User loginLive Discussions
Google searchMost popular threads
Weekly Archives
Blog linksAfrican American Political Pundit |
Tip jarThe Public LibraryReality checksNews sourcesLink CollectionsDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Who's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 10 guests online.
Online users
...Syndicate |
American Intrapolitics: What you see depends on where you lookSubmitted by Prometheus 6 on December 7, 2005 - 11:39am.
on Race and Identity The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press published a report (they call it a commentary) called The Black and White of Public Opinion - Did the Racial Divide in Attitudes About Katrina Mislead Us? which shows a lot more common ground between the races than one normally assumes
In the process, they document the reason observant Black folks see racism as a serious problem to this day.
About seven in ten white folks recognize racial discrimination isn't unusual; about seven in ten white folks feel Black folks are to blame for not just...overcoming. And about seven in ten are hostile to efforts to address the systemic problems caused by that racism. Is there any wonder some of us think y'all just don't like us? Especially when you reflexively defend any white person against any charge or racism? Come on, be honest...seeing this is the reaction among white folks (and we do see it...) how does it make sense not to assume racism?
I think there are questions on the citizenship exam. Okay, that was cynical. But yeah, mainstream American models Black folks as "what not to be," and immigrants pick up on it right away. It's like, you ALWAYS get wet when you jump into water. Or the case where Asian parents in San Francisco were suing local Schools officials for programs they had in place that, seemingly, benefitted Blacks, while bypassing the whites who were at the same time trying too limit their numbers at Berkeley. This case involved the City's academic high school, Lowell. Chinese-American parents were protesting that their children were not being allowed into Lowell in numbers commensurate with their qualifications because of "racial quotas" the school district had to adhere to as a result of suits the NAACP and others had brought against the district when the current Associate Justice Stephen Breyer's late father, Irving Breyer, was the school district's legal counsel. I remember that things got so heated that black homeowners and voters began talking seriously about not voting for any school bond measures if black children's right to attend Lowell was tampered with as a result of the Chinese-Americans parents' suit.
just two quickies... 1) it would be interesting to see the wealth disparity instead of the tired-ass income disparity data. in addition, it would be interesting to see folks responses to those same questions after being made aware of the WEALTH disparity vs. the income disparity. 2) long before hitting these shores, immigrants get the white-washed view of black folk from our highly subsidized buffoonery-minstrelsy crews from coast to coast...and that notwithstanding, it's not the point, because non-US residents tend not to attach the idiocy of jackass to all white folk, but will assign the comedic stylings of black folk to some lesser quality shared by all. Snoop and the Eastsidaz have a song called, "We can take it back to '85." Love that song...anyway, for some reason it got me to thinking about the US (or them) and Us (we) in relationship to Rome and Carthage. Rome, as an empire, became great contingent on the domination and eventual death of Carthage. America is a similarly contingent empire. As such, our presence must be attacked at every turn because it is a testament to the lie that undergirds the entire American ethos. Everything that America proudly claims to be is rendered false by the presence of black folk. These attacks and the willing alignment of those seeking to join the empire are not surprising. The Gauls and Germanic tribes and others may have hated the Romans, but after the final demise of Hannibal, they were damned glad to not be Carthaginians. And let's be clear, Latinos and Indians and Asians all have pejorative names for white folks and recognize that their home countries are at odds with the US. If some choose to co-sign, there are myriad reasons for that, but fundamentalist muslims in occupied lands are not the only ones pointing guns at the US and the West. Our experience reveals that when black folk have sought alliances beyond these borders, the world has always been willing to lend some level of support. As I recall the Romans so feared and loathed the Carthaginians that killing all the men and selling the women and children into slavery was not sufficient because they sowed salt into the earth so that nothing could be grown there again.
Interestingly, no such racial gap is observed when people are asked if they agree that racial discrimination against blacks is rare: Only about three-in-ten among both blacks and whites think that discrimination is an unusual occurrence. It would have been even more interesting if the researchers had asked the respondants, especially the white ones, to explain the basis of their views that discrimination against blacks was not a rare occurrence. I would be willing to post odds and wager money that their views are pretty much derived from discussions they are either a party to or, perhaps, overhear involving whites discussing their feelings about black people. I think we all could probably come up with a lot more instances of the indignities we have had to put up with. I mean, in light of the murderous era of enslavement and Jim Crowism, these current slights seem mild too most, but its the additive effect of it all on the pysche of the past, and the physical and economic cost to our community as a whole. Which brings me to my most recent revelation as it relates to the state and future of American Blacks. I have begun to think the 'impossible.' In light of the Katrina episode, media's constant vilification and increasing political marginalization, the heatlh or disease data, massive incarceration and unrelelnting attempts at reversing meager social gains from the 1960s, so as to make our social and cultural marginality, for the most part, something of an American permanacy that as a father and grandfather, the thought of out migration from the US, so as to assure or secure some measure of genetic ascendancy or linearity, (SURVIVAL) does not seem so farfetched for me. I mean, as I looked at how some of folks were deal with in New Orleans, this caused me to really expand my notions of what might occur, if such a catastrophic event occurs again, and to a larger or wider extent and awhat might be our recourse for survival. Man, its embarassing for me to have to even admit to such a drastic measure or scenario. Man, its embarassing for me to have to even admit to such a drastic measure or scenario. Don't feel embarrassed. A lot of folks are beginning to have the same thoughts that you are having.
Damn! I thought it was just me. Oh well I just found out its going to take longer for the OZONE Layer to heal. So perhaps, hope does ring eternal or something like that.. Is there any wonder some of us think y'all just don't like us? Especially when you reflexively defend any white person against any charge or racism? Real questions or rhetorical questions? Sincerely, I don't believe that you p6 believe that most white people ("y'all") just don't like black people. You've had a lot to do with white people in your time, and your experience doesn't support that conclusion. As a rhetorical device, sure. The hyperbole of ascribing malice to ignorance can sometimes jar the ignorant into finding enlightenment. Come on, be honest...seeing this is the reaction among white folks (and we do see it...) how does it make sense not to assume racism? Fine then, assume racism, but not animosity. Observe however a definition which needs no more than the answers to these three questions: 1. Has the position of blacks in America improved over the past ten years? 2. Are blacks who can't get ahead in America mostly responsible for their own position? 3. Support AA? Answer yes, yes, no, and we've found a racist. If you're comfortable with that set of answers defining a racist, that's your choice, but you can now see why "racist" is coming to mean nothing in particular. don't go muddying up a perfectly good thread with that nonsense...three questions: first question - assessment; second question - assessment; 3rd question - a politically weighted call to action loaded with the baggage of three decades of misinformation. get ta steppin' d-dub...start your own thread with that gahbitch. i define racists as folks who waste good cyberspace with self-serving bullshit - in fact, i myself may be considered ra__________ Them's the questions you ask to figure out if a Black person will see you as a racist. Those being your area of concern. let me give you a parallel view,
1. Do Blacks in America have the full rights and entitlements due a citizen of the USofA?
2. Does racism adversely affect Black people on all levels of society?
3. Should anything be done to address the damage purposely done to Black people? Can you imagine P6 that a white person might answer yes, yes, no to the first set, and answer no, yes, yes to the second? Not when I've made clear I'm asking the second set and still get yes, yes, no. Multiple times. I'm in wholehearted agreement with T3. Can we have a discussion, even if we disagree at times, without being diverted by DW's stuff? Why can't he lay out for a moment and let us riff about what we think is important to us? You want to know the truth, we probably can't. MOre accurately, if it ain't DW it would be someone. Some white person thinks I'm calling all white people racist even now. And you know white folks can't take it when they think another white person is being called racist. An outburst of some sort is inevitable. Oh, yeah...when you claim you're answering my questions "no, yes, yes," yet your solution is for me to understand YOUR troubles better, I write you off. you'll notice, by the way, that I tend to ignore d-dub. he has a right to say whatever he wants. he's polite and follows the rules of decorum in the forum, so there's no need to floor him...still, i've done my conversion/conversation thing with white folks - did it in the 80's. all done. got nothing left...if folks really wanna get it, they will...if they don't, they won't. that's what reference librarians are for. so, where wuz yu pt?? by the way, i'll be on the road for about a week, so i may be out of the mix sho nuff, but i'll pick it up unless bennett says some mo stupid shit. LOL. btw, I'll be reading Freakonomics. still, i've done my conversion/conversation thing with white folks - did it in the 80's. all done. got nothing left. If you were recommending T3, would you recommend I adopt this notion for myself? (well, I'd have to say "back in the aught's").
It seems you already have.
Let me know if it's worth the read.
And that's the size of it. But I can't help but ask this out loud:
So? Racism without overt hostility, conscious, intended malice and "no hard feelings" is a good thing? I mean, what exactly is there about RACISM with hostility, malice, animosity, etc. that makes RACISM abhorrent when, given DW's composite reaction, RACISM isn't apparently abhorrent enough on its own, in and of itself? What is up with that? Somebody said something about DW's comments being self-serving... Hell, that was a major understatement. Puts to lie all the Lip Service cloaked in the pretense that "they get it" when all they're trying to get is some face-saving cover.
And then they try to feign that there is no malice, forethought, hostility, animosity, etc. Hey... I guess it's just business. Nothing personal, huh DW... And let's be clear, Latinos and Indians and Asians all have pejorative names for white folks and recognize that their home countries are at odds with the US. If some choose to co-sign, there are myriad reasons for that, but fundamentalist muslims in occupied lands are not the only ones pointing guns at the US and the West. Our experience reveals that when black folk have sought alliances beyond these borders, the world has always been willing to lend some level of support. I think that in addition to the above, blacks while not given a free pass from terrorists or people who disdain the US, are not associated with US hegemony or injustices caused by the US, the recent efforts or Rice and Powell notwithstanding. This allows blacks to build bridges in places where whites cannot overseas, whether in international business or in int. politics. If only there was a concerted and collective effort of Af Ams to exploit this! I mean, as I looked at how some of folks were deal with in New Orleans, this caused me to really expand my notions of what might occur, if such a catastrophic event occurs again, and to a larger or wider extent and awhat might be our recourse for survival. Man, its embarassing for me to have to even admit to such a drastic measure or scenario. \\ I must say I have had similar thoughts recently, made more strong by the Katrina episode.
Takes money, keto. Money, connections and knowledge of the rules of the game. I suspect an evolutionary (no typo there, btw) intent simply wouldn't occur to those Black folks in possession of all three, even assuming the best of intent. Not when I've made clear I'm asking the second set and still get yes, yes, no. I'm not understanding this P6. You asked the first set, not the second set, on this thread. Can you explain?
Hey... I guess it's just business. Nothing personal, huh DW... I dunno quite how to respond Nm. You said a lot of things there I didn't say, and didn't mean, but you knew that, right? You knew that grabbing a line from a context where it is immediately explained wouldn't represent what I had said, right? So I'm left with a feeling of vague hostility, and I derive from that an underlying dissatisfaction with white people, but there's nothing to get ahold of. We've been in this space before, but for the moment I'm declining to declare "been there done that". One perspective on where it goes wrong is that this dissatisfaction is with white people without names. Well, I'm here in the middle. I have a name, but it's not real. Let's say you were addressing 50 million white people, one by one, as individuals. Start with me. You can ask me, as an individual, to cease doing or start doing things as you think I need to change. What you can't do is address me, the individual, as if you were addressing all white people. Well, you can do that, and I'll understand that you have a dissatisfaction with white people, but that ain't me. I can change me, I can't change all white people. Nor can any other individual white person. So set me straight, Nm. Let me have it. How should I change?
Please resist the temptation, Nm, please resist.
You asked the first. I asked the second. You are on moderation mode. No lies will be promoted to visibility.
We have Been There and Done That... and you're still on the same ole tired, defunct script. As I said then, I say now that you obviously have English Comprehension problems because you want to erect the Straw Man via personalizing an issue that is hardly interpersonal in nature. Once you learn that I, for one, won't accept your curious framing (and I'm keenly aware of your Framing Issues - CONVERSION conversation) the better you'll be able to contribute something remotely intelligible and relevant. Until then... See it as hostility and I'll just call your framing what it is: COWARDICE. Now, unless you can show me where I've indicated that Whites need to change certain things on an individual level when we (Black folks) continue to address things in the social/society/sociological realm then don't waste your time writing all that mess with the predictable "I didn't mean it" BS. Your words mean something and your INTENT is not the sum total. But, go ahead, conveniently confuse my Hostility To BS with "hostility towards White people"... as if... I mean, say something that does more than just resonate with your own personal lunatic frames. Protest P6 charging Whites with hostility (and ironically trying to project that back onto me)... but remain virtually silent on the actual issue at hand. Again, we (us Black folks) ain't talkin' about no stuff on an interpersonal level. WHY ARE YOU?? ok.
The COWARD has spoken... It's cool now, NM. From this point forward we get substance or silence and I don't much care which. Okay... I'll let it go... Since you guys won't to ruin all the Rabbit Season activities. I understand... But hunting and trapping rabbits [in their own tracks] is fun. Since it is clear that we are not going to discuss racism as a problem peculiar to individual Americans alone can we return to speculating as to the implications of the findings of the Pew survey? You guys are getting better. It only took two days this time and about 20 posts. I'm really like what I'm seeing. So, back to the pew, I mean Pew. btw, freakonomics is pretty interesting. Here's the thing, I was just reading Toni Morrison's Playing the Dark about the presence of race and Blackness in white folk's literature - as a part of their undiscussed obsession and manner of gaining access to their repressed selves, among other things... In all the talk about this book, I'd never heard the extent to which it dealt with topics that Americans associate with black folk. It's interesting because the guy does not have a conventional wisdom approach to things - so it makes for interesting, fast-paced reading. He picked the write co-author. So far, it's been enjoyable. I'm not the type to get riled up by white supremacist sentiments or stuff like that (for several reasons), and I've read nothing of that sort in the book. Quite the contrary. In fact, if Bill Bennett had a different track record, his comments would be defensible. The book would lay out a seemingly absurd proposition in order to reveal how folks tend to gloss over hidden causes. However, Bennett being who he has been, fuck him. Take the case of crime and abortion - the author makes no mention of race regarding this particular story. It is, however, in line with the argument that eugenicists made in favor of sterilization. He simply says crime decreased because the pool of potential criminals was greatly reduced as a result of Roe v. Wade. The availability of abortion to women (with the socio-economic demographics that tend to disproportionately lead to crime (non white-collar)) reduced the overall number of children born into poverty, in single parent households, etc, etc. This may or may not be true...the anecdote didn't include birth rates, overall population data or broad poverty information...but, it's something to think about. Bennett took it to another level. The authors of Freakonomics never uttered, in that section, anything that could be construed as weighing, discussing, advocating the genocide of black babies. In fact, they didn't link crime and race. So, as I said, so far, so compelling. I have a bit of beef with the Klan section, but I'm holding till I get to the end of the book and revisit. There is an EXCELLENT piece in here about cheating by teachers in the Chicago Puiblic Schools. Boy, if this guy ever got his hands on the NYC Department of Education, it would be a wrap. I might have to write this guy a letter - especially about school construction and charter schools. His big thing is about incentives and cheating and competition and how these principles inform much of what happens in social interactions...really, a dope approach to economics. If teenagers read this stuff, they'd probably become econ majors in droves.
Same approach Derrick Bell took in his fictional explorations of Critical Race Theory.
Patience is the holy place, for it gives access to the minds of all living things. - Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra |
|
This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye
|
||
Although these data results, in terms of Black and white perceptions of racial dsicrimination, are not new, unusual, or unexpected, I think that anti Black sentiments have become so systematic that discrimination against Blacks for equal opportunity has become basically cultural. That is, it seems to be that for to become truly "an American", one must hold distinct views, or practice certain hostilities towards Blacks and their interest. Moreover, it seems to me that some folks who are not even white, at least in my experience, and from some data I have read in the past, show a similar disdain for blacks, as if they are white. For example, in the case for Hispanics Suro has written in the WasH POST about the racism Hispanics exhibit towards Blacks whether they be in Columbia, Cuba, Peru, Domincan Republic or the US. Or the comments by hispanics pundits such as linda chavez who herself wrote apiece excoriating her conservative bedfellows for beating down on illegal mexican immigration or her kit and kin, and another commentor in a Kansas City Newpaper who was to justify the influx of illegal workers on the Gulf Coast displacing local citizens. Her argument was that Blacks, in effect, lack the skills and work ethic the illegals posessed, essentially, and that most the blacks were on welfare, therefore, the illegals should be welcome. And I also recall a piece in the New York Newsday ~8 years or so ago, whereby the author of the piece was encouraging Indians to come to grips with racist sentiments they held towards American Blacks. Apparently they were being warned prior to migrating here to steer clear of us. Or the case where Asian parents in San Francisco were suing local Schools officials for programs they had in place that, seemingly, benefitted Blacks, while bypassing the whites who were at the same time trying too limit their numbers at Berkeley. I mean it gets ridiculous. I mean these folks, increasingly, have no shame in promoting their group interest. It seems to me its only BAD or Un American when Blacks do it.