likely than whites to use or sell drugs, and Arabs Muslims and South Asians are
no more likely than whites to be terrorists.
We must end the practice of racial profiling.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Seeing the World Through Different Lenses
My favorite journalist is Leonard Pitts, Jr. of the Miami Herald. He writes an op-ed piece every Sunday that also appears in the Seattle Times. He won the most coveted award in 2004, the Pulitzer Prize for commentary. He writes thought-provoking columns on wide-ranging issues that affect our society, and whether you agree with him or not, he makes you think. I happen to agree with almost everything he has written.
Today's column is on the disturbing trend of the noose. The noose that has been displayed as a sign of hatred toward African-Americans. Here is an excerpt from the column:
"A noose is left for a black workman at a construction site in the Chicago area. In Queens, a woman brandishes a noose to threaten her black neighbors. A noose is left on the door of a black professor at Columbia University. And that's just last week. Go back a little further and you have similar incidents at the University of Maryland in College Park, at a police department on Long Island, on a Coast Guard cutter, in a bus maintenance garage in Pittsburgh.
Mark Potok, the director of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, told USA Today, 'For a dozen incidents to come to the public's attention is a lot. I don't generally see noose incidents in a typical month. We might hear about a handful in a year.'
The superintendent of schools in Jena famously dismissed the original incident as a 'prank.' It was an astonishing response, speaking volumes about the blithe historical ignorance of people who have found it convenient not to peer too closely at the atrocities of the past lest they be accidentally . . . moved."
In the column, Pitts discusses the history of the rope/noose as a symbol of hate toward African-Americans. It is an ugly part of American history that African-Americans were lynched from trees, and even though that doesn't happen anymore, racism is still alive and well, both subtly and overtly.
What disturbs me, however, are the comments that I read in response to Pitts' column. It's the same phenomenon I saw with the Don Imus scandal. There are definitely people who do not view the world through the same lens as people who have experienced racism. They absolutely cannot see the racist acts in the displaying of the noose and dismiss them as "pranks." Their outrage is reserved for Pitts, as opposed to the perpetrators of these heinous acts.
I just recently received a blog post from a friend, Patti Digh, who talked about the racism that still exists in our country. I am reminded of it everyday when I read posts such as the diatribes against Leonard Pitts. I am reminded of it when I stand in line at the grocery store and see cover story after cover story about pretty white women and girls who are missing, but have yet to hear about one woman of color or one little girl of color on the national news. Wait, I take that back, on The Today Show, there was one story about an African-American woman who went missing, and there was NEVER a follow-up story. NEVER. Not the 24-7 coverage that Laci Peterson, Lori Hacking and Chandra Levy warranted.
Our society seems to care more about a runaway bride than a 9-year-old African-American girl who is shot in the head when caught in the middle of a firefight in the housing projects of Miami. Pitts wrote in his column that this violence, this sacrifice of children was symptomatic of an American problem. The response to Pitts: No, it's not our problem. It's your problem. It's your problem. It's a black problem. Pitts' response: So I guess it's only an American problem when white schools and colleges get shot to pieces.
My friend Patti wrote something in her blog that sums this up perfectly:
"Hate crimes won't end until those of us who are not hated are as outraged as those who are."
Today's column is on the disturbing trend of the noose. The noose that has been displayed as a sign of hatred toward African-Americans. Here is an excerpt from the column:
"A noose is left for a black workman at a construction site in the Chicago area. In Queens, a woman brandishes a noose to threaten her black neighbors. A noose is left on the door of a black professor at Columbia University. And that's just last week. Go back a little further and you have similar incidents at the University of Maryland in College Park, at a police department on Long Island, on a Coast Guard cutter, in a bus maintenance garage in Pittsburgh.
Mark Potok, the director of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, told USA Today, 'For a dozen incidents to come to the public's attention is a lot. I don't generally see noose incidents in a typical month. We might hear about a handful in a year.'
The superintendent of schools in Jena famously dismissed the original incident as a 'prank.' It was an astonishing response, speaking volumes about the blithe historical ignorance of people who have found it convenient not to peer too closely at the atrocities of the past lest they be accidentally . . . moved."
In the column, Pitts discusses the history of the rope/noose as a symbol of hate toward African-Americans. It is an ugly part of American history that African-Americans were lynched from trees, and even though that doesn't happen anymore, racism is still alive and well, both subtly and overtly.
What disturbs me, however, are the comments that I read in response to Pitts' column. It's the same phenomenon I saw with the Don Imus scandal. There are definitely people who do not view the world through the same lens as people who have experienced racism. They absolutely cannot see the racist acts in the displaying of the noose and dismiss them as "pranks." Their outrage is reserved for Pitts, as opposed to the perpetrators of these heinous acts.
I just recently received a blog post from a friend, Patti Digh, who talked about the racism that still exists in our country. I am reminded of it everyday when I read posts such as the diatribes against Leonard Pitts. I am reminded of it when I stand in line at the grocery store and see cover story after cover story about pretty white women and girls who are missing, but have yet to hear about one woman of color or one little girl of color on the national news. Wait, I take that back, on The Today Show, there was one story about an African-American woman who went missing, and there was NEVER a follow-up story. NEVER. Not the 24-7 coverage that Laci Peterson, Lori Hacking and Chandra Levy warranted.
Our society seems to care more about a runaway bride than a 9-year-old African-American girl who is shot in the head when caught in the middle of a firefight in the housing projects of Miami. Pitts wrote in his column that this violence, this sacrifice of children was symptomatic of an American problem. The response to Pitts: No, it's not our problem. It's your problem. It's your problem. It's a black problem. Pitts' response: So I guess it's only an American problem when white schools and colleges get shot to pieces.
My friend Patti wrote something in her blog that sums this up perfectly:
"Hate crimes won't end until those of us who are not hated are as outraged as those who are."
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Well-Crafted Phoniness
Here is a great blog by Jeffrey Feldman that talks about Bob Herbert's brilliant observations regarding Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, and our society's penchant for electing "barbecue buddies" over those who are truly intelligent, thoughtful and talented.
We are now paying the price.
We are now paying the price.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize
It was announced this morning that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for being "probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted to combat climate change", according to his citation.
I bet the right-wing pundits are gnashing their teeth right about now.
Does the Federal Way School District still need to require an "opposite viewpoint" when showing "An Inconvenient Truth"? Puhleeze.
I bet the right-wing pundits are gnashing their teeth right about now.
Does the Federal Way School District still need to require an "opposite viewpoint" when showing "An Inconvenient Truth"? Puhleeze.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
I'll Take Ron Walker
In the upcoming November election, there are two candidates for the Federal Way School Board vying for the District 5 spot--Dave Larson and Ron Walker. Last Thursday, I met Dave Larson for the first time at the Multicultural Night I coordinated at my children's elementary school. He seemed like an affable fellow, and I appreciated the fact that he took the time to attend our event.
However, when it comes to the School Board, I'm going to cast my vote for Ron Walker. Apparently Dave Larson was one of three School Board members who voted for a ludicrous policy last year--that any showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in a Federal Way high school had to be balanced by an opposite viewpoint. Their actions made the Federal Way School District the laughing stock of the country. According to Larson, he felt "a political partisan was presenting a contested political/scientific issue to impressionable youth."
You have got to be kidding me. These conservatives politicize this issue because it is Al Gore presenting it, and completely dismiss the myriads of scientists who back up what Gore says. And they even lend credence to the parent who was the catalyst for this ridiculous policy--Frosty Hardison, who claims that the earth is 14,000 years old and that the Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that this viewpoint is not presented in "An Incovenient Truth." It was upon receipt of Hardison's email that Larson imposed a moratorium on Gore's film.
Why do I want Ron Walker on the School Board? He has been very active in the Federal Way Community for many years, both in the School District, in the city, and on the Diversity Commission. The School District is made up of 43% students of color, and it is important that the School Board is reflective of the population of the school district, so that the interests of the students are truly understood.
Dave Larson does not represent the majority of the Federal Way community. He represents his own political interests (even though the School Board is supposed to be non-partisan). He even admitted that he was naive about how the "Inconvenient Truth" fiasco would play out in the national media.
Let's get some new blood on the Federal Way School Board!
However, when it comes to the School Board, I'm going to cast my vote for Ron Walker. Apparently Dave Larson was one of three School Board members who voted for a ludicrous policy last year--that any showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in a Federal Way high school had to be balanced by an opposite viewpoint. Their actions made the Federal Way School District the laughing stock of the country. According to Larson, he felt "a political partisan was presenting a contested political/scientific issue to impressionable youth."
You have got to be kidding me. These conservatives politicize this issue because it is Al Gore presenting it, and completely dismiss the myriads of scientists who back up what Gore says. And they even lend credence to the parent who was the catalyst for this ridiculous policy--Frosty Hardison, who claims that the earth is 14,000 years old and that the Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that this viewpoint is not presented in "An Incovenient Truth." It was upon receipt of Hardison's email that Larson imposed a moratorium on Gore's film.
Why do I want Ron Walker on the School Board? He has been very active in the Federal Way Community for many years, both in the School District, in the city, and on the Diversity Commission. The School District is made up of 43% students of color, and it is important that the School Board is reflective of the population of the school district, so that the interests of the students are truly understood.
Dave Larson does not represent the majority of the Federal Way community. He represents his own political interests (even though the School Board is supposed to be non-partisan). He even admitted that he was naive about how the "Inconvenient Truth" fiasco would play out in the national media.
Let's get some new blood on the Federal Way School Board!
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
A long, hot summer
Some random thoughts-
I was watching "The Today Show" this morning and noticed that most of the country was experiencing weather above 100 degrees. Very strange. Yet the global warming skeptics still claim that global warming is a hoax... I teach a class called "Multiculturalism/Anti-Bias in Education" online for Green River Community College every summer and I posted on the Discussion Forum that my students will have to be prepared to deal with some of these types of parents when they have their own classrooms--parents who want to ban books, ban movies like "An Inconvenient Truth", and basically censor everything else they deem inappropriate based on their Biblical interpretations. UGH.
Hey, I just created a website for fans of High School Musical. Both my kids and I love the movie (being a former musical theatre performer myself, I can totally relate) and so I decided to create site with info about the movie, cast members, and latest news and events. The URL is http://www.highschoolmusical2fan.com
This summer has been a major soccer summer--spent a weekend in Lake Oswego with Giancarlo's select soccer team (Storm '96 Green) at the Lake Oswego Nike Cup, then Karina guest played in a tournament with the Federal Way Shooting Stars in Renton , this weekend Giancarlo's team plays in the Blast Off tournament in Federal Way, and finally Karina's team will be playing in the Port Orchard Root Beer Jamboree in late August. Then after Labor Day, fall soccer season starts! We just love soccer!
Today Alie finally got her driver's license! Yea!
I was watching "The Today Show" this morning and noticed that most of the country was experiencing weather above 100 degrees. Very strange. Yet the global warming skeptics still claim that global warming is a hoax... I teach a class called "Multiculturalism/Anti-Bias in Education" online for Green River Community College every summer and I posted on the Discussion Forum that my students will have to be prepared to deal with some of these types of parents when they have their own classrooms--parents who want to ban books, ban movies like "An Inconvenient Truth", and basically censor everything else they deem inappropriate based on their Biblical interpretations. UGH.
Hey, I just created a website for fans of High School Musical. Both my kids and I love the movie (being a former musical theatre performer myself, I can totally relate) and so I decided to create site with info about the movie, cast members, and latest news and events. The URL is http://www.highschoolmusical2fan.com
This summer has been a major soccer summer--spent a weekend in Lake Oswego with Giancarlo's select soccer team (Storm '96 Green) at the Lake Oswego Nike Cup, then Karina guest played in a tournament with the Federal Way Shooting Stars in Renton , this weekend Giancarlo's team plays in the Blast Off tournament in Federal Way, and finally Karina's team will be playing in the Port Orchard Root Beer Jamboree in late August. Then after Labor Day, fall soccer season starts! We just love soccer!
Today Alie finally got her driver's license! Yea!
Saturday, April 14, 2007
CBS and MSNBC did the right thing
This is a seminal moment in our country's history. Regardless of the motives of CBS and MSNBC for firing Don Imus in the wake of this scandal, it still gives pause to those who think it is okay to spew hate from their mouths.
For too long people in the broadcasting industry have been too willing to turn a deaf ear to the racist and sexist trash that have come out of the mouths of the likes of Imus and other shock jocks. Then when they go "over the top", they apologize and go right back to doing what they do. Imus had been doing that for over 30 years. The fact that he was paid $10 million to do that is institutionalized racism, pure and simple.
People who are up in arms about his firing are talking about his right to free speech. He absolutely has a right to free speech, but he DOES NOT have a right to a talk show, and CBS and MSNBC also have the right to fire someone they feel will not be profitable--apparently when Proctor and Gamble and Staples pulled out, the networks pulled the rug out from Don Imus. I am not so naive to think it was just because of his words, because if it were, they would have canned him immediately. I do believe there was a profit motive. But it was all connected, and finally people, and companies are beginning to see that they do not want to be associated with someone who makes his living by spewing hate.
There was another very interesting thing that I really didn't notice until it was pointed out to me. I read about it on Jon Landau's blog published in the Huffington Post:
"For some reason, people who make no secret of the fact that they despise Al Sharpton feel that they are doing something meaningful by engaging with him at times of crisis on racial issues. In going to him, they are seeking out someone who they think is disliked by large portions of the white audience, which they think puts them at an advantage. In the long run it doesn't. But instead of this knee jerk move, how about for once agreeing to talk to a professional news person like Tavis Smiley, an exceptional broadcaster, Errol Lewis of the New York Daily News, a terrific writer and broadcaster, the under appreciated Bob Herbert of the New York Times, or for that matter, Clarence Page, who challenged Imus on race many years ago, and was never heard from again on his airwaves. (Tom Oliphant, perhaps Mr. Page was more deserving of your solidarity than Imus is.) The assumption that the only place one has to go to make "media peace" is with Sharpton is in its own way subtly racist. And the MSM (mainstream media) encourages it."
I find this to be the case in every racial issue that comes up. When Michael Richards said the "n-word", he immediately went on to Al Sharpton's show. Why not discuss it with Tavis Smiley? Finally, yesterday on "The Today Show", Tavis Smiley, Clarence Page and several other African-American spokespeople who are not considered as "controversial" were guests on the show and spoke about the Imus issue in ways that made sense and would be extremely difficult to argue against. I wonder if that is why the MSM does not encourage racial offenders to go head to head with people like Tavis Smiley and Clarence Page?
What happened is even though Don Imus was the one who made the offensive and racist comment, it got turned around and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson became the targets. Everywhere I turn I see comments about Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's history. This is NOT about Sharpton and Jackson!!!! So if they hate Sharpton and Jackson so much, then why do they engage with them about racial issues? Go to African-American broadcasters they respect! But they won't do it because the mainstream media itself is playing the "race card".
I really hope this begins a dialogue on what is and is not acceptable on the airwaves. There is no room for hate speech in this country. And I'm all for getting rid of rap music that denigrates women and using the n-word too. It's all bad. It's a new day.
For too long people in the broadcasting industry have been too willing to turn a deaf ear to the racist and sexist trash that have come out of the mouths of the likes of Imus and other shock jocks. Then when they go "over the top", they apologize and go right back to doing what they do. Imus had been doing that for over 30 years. The fact that he was paid $10 million to do that is institutionalized racism, pure and simple.
People who are up in arms about his firing are talking about his right to free speech. He absolutely has a right to free speech, but he DOES NOT have a right to a talk show, and CBS and MSNBC also have the right to fire someone they feel will not be profitable--apparently when Proctor and Gamble and Staples pulled out, the networks pulled the rug out from Don Imus. I am not so naive to think it was just because of his words, because if it were, they would have canned him immediately. I do believe there was a profit motive. But it was all connected, and finally people, and companies are beginning to see that they do not want to be associated with someone who makes his living by spewing hate.
There was another very interesting thing that I really didn't notice until it was pointed out to me. I read about it on Jon Landau's blog published in the Huffington Post:
"For some reason, people who make no secret of the fact that they despise Al Sharpton feel that they are doing something meaningful by engaging with him at times of crisis on racial issues. In going to him, they are seeking out someone who they think is disliked by large portions of the white audience, which they think puts them at an advantage. In the long run it doesn't. But instead of this knee jerk move, how about for once agreeing to talk to a professional news person like Tavis Smiley, an exceptional broadcaster, Errol Lewis of the New York Daily News, a terrific writer and broadcaster, the under appreciated Bob Herbert of the New York Times, or for that matter, Clarence Page, who challenged Imus on race many years ago, and was never heard from again on his airwaves. (Tom Oliphant, perhaps Mr. Page was more deserving of your solidarity than Imus is.) The assumption that the only place one has to go to make "media peace" is with Sharpton is in its own way subtly racist. And the MSM (mainstream media) encourages it."
I find this to be the case in every racial issue that comes up. When Michael Richards said the "n-word", he immediately went on to Al Sharpton's show. Why not discuss it with Tavis Smiley? Finally, yesterday on "The Today Show", Tavis Smiley, Clarence Page and several other African-American spokespeople who are not considered as "controversial" were guests on the show and spoke about the Imus issue in ways that made sense and would be extremely difficult to argue against. I wonder if that is why the MSM does not encourage racial offenders to go head to head with people like Tavis Smiley and Clarence Page?
What happened is even though Don Imus was the one who made the offensive and racist comment, it got turned around and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson became the targets. Everywhere I turn I see comments about Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's history. This is NOT about Sharpton and Jackson!!!! So if they hate Sharpton and Jackson so much, then why do they engage with them about racial issues? Go to African-American broadcasters they respect! But they won't do it because the mainstream media itself is playing the "race card".
I really hope this begins a dialogue on what is and is not acceptable on the airwaves. There is no room for hate speech in this country. And I'm all for getting rid of rap music that denigrates women and using the n-word too. It's all bad. It's a new day.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Don Imus scandal - emblematic of a larger societal problem?
Unless you've been buried under a rock somewhere, you've probably heard by now about the racist and sexist comments radio broadcaster Don Imus made about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. In case you haven't, on his radio show he was talking to his producer about them, how he thought they were really "rough" looking and then proceeded to call them "nappy-headed hos". This comment was made about a basketball team that started at the bottom, perservered, and made it all the way to the finals, representing a prestigious university. To taint their accomplishment in that way was despicable, disgusting and abhorrent. Imus called it comedy.
Some people are calling for his firing. MSNBC is suspending him for two weeks. Sponsors such as Proctor and Gamble and Staples have pulled ads from his show. Bigelow Teas is revisiting whether it wants to advertise on the show.
However, what is disturbing to me is the number of people who think Don Imus should not even have been suspended. I just went to the MSNBC website to vote on whether Don Imus should be fired, suspended, or whether suspension was even too much. 33% felt Imus should be fired. 30% felt a two-week suspension was enough. But 38% felt that Imus should not even have been suspended, and that he was a shock jock, it was his job to shock people.
What does this say about our society? Granted, 157,000 voted, and it is not a scientific survey, but I've been reading a great deal about this scandal, and quite a few people feel that everyone should just get over it, Imus made a mistake, let him get his wrists slapped and move on from it.
The problem with this is that these sorts of comments are made over and over again in the public venue with no repercussions other than public embarrassment for the person saying it. Yes, we do have freedom of speech in this country, but where has the sense of decency gone where people in power can call people the "n-word" or "nappy-headed hos" and get away with it? People are trying to compare this with rappers saying the n-word and while I do not agree with rappers using that word or putting down women, I believe that this is an issue of power, and rappers do not wield the same power as a Don Imus using the phrase "nappy-headed ho" or a political candidate using the word "macaca" or even Michael Richards using the "n-word".
In the last two weeks the newspapers have been filled with misunderstandings between the races. Danny Westneat, a columnist for the Seattle Times wrote of his frustration with the Seattle School District and his perception that the district was "obsessed with race". He was bombarded with hundreds of responses, some agreeing with him and others accusing him of "not getting it" and suffering from unexamined white privilege. He was open to discussing the issues although in his follow-up article, he still didn't seem to "get it" and did acknowledge perhaps it was due to his own white privilege. He also felt that he probably wasn't really very good at talking about race and hoped the new superintendent would be better at talking about it. Interestingly enough, one of the candidates for Seattle Schools Superintendent says about race, "We should all stop talking about it and deal with it." Okay, but how do you deal with it if you don't talk about it?
Unfortunately in our society, many people don't want to talk about it. When people of color bring it up as an issue, they're accused of bringing up "the race card". But the fact of the matter is, if a person of color is in a group where they are the only person of color, it is disingenuous to think that race might not come up as an issue if that person is feeling isolated or disenfranchised. Many white people do not understand this until I pose this question: "If you walked into a meeting, and you were the only white person, and everyone else was African-American, and you were feeling isolated and left out, do you think that part of the reason might be because you're white?" And of course, everyone says yes. However, the fact of the matter is most whites are never in this situation so it is difficult for them to envision being "the one and only" or to envision a situation where race is an issue for them. They don't live in a world where it is. Our society is one where whites are in power, whites can walk into a room or a workplace, and pretty much count on the fact that the majority of people will look like them. So when people of color bring up race, they accuse us of playing the race card, when in fact it may be a valid point.
As a diversity trainer and multicultural educator, it is my job to talk about race, as well as all dimensions of diversity. It's important that we start feeling comfortable talking about our differences as well as our similarities. Until we can start talking about our differences in a safe, non-threatening way, these problems will continue to divide us.
For an excellent blog by Jon Landau about the Don Imus scandal go to the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-landau/imus-words-recognizing-_b_45532.html
Some people are calling for his firing. MSNBC is suspending him for two weeks. Sponsors such as Proctor and Gamble and Staples have pulled ads from his show. Bigelow Teas is revisiting whether it wants to advertise on the show.
However, what is disturbing to me is the number of people who think Don Imus should not even have been suspended. I just went to the MSNBC website to vote on whether Don Imus should be fired, suspended, or whether suspension was even too much. 33% felt Imus should be fired. 30% felt a two-week suspension was enough. But 38% felt that Imus should not even have been suspended, and that he was a shock jock, it was his job to shock people.
What does this say about our society? Granted, 157,000 voted, and it is not a scientific survey, but I've been reading a great deal about this scandal, and quite a few people feel that everyone should just get over it, Imus made a mistake, let him get his wrists slapped and move on from it.
The problem with this is that these sorts of comments are made over and over again in the public venue with no repercussions other than public embarrassment for the person saying it. Yes, we do have freedom of speech in this country, but where has the sense of decency gone where people in power can call people the "n-word" or "nappy-headed hos" and get away with it? People are trying to compare this with rappers saying the n-word and while I do not agree with rappers using that word or putting down women, I believe that this is an issue of power, and rappers do not wield the same power as a Don Imus using the phrase "nappy-headed ho" or a political candidate using the word "macaca" or even Michael Richards using the "n-word".
In the last two weeks the newspapers have been filled with misunderstandings between the races. Danny Westneat, a columnist for the Seattle Times wrote of his frustration with the Seattle School District and his perception that the district was "obsessed with race". He was bombarded with hundreds of responses, some agreeing with him and others accusing him of "not getting it" and suffering from unexamined white privilege. He was open to discussing the issues although in his follow-up article, he still didn't seem to "get it" and did acknowledge perhaps it was due to his own white privilege. He also felt that he probably wasn't really very good at talking about race and hoped the new superintendent would be better at talking about it. Interestingly enough, one of the candidates for Seattle Schools Superintendent says about race, "We should all stop talking about it and deal with it." Okay, but how do you deal with it if you don't talk about it?
Unfortunately in our society, many people don't want to talk about it. When people of color bring it up as an issue, they're accused of bringing up "the race card". But the fact of the matter is, if a person of color is in a group where they are the only person of color, it is disingenuous to think that race might not come up as an issue if that person is feeling isolated or disenfranchised. Many white people do not understand this until I pose this question: "If you walked into a meeting, and you were the only white person, and everyone else was African-American, and you were feeling isolated and left out, do you think that part of the reason might be because you're white?" And of course, everyone says yes. However, the fact of the matter is most whites are never in this situation so it is difficult for them to envision being "the one and only" or to envision a situation where race is an issue for them. They don't live in a world where it is. Our society is one where whites are in power, whites can walk into a room or a workplace, and pretty much count on the fact that the majority of people will look like them. So when people of color bring up race, they accuse us of playing the race card, when in fact it may be a valid point.
As a diversity trainer and multicultural educator, it is my job to talk about race, as well as all dimensions of diversity. It's important that we start feeling comfortable talking about our differences as well as our similarities. Until we can start talking about our differences in a safe, non-threatening way, these problems will continue to divide us.
For an excellent blog by Jon Landau about the Don Imus scandal go to the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-landau/imus-words-recognizing-_b_45532.html
Sunday, November 26, 2006
The Michael Richards debacle
The recent scandal involving Michael Richards' rant at the Laugh Factory comedy club, and the resulting discussion about whether or not he is a racist again makes me wonder what makes some people want to deny the obvious. When a person is up on stage yelling "Look, there's a n*****! There's a n*****!" Or "Fifty years ago we'd have had a f****** fork up your a**!" Those aren't just angry words. Those are words stemming from racial hatred.
What was also very telling was that during his rambling apology on "The David Letterman Show", he used the term "Afro-Americans", a term for African-Americans that has not been used since the 1970's. There were giggles from the audience when he used the term, which he addressed and made a comment that perhaps the Letterman Show wasn't the proper forum for his apology. He is clearly clueless about just how uneducated and stupid he sounded when he used that term.
My favorite columnist, Leonard Pitts, Jr., of The Miami Herald, wrote an excellent column today about the Michael Richards debacle and some of his thoughts. It's an excellent commentary on just what racism is.
Richards' rant leaves no doubt he's a racist
By Leonard Pitts, Jr.
You'd think one of the first things a stand-up comic learns is how to deal with hecklers. One recalls Richard Pryor's jab at some fool who blew a whistle during his monologue. ''This ain't Kool and the Gang, motherfornicator!'' Except, he didn't say motherfornicator.
Apparently, Michael Richards was absent from Comedy 101 the day they studied Heckler Management. Hence, his epic, headline-making meltdown. It happened last week after Richards was razzed -- benignly, by most accounts -- by some black folks in the crowd.
As a result, a pointed question is now being debated: Is Michael Richards a racist? Let me save us all a lot of time: Yes. It seems obvious that Seinfeld's Kramer, his claims to the contrary notwithstanding, has no use for, as he put it in his rambling, disjointed, and painful-to-watch apology on Letterman, ``Afro Americans.''
I have a reader who would disagree on that. She sent an e-mail hoping to preempt my calling Richards racist. She asked that I consider the possibility he's no bigot but simply a man who, in anger, reached instinctively for the most hurtful language he could find. We've all been there, right?
HE MEANT IT
Well, no. Richards' rant, according to the video of it online, lasted a good 2 ½ minutes. You might angrily snap that somebody is a ''fat so-and-so'' without really meaning it. You don't spend 2 ½ minutes calling them fat unless fat is exactly what you mean.
What bothers me most about my reader's explanation is that she felt compelled to postulate an alternate reason for Richards' behavior. Evidently she found the likeliest reason too hard to accept.
Nor is she alone. TMZ.com, the website that obtained the video, polled its users with this question: Is Richards a racist? Forty percent of the respondents said no.
Granted, the survey is not scientific, but it is instructive. And no, it makes no difference to me that some black people freely use the same word Richards did. I consider them just as hateful as I do him, except with them, it's hatred of self.
But frankly, Richards is not the point here. He's just a TV used-to-be who has likely immolated what remains of his career. So be it.
BLATANT AND UNMISTAKABLE
But if so many of my white countrymen refuse to recognize racism when it is this blatant and unmistakable, what expectation can we have that they will do so when it is subtle and covert? In other words, when it is what it usually is.
Modern bigotry usually isn't some nitwit screaming the N-word. It is jobs you don't get and loans you don't get and apartments you don't get and healthcare you don't get and justice you don't get, for reasons you get all too clearly, even though no one ever quite speaks them. Or needs to. It is smiles in your face and knives in your back. And it is, yes, a sitcom -- like Seinfeld -- that presents New York City, of all places, as a black-free zone.
These are complaints African Americans have sought for years to drive home only to be met largely by indifference, the defensive apathy of those who are free to ignore or diminish any claim on conscience that makes them uncomfortable. At the risk of metaphor abuse, the response to this debacle makes clear that you can't explain Advanced Racism to those who haven't passed Racism 101.
And, with all due respect to my correspondent, that need to make excuses gets old. The man spent 2 ½ minutes screaming racial insults. You say that's not racism?
Then, pray tell, what is?
What was also very telling was that during his rambling apology on "The David Letterman Show", he used the term "Afro-Americans", a term for African-Americans that has not been used since the 1970's. There were giggles from the audience when he used the term, which he addressed and made a comment that perhaps the Letterman Show wasn't the proper forum for his apology. He is clearly clueless about just how uneducated and stupid he sounded when he used that term.
My favorite columnist, Leonard Pitts, Jr., of The Miami Herald, wrote an excellent column today about the Michael Richards debacle and some of his thoughts. It's an excellent commentary on just what racism is.
Richards' rant leaves no doubt he's a racist
By Leonard Pitts, Jr.
You'd think one of the first things a stand-up comic learns is how to deal with hecklers. One recalls Richard Pryor's jab at some fool who blew a whistle during his monologue. ''This ain't Kool and the Gang, motherfornicator!'' Except, he didn't say motherfornicator.
Apparently, Michael Richards was absent from Comedy 101 the day they studied Heckler Management. Hence, his epic, headline-making meltdown. It happened last week after Richards was razzed -- benignly, by most accounts -- by some black folks in the crowd.
As a result, a pointed question is now being debated: Is Michael Richards a racist? Let me save us all a lot of time: Yes. It seems obvious that Seinfeld's Kramer, his claims to the contrary notwithstanding, has no use for, as he put it in his rambling, disjointed, and painful-to-watch apology on Letterman, ``Afro Americans.''
I have a reader who would disagree on that. She sent an e-mail hoping to preempt my calling Richards racist. She asked that I consider the possibility he's no bigot but simply a man who, in anger, reached instinctively for the most hurtful language he could find. We've all been there, right?
HE MEANT IT
Well, no. Richards' rant, according to the video of it online, lasted a good 2 ½ minutes. You might angrily snap that somebody is a ''fat so-and-so'' without really meaning it. You don't spend 2 ½ minutes calling them fat unless fat is exactly what you mean.
What bothers me most about my reader's explanation is that she felt compelled to postulate an alternate reason for Richards' behavior. Evidently she found the likeliest reason too hard to accept.
Nor is she alone. TMZ.com, the website that obtained the video, polled its users with this question: Is Richards a racist? Forty percent of the respondents said no.
Granted, the survey is not scientific, but it is instructive. And no, it makes no difference to me that some black people freely use the same word Richards did. I consider them just as hateful as I do him, except with them, it's hatred of self.
But frankly, Richards is not the point here. He's just a TV used-to-be who has likely immolated what remains of his career. So be it.
BLATANT AND UNMISTAKABLE
But if so many of my white countrymen refuse to recognize racism when it is this blatant and unmistakable, what expectation can we have that they will do so when it is subtle and covert? In other words, when it is what it usually is.
Modern bigotry usually isn't some nitwit screaming the N-word. It is jobs you don't get and loans you don't get and apartments you don't get and healthcare you don't get and justice you don't get, for reasons you get all too clearly, even though no one ever quite speaks them. Or needs to. It is smiles in your face and knives in your back. And it is, yes, a sitcom -- like Seinfeld -- that presents New York City, of all places, as a black-free zone.
These are complaints African Americans have sought for years to drive home only to be met largely by indifference, the defensive apathy of those who are free to ignore or diminish any claim on conscience that makes them uncomfortable. At the risk of metaphor abuse, the response to this debacle makes clear that you can't explain Advanced Racism to those who haven't passed Racism 101.
And, with all due respect to my correspondent, that need to make excuses gets old. The man spent 2 ½ minutes screaming racial insults. You say that's not racism?
Then, pray tell, what is?
Sunday, August 27, 2006
The Anniversary of Katrina
It has been a year since Hurricane Katrina and there have been numerous stories about the lack of progress in New Orleans, particularly in the Lower Ninth Ward. Most of the people who lived in this predominantly black, lower-income neighborhood have been displaced, and are living in other parts of the country or in FEMA trailers. They had no flood insurance. Contrast this with the wealthier neighborhoods in New Orleans, where residents are busy rebuilding, using their insurance money to rebuild their homes.
There have been many lessons learned from Katrina, and many ugly truths revealed by Katrina. This morning I read the top story in the Seattle Times about a 13-year-old girl who had been raped by a caregiver who had been employed by YouthCare, a non-profit organization that was supposed to provide a safe haven for runaway adolescents. The Seattle Times has been opening up court cases that have been closed from the public for various reasons, presumably because they would cause people or organizations involved in the case much embarrassment. This was no exception, and I bring it up because it reminds me of the privilege and oppression that divide the haves and the have nots--the ulgy truth that was revealed by Katrina.
In the rape case, it was a clear case of rape; however, because YouthCare was well-connected with important people on the board, a decision was made to blame the 13-year-old, saying she was partially responsible, even though the caregiver had a criminal background which had never been checked, and the evidence showed it was not consensual. The whole thing was a travesty, and I can't help but think that if this had happened to a rich, pretty white girl, it first of all would have been all over the newspapers, and second of all, the lawsuit would have been for millions. Clearly, our society values certain people over others.
Here is an excellent article entitled "What Katrina Teaches Us About Racism"
http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Gilman/
There have been many lessons learned from Katrina, and many ugly truths revealed by Katrina. This morning I read the top story in the Seattle Times about a 13-year-old girl who had been raped by a caregiver who had been employed by YouthCare, a non-profit organization that was supposed to provide a safe haven for runaway adolescents. The Seattle Times has been opening up court cases that have been closed from the public for various reasons, presumably because they would cause people or organizations involved in the case much embarrassment. This was no exception, and I bring it up because it reminds me of the privilege and oppression that divide the haves and the have nots--the ulgy truth that was revealed by Katrina.
In the rape case, it was a clear case of rape; however, because YouthCare was well-connected with important people on the board, a decision was made to blame the 13-year-old, saying she was partially responsible, even though the caregiver had a criminal background which had never been checked, and the evidence showed it was not consensual. The whole thing was a travesty, and I can't help but think that if this had happened to a rich, pretty white girl, it first of all would have been all over the newspapers, and second of all, the lawsuit would have been for millions. Clearly, our society values certain people over others.
Here is an excellent article entitled "What Katrina Teaches Us About Racism"
http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Gilman/
Monday, July 24, 2006
A wonderful weekend in Minneapolis
I just spent a wonderful weekend with great people in Minneapolis. All of us were in the diversity field--some of us seasoned diversity consultants and others less experienced but eager to learn more.
Being in Minneapolis with like-minded, creative people reconfirmed for me that I'm doing what I was always meant to do. Like one of the people said, "We're so lucky that we GET to do this work!" Amen to that!
Being in Minneapolis with like-minded, creative people reconfirmed for me that I'm doing what I was always meant to do. Like one of the people said, "We're so lucky that we GET to do this work!" Amen to that!
Friday, May 05, 2006
Asian Pacific Islander Community Leadership Foundation
On May 25th, I will be facilitating a workshop on Communication and Conflict Resolution for the Asian Pacific Islander Community Leadership Foundation (ACLF). ACLF was organized in 1998 in response to a growing concern about the need to identify, train, and mentor community members for future leadership. They provide an environment that fosters the development of individual leadership, community strength and inter-community unity to promote issues critical to Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs). They accomplish this through leadership training, community service, and mentorship.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Comments on so-called "Reverse Racism"
I received an email containing an article which comments about Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans, and accusations that were leveled at him regarding his recent description of New Orleans as a "Chocolate City." This article really points out the disparity in perspective on race between whites and people of color.
Chocolate City?
By Tim Wise
ZNet Commentary, January 30, 2006
If you're looking to understand why discussions between blacks and whites about racism are often so difficult in this country, you need only know this: when the subject is race and racism, whites and blacks are often not talking about the same thing. To white folks, racism is seen mostly as individual and interpersonal--as with the uttering of a prejudicial remark or bigoted slur. For blacks, it is that too, but typically more: namely, it is the pattern and practice of policies and social institutions, which have the effect of perpetuating deeply embedded structural inequalities between people on the basis of race. To blacks, and most folks of color, racism is systemic. To whites, it is purely personal.
These differences in perception make sense, of course. After all, whites have not been the targets of systemic racism in this country, so it is much easier for us to view the matter in personal terms. If we have ever been targeted for our race, it has been only on that individual, albeit regrettable, level.
But for people of color, racism has long been experienced as an institutional phenomenon. It is the experience of systematized discrimination in housing, employment, schools or the justice system. It is the knowledge that one's entire group is under suspicion, at risk of being treated negatively because of stereotypes held by persons with the power to act on the basis of those beliefs (and the incentive to do so, as a way to retain their own disproportionate share of that power and authority).
The differences in white and black perceptions of the issue were on full display recently, when whites accused New Orleans' Mayor Ray Nagin of racism for saying that New Orleans should be and would be a "chocolate city" again, after blacks dislocated by Katrina had a chance to return. To one commentator after the other -- most of them white, but a few blacks as well -- the remark was by definition racist, since it seemed to imply that whites weren't wanted, or at least not if it meant changing the demographics of the city from mostly African American (which it was before the storm) to mostly white, which it is now, pending the return of black folks.
To prove how racist the comment was, critics offered an analogy. What would we call it, they asked, if a white politician announced that their town would or should be a "vanilla" city, meaning that it was going to retain its white majority? Since we would most certainly call such a remark racist in the case of the white pol, consistency requires that we call Nagin's remark racist as well.
Seems logical enough, only it's not. And the reason it's not goes to the very heart of what racism is and what it isn't--and the way in which the different perceptions between whites and blacks on the matter continue to thwart rational conversations on the subject.
Before dealing with the white politician/vanilla city analogy, let's quickly examine a few simple reasons why Nagin's remarks fail the test of racism. First, there is nothing to suggest that his comment about New Orleans retaining its black majority portended a dislike of whites, let alone plans to keep them out. In fact, if we simply examine Nagin's own personal history -- which has been obscured by many on the right since Katrina who have tried to charge him with being a liberal black Democrat -- we would immediately recognize the absurdity of the charge. Nagin owes his political career not to New Orleans' blacks, but New Orleans' white folks. It was whites who voted for him, at a rate of nearly ninety percent, while blacks only supported him at a rate of forty-two percent, preferring instead the city's chief of police (which itself says something: black folks in a city with a history of police brutality preferring the cop to this guy).
Nagin has always been, in the eyes of most black New Orleanians, pretty vanilla: he was a corporate vice-President, a supporter of President Bush, and a lifelong Republican prior to changing parties right before the Mayoral race.
Secondly, given the ways in which displaced blacks especially have been struggling to return -- getting the run-around with insurance payments, or dealing with landlords seeking to evict them (or jacking up rents to a point where they can't afford to return) -- one can safely intuit that all Nagin was doing was trying to reassure folks that they were wanted back and wouldn't be prevented from re-entering the city.
And finally, Nagin's remarks were less about demography per se, than an attempt to speak to the cultural heritage of the town, and the desire to retain the African and Afro-Caribbean flavor of one of the world's most celebrated cities. Fact is, culturally speaking, New Orleans is what New Orleans is, because of the chocolate to which Nagin referred. True enough, many others have contributed to the unique gumbo that is New Orleans, but can anyone seriously doubt that the predominant flavor in that gumbo has been that inspired by the city's black community? If so, then you've never lived there or spent much time in the city (and no, pissing on the street during Mardi Gras or drinking a badly-made Hurricane at Pat O'Brian's doesn't count).
If the city loses its black cultural core (which is not out of the question if the black majority doesn't or is unable to return), then indeed New Orleans itself will cease to exist, as we know it. That is surely what Nagin was saying, and it is simply impossible to think that mentioning the black cultural core of the city and demanding that it will and should be retained is racist: doing so fits no definition of racism anywhere, in any dictionary, on the planet.
As for the analogy with a white leader demanding the retention of a vanilla majority in his town, the two scenarios are not even remotely similar, precisely because of how racism has operated, historically, and today, to determine who lives where and who doesn't. For a white politician to demand that his or her city was going to remain, in effect, white, would be quite different, and far worse than what Nagin said. After all, when cities, suburbs or towns are overwhelmingly white, there are reasons (both historic and contemporary) having to do with discrimination and unequal access for people of color. Restrictive covenants, redlining by banks, racially-restrictive homesteading rights, and even policies prohibiting people of color from living in an area altogether -- four things that whites have never experienced anywhere in this nation (as whites) -- were commonly deployed against black and brown folks throughout our history. James Loewen's newest book, Sundown Towns, tells the story of hundreds of these efforts in communities across the nation, and makes clear that vanilla suburbs and towns have become so deliberately.
On the other hand, chocolate cities have not developed because whites have been barred or even discouraged from entry (indeed, cities often bend over backwards to encourage whites to move to the cities in the name of economic revival), but rather, because whites long ago fled in order to get away from black people. In fact, this white flight was directly subsidized by the government, which spent billions of dollars on highway construction (which helped whites get from work in the cities to homes in the 'burbs) and low-cost loans, essentially available only to whites in those newly developing residential spaces. The blackness of the cities increased as a direct result of the institutionally racist policies of the government, in concert with private sector discrimination, which kept folks of color locked in crowded urban spaces, even as whites could come and go as they pleased.
So for a politician to suggest that a previously brown city should remain majority "chocolate" is merely to demand that those who had always been willing to stay and make the town their home, should be able to remain there and not be run off in the name of gentrification, commercial development or urban renewal. It is to demand the eradication of barriers for those blacks who otherwise might have a hard time returning, not to call for the erection of barriers to whites--barriers that have never existed in the first place, and which there would be no power to impose in any event (quite unlike the barriers that have been set up to block access for the black and brown).
In short, to call for a vanilla majority is to call for the perpetuation of obstacles to persons of color, while to call for a chocolate majority in a place such as New Orleans is to call merely for the continuation of access and the opportunity for black folks to live there. Is that too much to ask?
Funny how Nagin's comments simply calling for the retention of a chocolate New Orleans bring down calls of racism upon his head, while the very real and active planning of the city's white elite -- people like Joe Cannizaro and Jimmy Reiss -- to actually change it to a majority white town, elicits no attention or condemnation whatsoever from white folks. In other words, talking about blacks being able to come back and make up the majority is racist, while actually engaging in ethnic cleansing -- by demolishing black neighborhoods like the lower ninth ward, the Treme, or New Orleans East as many want to do -- is seen as legitimate economic development policy.
It's also interesting that whites chose the "chocolate city" part of Nagin's speech, delivered on MLK day, as the portion deserving condemnation as racist, rather than the next part--the part in which Nagin said that Katrina was God's wrath, brought on by the sinful ways of black folks, what with their crime rates, out-of-wedlock childbirths and general wickedness.
In other words, if Nagin casts aspersions upon blacks as a group -- truth be told, the textbook definition of racism -- whites have no problem with that. Hell, most whites agree with those kinds of anti-black views, according to polling and survey data. But if Nagin suggests that those same blacks -- including, presumably the "wicked" ones -- be allowed to come back and live in New Orleans, thereby maintaining a black majority, that becomes the problem for whites, for reasons that are as self-evident as they are (and will remain) undiscussed.
Until white folks get as upset about racism actually limiting the life choices and chances of people of color, as we do about black folks hurting our feelings, it's unlikely things will get much better. In the end, it's hard to take seriously those who fume against this so-called reverse racism, so petty is the complaint, and so thin the ivory skin of those who issue it.
Tim Wise is the author of White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull, 2005) and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge, 2005). He can be reached at timjwise@msn.com
Chocolate City?
By Tim Wise
ZNet Commentary, January 30, 2006
If you're looking to understand why discussions between blacks and whites about racism are often so difficult in this country, you need only know this: when the subject is race and racism, whites and blacks are often not talking about the same thing. To white folks, racism is seen mostly as individual and interpersonal--as with the uttering of a prejudicial remark or bigoted slur. For blacks, it is that too, but typically more: namely, it is the pattern and practice of policies and social institutions, which have the effect of perpetuating deeply embedded structural inequalities between people on the basis of race. To blacks, and most folks of color, racism is systemic. To whites, it is purely personal.
These differences in perception make sense, of course. After all, whites have not been the targets of systemic racism in this country, so it is much easier for us to view the matter in personal terms. If we have ever been targeted for our race, it has been only on that individual, albeit regrettable, level.
But for people of color, racism has long been experienced as an institutional phenomenon. It is the experience of systematized discrimination in housing, employment, schools or the justice system. It is the knowledge that one's entire group is under suspicion, at risk of being treated negatively because of stereotypes held by persons with the power to act on the basis of those beliefs (and the incentive to do so, as a way to retain their own disproportionate share of that power and authority).
The differences in white and black perceptions of the issue were on full display recently, when whites accused New Orleans' Mayor Ray Nagin of racism for saying that New Orleans should be and would be a "chocolate city" again, after blacks dislocated by Katrina had a chance to return. To one commentator after the other -- most of them white, but a few blacks as well -- the remark was by definition racist, since it seemed to imply that whites weren't wanted, or at least not if it meant changing the demographics of the city from mostly African American (which it was before the storm) to mostly white, which it is now, pending the return of black folks.
To prove how racist the comment was, critics offered an analogy. What would we call it, they asked, if a white politician announced that their town would or should be a "vanilla" city, meaning that it was going to retain its white majority? Since we would most certainly call such a remark racist in the case of the white pol, consistency requires that we call Nagin's remark racist as well.
Seems logical enough, only it's not. And the reason it's not goes to the very heart of what racism is and what it isn't--and the way in which the different perceptions between whites and blacks on the matter continue to thwart rational conversations on the subject.
Before dealing with the white politician/vanilla city analogy, let's quickly examine a few simple reasons why Nagin's remarks fail the test of racism. First, there is nothing to suggest that his comment about New Orleans retaining its black majority portended a dislike of whites, let alone plans to keep them out. In fact, if we simply examine Nagin's own personal history -- which has been obscured by many on the right since Katrina who have tried to charge him with being a liberal black Democrat -- we would immediately recognize the absurdity of the charge. Nagin owes his political career not to New Orleans' blacks, but New Orleans' white folks. It was whites who voted for him, at a rate of nearly ninety percent, while blacks only supported him at a rate of forty-two percent, preferring instead the city's chief of police (which itself says something: black folks in a city with a history of police brutality preferring the cop to this guy).
Nagin has always been, in the eyes of most black New Orleanians, pretty vanilla: he was a corporate vice-President, a supporter of President Bush, and a lifelong Republican prior to changing parties right before the Mayoral race.
Secondly, given the ways in which displaced blacks especially have been struggling to return -- getting the run-around with insurance payments, or dealing with landlords seeking to evict them (or jacking up rents to a point where they can't afford to return) -- one can safely intuit that all Nagin was doing was trying to reassure folks that they were wanted back and wouldn't be prevented from re-entering the city.
And finally, Nagin's remarks were less about demography per se, than an attempt to speak to the cultural heritage of the town, and the desire to retain the African and Afro-Caribbean flavor of one of the world's most celebrated cities. Fact is, culturally speaking, New Orleans is what New Orleans is, because of the chocolate to which Nagin referred. True enough, many others have contributed to the unique gumbo that is New Orleans, but can anyone seriously doubt that the predominant flavor in that gumbo has been that inspired by the city's black community? If so, then you've never lived there or spent much time in the city (and no, pissing on the street during Mardi Gras or drinking a badly-made Hurricane at Pat O'Brian's doesn't count).
If the city loses its black cultural core (which is not out of the question if the black majority doesn't or is unable to return), then indeed New Orleans itself will cease to exist, as we know it. That is surely what Nagin was saying, and it is simply impossible to think that mentioning the black cultural core of the city and demanding that it will and should be retained is racist: doing so fits no definition of racism anywhere, in any dictionary, on the planet.
As for the analogy with a white leader demanding the retention of a vanilla majority in his town, the two scenarios are not even remotely similar, precisely because of how racism has operated, historically, and today, to determine who lives where and who doesn't. For a white politician to demand that his or her city was going to remain, in effect, white, would be quite different, and far worse than what Nagin said. After all, when cities, suburbs or towns are overwhelmingly white, there are reasons (both historic and contemporary) having to do with discrimination and unequal access for people of color. Restrictive covenants, redlining by banks, racially-restrictive homesteading rights, and even policies prohibiting people of color from living in an area altogether -- four things that whites have never experienced anywhere in this nation (as whites) -- were commonly deployed against black and brown folks throughout our history. James Loewen's newest book, Sundown Towns, tells the story of hundreds of these efforts in communities across the nation, and makes clear that vanilla suburbs and towns have become so deliberately.
On the other hand, chocolate cities have not developed because whites have been barred or even discouraged from entry (indeed, cities often bend over backwards to encourage whites to move to the cities in the name of economic revival), but rather, because whites long ago fled in order to get away from black people. In fact, this white flight was directly subsidized by the government, which spent billions of dollars on highway construction (which helped whites get from work in the cities to homes in the 'burbs) and low-cost loans, essentially available only to whites in those newly developing residential spaces. The blackness of the cities increased as a direct result of the institutionally racist policies of the government, in concert with private sector discrimination, which kept folks of color locked in crowded urban spaces, even as whites could come and go as they pleased.
So for a politician to suggest that a previously brown city should remain majority "chocolate" is merely to demand that those who had always been willing to stay and make the town their home, should be able to remain there and not be run off in the name of gentrification, commercial development or urban renewal. It is to demand the eradication of barriers for those blacks who otherwise might have a hard time returning, not to call for the erection of barriers to whites--barriers that have never existed in the first place, and which there would be no power to impose in any event (quite unlike the barriers that have been set up to block access for the black and brown).
In short, to call for a vanilla majority is to call for the perpetuation of obstacles to persons of color, while to call for a chocolate majority in a place such as New Orleans is to call merely for the continuation of access and the opportunity for black folks to live there. Is that too much to ask?
Funny how Nagin's comments simply calling for the retention of a chocolate New Orleans bring down calls of racism upon his head, while the very real and active planning of the city's white elite -- people like Joe Cannizaro and Jimmy Reiss -- to actually change it to a majority white town, elicits no attention or condemnation whatsoever from white folks. In other words, talking about blacks being able to come back and make up the majority is racist, while actually engaging in ethnic cleansing -- by demolishing black neighborhoods like the lower ninth ward, the Treme, or New Orleans East as many want to do -- is seen as legitimate economic development policy.
It's also interesting that whites chose the "chocolate city" part of Nagin's speech, delivered on MLK day, as the portion deserving condemnation as racist, rather than the next part--the part in which Nagin said that Katrina was God's wrath, brought on by the sinful ways of black folks, what with their crime rates, out-of-wedlock childbirths and general wickedness.
In other words, if Nagin casts aspersions upon blacks as a group -- truth be told, the textbook definition of racism -- whites have no problem with that. Hell, most whites agree with those kinds of anti-black views, according to polling and survey data. But if Nagin suggests that those same blacks -- including, presumably the "wicked" ones -- be allowed to come back and live in New Orleans, thereby maintaining a black majority, that becomes the problem for whites, for reasons that are as self-evident as they are (and will remain) undiscussed.
Until white folks get as upset about racism actually limiting the life choices and chances of people of color, as we do about black folks hurting our feelings, it's unlikely things will get much better. In the end, it's hard to take seriously those who fume against this so-called reverse racism, so petty is the complaint, and so thin the ivory skin of those who issue it.
Tim Wise is the author of White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull, 2005) and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge, 2005). He can be reached at timjwise@msn.com
Friday, December 16, 2005
Weighing In On "The Apprentice"
I have been a huge fan of "The Apprentice" since Season One. I tune in every Thursday to watch the contestants complete their tasks and I love watching the drama unfold in the apartment and in the boardroom. There's always someone you love to hate and someone you're rooting for to take it all. This season, it seemed from the beginning that Randal Pinkett, an African-American male, was poised from the beginning to be the big winner. He was a natural leader, he won all three tasks that he managed, and when teams were asked to bring a contestant over from another team, Randal was always the top choice. In addition, he has five degrees, including degrees from Oxford and M.I.T. He has a Ph.D. and is a Rhodes Scholar. He owns a multi-million dollar consulting firm and is a charismatic public speaker. And he's NICE. Every other contestant, with the exception of Toral, felt Randal should be the winner.
Randal's competition was Rebecca Jarvis, a 23-year-old financial journalist from Chicago. While intelligent and tough, she was certainly no match for Randal. Furthermore, her record as a project manager was 1 win and 2 losses. And during the final task, not only did she not raise any money for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, she completely lost sight of the fact that the CHARITY was her client, not Yahoo. So she tried to appease Yahoo, and in doing so, did not raise any money that evening for the charity. She also did not go out to meet Trump when he arrived in his limo (Randal did go out to meet Trump when he arrived in his helicopter). She made some huge mistakes.
So Trump hired Randal, which was the obvious choice; HOWEVER, after he hired Randal he did something that was unforgivable, in my estimation. He asked Randal if he felt he should hire Rebecca too! He completely put Randal on the spot, and basically gave Randal the power to make that decision. I applaud Randal's decision--he said that there was ONE Apprentice, and that while he respected Rebecca's talent, he felt there was one job.
This has caused much division and uproar. Some people immediately have jumped to the conclusion that Randal was selfish and arrogant not to share his victory with Rebecca, and by doing so, he would have lost nothing. Others feel that he did the right thing, and that Trump should have never put Randal in that position in the first place, and that if the tables were turned, and Randal were white and Rebecca were black, this would not have happened.
I happen to agree with the second camp. Randal was by far a superior candidate to Rebecca. It was obvious to almost every contestant and if one were to look back at previous seasons, Trump has NEVER asked the Apprentice to share his/her victory, and in both Seasons One and Two, the runners-up were much more highly qualified than Rebecca. Kwame Jackson from Season One was a Harvard graduate with an impeccable resume. Yes, he made some mistakes on his final task, but so did Rebecca. Jennifer from Season Two was an accomplished attorney and very well-spoken, and she lost because her record as a Project Manager was not as good as Kelly's, just as Rebecca's record was not as good as Randal's perfect record. (Season Three there was no contest--Kendra was clearly superior to Tana.) So now we're in Season Four and we have a highly capable, highly educated, extremely experienced African-American male who can run circles around a young, white female, and he's put in the position of asking to SHARE his victory? Something is very wrong here.
I strongly believe that what happened here reflects the fact that people of color have to be 10 times as good just to get to the same place as a white person. It also reflects the real existence of white privilege. I do not for one minute believe that if Rebecca were a woman of color and had made the same mistakes that she made in the final task that Trump would be offering her the Apprenticeship alongside Randal. And judging from many of the posts I've read about this, many people of color, who have lived through this type of experience, agree with me.
I do not know what Donald Trump's intent was or what prompted him to do what he did. But it was irresponsible and just did more to further the racial animosity that exists in our society. He clearly felt Randal was the best--he should have left it at that.
There was a post that I'd like to share that clearly encapsulated how I believe many people of color feel about this issue:
"If you have never walked in a black man's shoes NEVER talk to us about using the "Race Card". It still is difficult being black in this country and Randall should have been left with the spotlight. I do not think it should be shame on Randall it should be shame on Trump for even putting him in that position. Each apprentice works hard for that one coveted position and I do not expect that to be asked of anyone who wins. And surprise it wasn’t asked of anyone until Randall. In the past I felt the last two candidates were even more equally matched. Closer than a Rhodes Scholar that is part owner of a multi million dollar company and several degrees and a 23 year old journalist with very good accomplishments but none that come close to matching Randall. Not use the race card? We as blacks in this country know that you have to be at least 10 times better to get the same position as a white person. Hence, Rhodes Scholar, 5 degrees including one from Oxford and one from MIT and thus being asked to share the spotlight with 2 degrees from the University of Chicago. Both impressive but be real one truly outshines the other. It was and will always be an insult that Trump even asked Randall that question. That should have never been in the first place. See it without color. Try being black for a day you would be shocked by what you perceive and what is reality in our world! No racism is NOT over and do not say so unless you have been black for at least a day. It’s a totally different world for us. "
Randal's competition was Rebecca Jarvis, a 23-year-old financial journalist from Chicago. While intelligent and tough, she was certainly no match for Randal. Furthermore, her record as a project manager was 1 win and 2 losses. And during the final task, not only did she not raise any money for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, she completely lost sight of the fact that the CHARITY was her client, not Yahoo. So she tried to appease Yahoo, and in doing so, did not raise any money that evening for the charity. She also did not go out to meet Trump when he arrived in his limo (Randal did go out to meet Trump when he arrived in his helicopter). She made some huge mistakes.
So Trump hired Randal, which was the obvious choice; HOWEVER, after he hired Randal he did something that was unforgivable, in my estimation. He asked Randal if he felt he should hire Rebecca too! He completely put Randal on the spot, and basically gave Randal the power to make that decision. I applaud Randal's decision--he said that there was ONE Apprentice, and that while he respected Rebecca's talent, he felt there was one job.
This has caused much division and uproar. Some people immediately have jumped to the conclusion that Randal was selfish and arrogant not to share his victory with Rebecca, and by doing so, he would have lost nothing. Others feel that he did the right thing, and that Trump should have never put Randal in that position in the first place, and that if the tables were turned, and Randal were white and Rebecca were black, this would not have happened.
I happen to agree with the second camp. Randal was by far a superior candidate to Rebecca. It was obvious to almost every contestant and if one were to look back at previous seasons, Trump has NEVER asked the Apprentice to share his/her victory, and in both Seasons One and Two, the runners-up were much more highly qualified than Rebecca. Kwame Jackson from Season One was a Harvard graduate with an impeccable resume. Yes, he made some mistakes on his final task, but so did Rebecca. Jennifer from Season Two was an accomplished attorney and very well-spoken, and she lost because her record as a Project Manager was not as good as Kelly's, just as Rebecca's record was not as good as Randal's perfect record. (Season Three there was no contest--Kendra was clearly superior to Tana.) So now we're in Season Four and we have a highly capable, highly educated, extremely experienced African-American male who can run circles around a young, white female, and he's put in the position of asking to SHARE his victory? Something is very wrong here.
I strongly believe that what happened here reflects the fact that people of color have to be 10 times as good just to get to the same place as a white person. It also reflects the real existence of white privilege. I do not for one minute believe that if Rebecca were a woman of color and had made the same mistakes that she made in the final task that Trump would be offering her the Apprenticeship alongside Randal. And judging from many of the posts I've read about this, many people of color, who have lived through this type of experience, agree with me.
I do not know what Donald Trump's intent was or what prompted him to do what he did. But it was irresponsible and just did more to further the racial animosity that exists in our society. He clearly felt Randal was the best--he should have left it at that.
There was a post that I'd like to share that clearly encapsulated how I believe many people of color feel about this issue:
"If you have never walked in a black man's shoes NEVER talk to us about using the "Race Card". It still is difficult being black in this country and Randall should have been left with the spotlight. I do not think it should be shame on Randall it should be shame on Trump for even putting him in that position. Each apprentice works hard for that one coveted position and I do not expect that to be asked of anyone who wins. And surprise it wasn’t asked of anyone until Randall. In the past I felt the last two candidates were even more equally matched. Closer than a Rhodes Scholar that is part owner of a multi million dollar company and several degrees and a 23 year old journalist with very good accomplishments but none that come close to matching Randall. Not use the race card? We as blacks in this country know that you have to be at least 10 times better to get the same position as a white person. Hence, Rhodes Scholar, 5 degrees including one from Oxford and one from MIT and thus being asked to share the spotlight with 2 degrees from the University of Chicago. Both impressive but be real one truly outshines the other. It was and will always be an insult that Trump even asked Randall that question. That should have never been in the first place. See it without color. Try being black for a day you would be shocked by what you perceive and what is reality in our world! No racism is NOT over and do not say so unless you have been black for at least a day. It’s a totally different world for us. "
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
A Surprise in My Mailbox
Although I LOVE the work I do, it has its challenges. There are people who just don't believe this training is necessary. They feel that we should all see ourselves as the same, as if that will fix all of society's woes, as if pretending that we're all treated equitably and and if we hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" everything will be okay. (It's called "minimization".) There are those who see "multiculturalism" as an evil word, and see those of us who teach multiculturalism as the devil reincarnated.
So these people sit in class and act out. They are passive-aggressive. When we ask what their expectations are for the day, they say they expect that they are not going to have to go through this training every year. Some read the newspaper through the entire training. They challenge everything we say. One student of mine in a college class I teach even filed a formal complaint against me and threatened legal action against the college.
So when my faith is tested, I will turn to the card I received in the mail today from Dr. Cap Peck, the Director of Teacher Education at the University of Washington. It was addressed to him from Robin, one of my former students in my "Multiculturalism and Anti-Bias in Early Childhood Education" class at Green River Community College. The Masters in Teaching program requires that all incoming students take a class that fulfills an "Education of an Ethnic Group" requirement. Because she had taught English as a Second Language in Japan, she had petitioned to have the requirement waived; however, her petition for a waiver was denied. So she wound up taking my class. In her card she writes to Dr. Peck, "I'm writing now to thank you as it turned out to be one of the best courses I've taken in my college career...You are probably not able to advocate for one teacher, or one class over another, but I hope the TEP people will continue suggesting this class--taught by Meg Tapucol-Provo--as one way of fulfilling the requirement--I think everyone in the class came away with a greater awareness of their own personal biases (however uncomfortable that may be) and an awareness of our cultural biases. A truly great class. I feel as though I see the world through a different lens now."
That was just a small excerpt of what she said, but suffice it to say, it makes this work really worth it to know that I've affected people in that way. I was so fortunate to have a summer quarter in which everyone was so open-minded and willing to view things from perspectives other than their own. Thanks Robin, you were a great student, and I know you'll be a great teacher someday too.
So these people sit in class and act out. They are passive-aggressive. When we ask what their expectations are for the day, they say they expect that they are not going to have to go through this training every year. Some read the newspaper through the entire training. They challenge everything we say. One student of mine in a college class I teach even filed a formal complaint against me and threatened legal action against the college.
So when my faith is tested, I will turn to the card I received in the mail today from Dr. Cap Peck, the Director of Teacher Education at the University of Washington. It was addressed to him from Robin, one of my former students in my "Multiculturalism and Anti-Bias in Early Childhood Education" class at Green River Community College. The Masters in Teaching program requires that all incoming students take a class that fulfills an "Education of an Ethnic Group" requirement. Because she had taught English as a Second Language in Japan, she had petitioned to have the requirement waived; however, her petition for a waiver was denied. So she wound up taking my class. In her card she writes to Dr. Peck, "I'm writing now to thank you as it turned out to be one of the best courses I've taken in my college career...You are probably not able to advocate for one teacher, or one class over another, but I hope the TEP people will continue suggesting this class--taught by Meg Tapucol-Provo--as one way of fulfilling the requirement--I think everyone in the class came away with a greater awareness of their own personal biases (however uncomfortable that may be) and an awareness of our cultural biases. A truly great class. I feel as though I see the world through a different lens now."
That was just a small excerpt of what she said, but suffice it to say, it makes this work really worth it to know that I've affected people in that way. I was so fortunate to have a summer quarter in which everyone was so open-minded and willing to view things from perspectives other than their own. Thanks Robin, you were a great student, and I know you'll be a great teacher someday too.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
A Surprising Response to the Dr. Phil Show
On Thursday, September 22nd, the Dr. Phil Show focused on the theme of racism. I was pleased, because rarely do you see this topic addressed in the mainstream media. He interviewed a racist white man whose daughter was pregnant and expecting a biracial child. He spoke with an African-American man who was accused of acting "too white". And he interviewed an African-American woman whose daughter has been missing since 1999, and discussed at length the "pretty white girl" syndrome, in which young, attractive, middle-class white girls who go missing are covered at length in the media while there is no coverage of young women of color (think Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy, Natalie Holloway).
I felt this was an excellent show that tackled a sensitive topic with candor. I'm glad that finally someone talked about the things that our society is so loathe to talk about. I wanted to post something on the Dr. Phil discussion board, but when I went there, I was shocked to see numerous posts of this ilk:
NO I AM NOT A RACIST
I TRUELY BELIEVE BLACKS ARE RACIST TRUELY. I HAVE NEVER SEEN SO MANY BLACKS ATTACK WHITES .WHITES LOST EVERYTHING THEY HAD AND THEY DIED IN THE HURRICANE AS WELL AS BLACKS. DO BLACKS NOT REALIZE WHITES SUFFER TO. ALOT OF WHITES ARE AS POOR AND IN NEED AS THEY ARE. AND TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH BLACKS GET ALOT MORE BENIFITS FROM THE GOVERMENT AND STATES THEN POOR WHITES. I WOULD LOVE FOR DR. PHIL TO TALK ABOUT POOR WHITES AND SHOW THAT WHITES SUFFER TO. IT IS NOT FAIR TO SHOW ONLY BLACKS WHO ARE POOR . SHOW THE WHITES TO.GRANDMAFUZ
This is but one example. Each post that echoed this sentiment would start off with "I'm not a racist, but..." Frankly, these people just don't get it. It was as if the entire message the show was trying to convey went in one ear and out the other. But what's scary is that I wonder how many people truly feel that way. I can sit here and think to myself, well she's just an uneducated person who can't even spell, what does she know? But I'm not that naive that I don't know that there are a LOT of educated people who also think these thoughts--and they just put a more politically correct, educated spin on it. It's scary to me to think, am I in the minority in my way of thinking? Do most people in the United States share the same sentiments as Grandmafuz? Am I out of touch because I surround myself with those who think like me?
Then there were the posts (written much more articulately, I must say, and not in all caps) which were in response to these ridiculous diatribes. Many of them would call them on the carpet and basically tell them that by virtue of the fact that they wrote what they wrote, they were racist.
I was at a party a couple of weeks ago and an acquaintance who I hadn't seen in a while asked me what I'd been up to. I told him I was still doing cultural competency training. He responded, "We're still doing that shit?" At first I was taken aback by his response, but I think he meant that here it is 2005 and we still need training on how to get along with people who are different than us.
Judging from the posts on Dr. Phil's discussion board, we have a long, long way to go.
I felt this was an excellent show that tackled a sensitive topic with candor. I'm glad that finally someone talked about the things that our society is so loathe to talk about. I wanted to post something on the Dr. Phil discussion board, but when I went there, I was shocked to see numerous posts of this ilk:
NO I AM NOT A RACIST
I TRUELY BELIEVE BLACKS ARE RACIST TRUELY. I HAVE NEVER SEEN SO MANY BLACKS ATTACK WHITES .WHITES LOST EVERYTHING THEY HAD AND THEY DIED IN THE HURRICANE AS WELL AS BLACKS. DO BLACKS NOT REALIZE WHITES SUFFER TO. ALOT OF WHITES ARE AS POOR AND IN NEED AS THEY ARE. AND TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH BLACKS GET ALOT MORE BENIFITS FROM THE GOVERMENT AND STATES THEN POOR WHITES. I WOULD LOVE FOR DR. PHIL TO TALK ABOUT POOR WHITES AND SHOW THAT WHITES SUFFER TO. IT IS NOT FAIR TO SHOW ONLY BLACKS WHO ARE POOR . SHOW THE WHITES TO.GRANDMAFUZ
This is but one example. Each post that echoed this sentiment would start off with "I'm not a racist, but..." Frankly, these people just don't get it. It was as if the entire message the show was trying to convey went in one ear and out the other. But what's scary is that I wonder how many people truly feel that way. I can sit here and think to myself, well she's just an uneducated person who can't even spell, what does she know? But I'm not that naive that I don't know that there are a LOT of educated people who also think these thoughts--and they just put a more politically correct, educated spin on it. It's scary to me to think, am I in the minority in my way of thinking? Do most people in the United States share the same sentiments as Grandmafuz? Am I out of touch because I surround myself with those who think like me?
Then there were the posts (written much more articulately, I must say, and not in all caps) which were in response to these ridiculous diatribes. Many of them would call them on the carpet and basically tell them that by virtue of the fact that they wrote what they wrote, they were racist.
I was at a party a couple of weeks ago and an acquaintance who I hadn't seen in a while asked me what I'd been up to. I told him I was still doing cultural competency training. He responded, "We're still doing that shit?" At first I was taken aback by his response, but I think he meant that here it is 2005 and we still need training on how to get along with people who are different than us.
Judging from the posts on Dr. Phil's discussion board, we have a long, long way to go.
Friday, September 16, 2005
The Different Faces of Racism
I was watching an interview of former President Bill Clinton this morning on The Today Show. He was asked by Matt Lauer whether he felt the response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans would have been different if the people in the Convention Center had been middle-class and white as opposed to poor and African-American. I thought his answer was excellent--I have always felt that he has a much better understanding of racial issues than the people in the current administration, who try to dismiss any connection to race. What he said was that although he did not feel that there was any conscious racism in terms of how the government responded, he did feel that in terms of being prepared, the people in charge really were not attuned to the needs of those who were disenfranchised, and that in any disaster preparedness plan, you need to take into account things like, "How are people going to get out of the city if they don't have transportation?" What he was talking about, in essence, was institutionalized racism. What we saw, in living color, were the effects of institutionalized racism.
Barack Obama characterizes the federal response to Katrina as a "continuation of passive indifference," stating that it reflects the unthinking assumption that all Americans have "the capacity to load up their family in an SUV, fill it up with $100 worth of gasoline, stick some bottled water in the trunk and use a credit card to check into a hotel on safe ground."
However, every day, I receive something in my email inbox of acts of individual racism that happened in New Orleans as well. Blatant, out and out, in your face racism. Here is yet another story from someone who survived, a lawyer named Peter Berkowitz who happened to be in New Orleans when the hurricane hit.
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3405/
And this week's issue of Newsweek reported this disturbing scene:
"Over the course of two days, a white river-taxi operator from hard-hit St. Bernard Parish rescued scores of people from flooded areas and ferried them to safety. All were white. 'A n--ger is a n--ger is a n--ger.' he told a Newseek reporter. Then he said it again."
Barack Obama characterizes the federal response to Katrina as a "continuation of passive indifference," stating that it reflects the unthinking assumption that all Americans have "the capacity to load up their family in an SUV, fill it up with $100 worth of gasoline, stick some bottled water in the trunk and use a credit card to check into a hotel on safe ground."
However, every day, I receive something in my email inbox of acts of individual racism that happened in New Orleans as well. Blatant, out and out, in your face racism. Here is yet another story from someone who survived, a lawyer named Peter Berkowitz who happened to be in New Orleans when the hurricane hit.
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3405/
And this week's issue of Newsweek reported this disturbing scene:
"Over the course of two days, a white river-taxi operator from hard-hit St. Bernard Parish rescued scores of people from flooded areas and ferried them to safety. All were white. 'A n--ger is a n--ger is a n--ger.' he told a Newseek reporter. Then he said it again."
Yet people are still saying race isn't an issue.
Although I didn't watch Bush's entire speech last night, apparently he did acknowledge that what happened in New Orleans exposed some ugly truths about the racial and class divide that is rooted in racial discrimination in this country. Now that he's acknowledged it, let's see what he's planning to do about it. I'm also curious to see what the right-wing pundits, who throughout the past couple weeks have insisted that race has nothing to do with it, are going to say now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)