I'm still standing (yeah, yeah, yeah)
Phelps at The Everlasting Phelps has commented on Where We Stand in a post titled, interestingly enough, Standing (Until We Knock Each Other Down Again). The title makes me want to discuss the points he comments on (there are only two) in detail.
Phelphs feels my saying "White people have only had free people of other races around them for two generations" is a bit imprecise:
When you talk about race in America, 90% of the people seem to take into account only Black and White, and it is as if the other races (whatever race means) don't matter. Which brings me to my point -- white people have only had free black people around them for two generations.
I'm not sure the clarification changes anything, but there's two things here: why people fall into that trap and why I step into it.
People fall into the trap because race relationships historically have been defined as white/non-white. More precisely, as fully recognized citizens/everyone else. A dichotomy. A little while ago I thoroughly annoyed a dear friend with the following bit of sarcasm, which I still stand by:
Kind of a random thought that occurred to me while reading comments:
Division: White
Divisions seen: White, You-ain't-white
Division: Black
Divisions seen: Black, White, You-think-you're-white
Division: Everyone else
Divisions seen: White, I'm-as-good-as-white, Black
As to my working within the dichotomy, it's a simple matter of "going where the money is."
There's a problem with the requirement of fully defining things. Since I'm in full mathmatical mode this weekend, I'll explain it using the concept of a line. A line is defined by two points. Euclidean geometry holds that a line is infinite in length because it assumes a flat infinite space. But if your plane is the surface of a ball it is unbounded, not infinite. And the line is a circumference, having a measurable length.
Point being, what a definition indicates is determined as much by the context in which it is applied as much as the content of the definition itself.
I leave race undefined because my concern is for that which is indicated. Since we all know what race is, which is to say regardless of our personal definition we manage to agree on which buckets people are sorted into some +90% of the time, I prefer not to let my own choice of words become an unnecessary point of contention.
The other thing Phelps wants to do is add a little detail to my explanation of white folks' reaction to Black folks' reaction.
There is another element to this -- that rejection is usually seen as an irrational rejection. The viewpoint is, "I gave you what you were asking for, and now you want more?" It leads someone to believe that either the person they are dealing with was never looking for fairness in the first place, but instead an actual advantage, or that the person is simply irrational. Neither outlook helps either person much. Once you get to that point, it is easy to see anyone who even brings the subject up as being irrational, no one likes to deal with an irrational adverse situation.
Okay, it's an irrational rejection. It's what I call a "kick the dog" reaction.
You know the pattern: The boss yells at the supervisor, who screams on the worker. The worker, now angry, goes home and argues with the spouse. Now the spouse is upset and has no patience with the kid, who winds up getting punished. The teary-eyed kid then kicks the dog.
Yes, irrational…but so damn human that I can't call it unreasonable.
There's actually another issue raised in Phelps' post, but as he says it should be an entire post on its own, so I'm leaving it alone.
