User loginLive Discussions
Google search Most popular threads
Weekly Archives
Blog linksA Skeptical Blog |
We readMaye is innocent Tip jarFor entertainment onlyThe Public LibraryReality checksNews sourcesLink CollectionsDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Who's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 10 guests online.
...Syndicate |
The Blackness Problem, ReduxSubmitted by Prometheus 6 on July 6, 2006 - 5:51pm.
on Race and Identity I was torn. Should this be the Quote of note:
...or this?
I couldn't decide. Black men quietly combating stereotypes Keith Borders tries hard not to scare people. He's 6-foot-7, a garrulous lawyer who talks with his hands. And he's black. Many people find him threatening. He works hard to prove otherwise. "I have a very keen sense of my size and how I communicate," says Borders of Mason, Ohio. "I end up putting my hands in my pockets or behind me. I stand with my feet closer together. With my feet spread out, it looks like I'm taking a stance. And I use a softer voice." Every day, African-American men consciously work to offset stereotypes about them — that they are dangerous, aggressive, angry. Some smile a lot, dress conservatively and speak with deference: "Yes, sir," or "No, ma'am." They are mindful of their bodies, careful not to dart into closing elevators or stand too close in grocery stores. It's all about surviving, and trying to thrive, in a nation where biased views of black men stubbornly hang on decades after segregation and where statistics show a yawning gap between the lives of white men and black men. Black men's median wages are barely three-fourths those of whites; nearly 1 in 3 black men will spend time behind bars during his life; and, on average, black men die six years earlier than whites. Sure, everyone has ways of coping with other people's perceptions: Who acts the same at work as they do with their kids, or their high school friends? But for black men, there's more at stake. If they don't carefully calculate how to handle everyday situations — in ways that usually go unnoticed — they can end up out of a job, in jail or dead. "It's a stressful process," Borders says. Melissa Harris Lacewell, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, says learning to adapt is at the heart of being an American black male. "Black mothers and fathers socialize their sons to not make waves, to not come up against the authorities, to speak even more politely not only when there are whites present but particularly if there are whites who have power," she said. "Most black men are able to shift from a sort of relaxed, authentically black pose into a respectable black man pose. Either they develop the dexterity to move back and forth or ultimately they flounder." It's a lot like a game of chess, says 43-year-old Chester Williams, who owns Chester Electric in New Orleans. He has taught his three sons, ages 16, 14 and 11, to play. "The rules of the game are universal: White moves first, then black moves," he said. "Black has to respond to the moves that the whites make. You take the advantage when it's available." Twenty-year-old Chauncy Medder of Brooklyn says his baggy jeans and oversized T-shirts make him seem like "another one of those thuggish black kids." He offsets that with "Southern charm" he learned attending high school in Virginia — "a lot of 'Yes, ma'ams,' and as little slang as possible. When I speak to them (whites), they're like, 'Hey, you're different.'" Such skillful little changes in style aren't talked about much, especially not outside of black households — there's no reason to tip your hand. As Walter White, a black sales executive from Cincinnati, puts it: "Not talking is a way to get what you want." He recalled that, "as a child, we all sat down with my mother and father and watched the movie 'Roots,'" the groundbreaking 1970s television miniseries tracing a black family from Africa through slavery and into modern times. The slaves were quietly obedient around whites. "But as soon as the master was gone," he said, "they did what they really wanted to do. That's what we were taught." Historians agree that black stereotypes and coping strategies are rooted in America's history of slavery and segregation. Jay Carrington Chunn's mother taught him "how to read 'Whites Only' and 'Negro Only' before she taught me anything else," said the 63-year-old, who grew up in Atlanta. "Black parents taught you how to react when police stopped you, how to respond to certain problems, how to act in school to get the best grade." School is still a challenge, even from an early age. Last year, Yale University research on public school pre-kindergarten programs in 40 states found that blacks were expelled twice as often as whites — and nine out of 10 blacks expelled were boys. The report did not analyze the patterns, but some trace it to negative views about black boys. Black male children are often "labeled in public schools as being out of control," said Lacewell, who studies black political culture and wrote "Barbershops, Bibles, and BET: Everyday Talk and Black Political Thought." "If you're a black boy who is smart and energetic and always has the answer and throws his hand up in the air," she said, "you might as a parent say, 'Even if you know the answer you might not want to make a spectacle of yourself. You don't want to call attention to yourself.'" Bill Fletcher still has nightmares about his third-grade teacher, a white woman who "treated me and other black students as if we were idiots," he said. "She destroyed my confidence." But his parents were strong advocates, and taught him to cope by having little contact with teachers who didn't take an interest in him, said Fletcher, former president of TransAfrica Forum, a group that builds ties between African-Americans and Africa. As black boys become adolescents, the dangers escalate. Like most teenagers, they battle raging hormones and identity crises. Many rebel, trying to fit in by mimicking — and sometimes becoming — criminals. "They are basically seen as public menaces," Lacewell said. Rasheed Smith, 22, a soft-spoken, aspiring hip-hop lyricist from the Bedford Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, recently tapped his long fingers, morosely counting his friends killed in neighborhood violence in the last five years — 11 in all. Few spent much time beyond their blocks, let alone their neighborhood. Some sold drugs or got in other trouble and had near-constant contact with police. Smith has survived by staying close to his family. He advised: "With police, you talk to them the way they talk to you. You get treated how you act." Twenty years ago, Carol Taylor's teenage son — now a lawyer — was mugged twice near their Brooklyn home, but police officers "treated him like he had done the mugging," she said. She wrote and self-published "The Little Black Book: Survival Commandments for Black Men" filled with tips on how to deal with police: keep your hands visible, carry a camera, don't say much but be polite. "Don't take this as a time to prove your manhood," wrote Taylor, a retired nurse and community activist who said she's sold thousands of the pocket-sized, $2 books. And more general advice: "Learn to read, write and type, and to speak English correctly. This is survival, not wishful thinking. If you are going to survive in America, go to college!" One selective business program at historically black Hampton University in Virginia directs black men to wear dark, conservative suits to class. Earrings and dreadlocked hairstyles are forbidden. Their appearance is "communicating a signal that says you can go into more places," said business school dean Sid Credle. "There's more universal acceptance if you're conservative in your image and dress style." One graphic artist says he wears a suit when traveling, "even if it's on a weekend. I think it helps. It requests respect." But in the corporate world, clothing can only help so much, said Janet B. Reid of Global Lead Management Consulting, who advises companies on managing ethnic diversity. Black men, especially those who look physically imposing, often have a tough time. "Someone who is tall and muscular will learn to come into a meeting and sit down quickly," she said. "They're trying to lower the big barrier of resistance, one that's fear-based and born of stereotypes." Having darker brown skin can erect another barrier. Mark Ferguson has worked on Wall Street for 20 years. He has an easy smile and firm, confident handshake. "I think I clean up pretty well — I dress well, I speak well — but all that goes out the window when I show up at a meeting full of white men," says Ferguson of New Jersey, who is 6-foot-4 and dark-skinned. "It's because they're afraid of me." "Race always matters," said Ferguson, whose Day in the Life Foundation connects minority teenagers with professionals. "It's always in play." Fletcher knows his light brown skin gives him an advantage — except that he's "unsmiling." "If you're a black man who doesn't smile a lot, they (whites) get really nervous," he said. "There are black people I run across all the time and they're always smiling particularly when they're around white people. A lot of white people find that very comforting." All this takes a toll. Many black men say the daily maneuvering leaves them enraged and exhausted. For decades, they continuously self-analyze and shift, subtly dampening their personalities. In the end, even the best strategies don't always work. "I've seen it play out many times" in corporations, said Reid of Global Lead. "They go from depression to corporate suicide. Marital problems can come up. He loses all self confidence and the ability to feel manly and in control of his own fate." Sherman James, a social psychologist at Duke University, studies how the stress of coping for black men can damage the circulatory system and lead to chronic poor health. Black men are 20 percent more likely to die of heart disease than whites, and they have the highest rates of hypertension in the world, according to the National Medical Association. The flip side, black men say, is that many learn to be resilient. Ferguson recalls when a new Wall Street colleague, minutes after meeting him and hearing he grew up in a housing project in Newark, N.J., asked if he had been involved in "any illicit activities" there. He shrugged it off. Over the years, as he has earned promotions and built client relationships over the phone, he has learned to steel himself for face-to-face meetings — for clients' raised eyebrows and stuttered greetings when they see he is black. "It just rolls off our backs — we grin and bear it. You can't quit," he said, sighing heavily. He vents his frustrations to mentors and relaxes with his wife and young children. "Then you go back," he said, "and fight the good fight." question: what is authentically black? being ghetto, uncouth, poor? and why does this sentence imply that blacks cannot be and are not inherently respectful? Yeah, I have a mixed reaction to this sort of article. It's a conversation between white folks, using their common concepts. It's actually about a good as it gets nowadays. My reaction to this and to a discussion over this elsewhere:
Let them "grin" and BEAR the burden of their "Personal" Responsibility. the stereotypes are their problem to "COMBAT" and correct and not that of those stereotyped. No doubt. But I take the intended audience into account as much here as when McWhorter et. al. pipe up. This article is listing the stereotypes as though they were valid points that need responding to...because to white folks, they are. And it's pointing out the unfairness of it, the physical damage the unfair additional stress causes. It's taking the position, not that white folks have an advantage but that Black folks have a disadvantage and that disadvantage is externally imposed. It's saying the things white folks can hear. I don't know who the white folks are in the article. They may be the "intended audience." They may not be. I don't know Erin Texeira, but I didn't get the sense that she was a white writer trying to relay a complicated story to white folks. I could be wrong about that.
For me, the bottom line is that this does take a toll. What resonates for me is a personal sense of RAGE when I see black folk grinnin' for white folks. In many instances, the behavior is so ingrained that is imperceptible to the practitioner. As a child I witnessed my great-grandmother forcibly remove a police officer from our apartment when he suggested something about me that she knew to be a lie. At the time, she was in her 60's. He might have been a rookie - and it certainly could've ended up worse. It didn't and the memory stuck with me. At 37, 6'3 and 200+ pounds, I have absolutely no interest in making ANY white folks happy, anywhere. I would just as soon kick their ass if they even think about uttering some stupid shit. Conversely, I can be extremely patient and gracious - when I choose to be. So, the psychological damage of teaching our children to act this way is tantamount to a new form of suicide. If we care at all about the quality of our lives, we can no longer act as though we are less than those who would have us be relieved of our senses - as well as our land, spi-ritual-ity, culture and orientation. We are still strangers in a strange land, but we built the damn thing and we must never forget that we have an obligation to be dignified in the face of opposition. Grinning should be a TACTIC to expose and exploit the arrogance of folks subject to manipulation for material gain. It's not a principle to live by. I had some thoughts on authenticity over here. For me, the bottom line is that this does take a toll. What resonates for me is a personal sense of RAGE when I see black folk grinnin' for white folks. Rage at who?
Yes.
This may be the peculiar thing about me. I was never taught that. Because I was reading and doing math on the 5th grade level in kindergarten (thanks to my sister) I got major positive feedback from mainstream types...actually, on the same level Eric Motley got. My elementary school was an experimental site...across the street from the projects, everyone was learning pre-algebra, touched on analytical geomentry and set theory. EVERYONE was learning it. The one time someone told my mom I wanted to be white (it was a school psychiatrist...another interesting story) she made good and goddamn sure I was NOT to be wanting that. I never had a reason to doubt my value or abilities relative to white folks. On the other hand, unlike Mr. Motley I had friends. And in the middle of all these Black folks who could do all these things I wanted to do but didn't know how I never had a reason to get all sidditty. I think we share that experience. Still, I do know many people who have a great deal of trouble in navigating this path. They equate value with "race." They actually value one "race" over another and inject the seeds of doubt and deprecation in their progeny. That's tantamount to suicide - because your children have to believe that they can reach the sky...teaching them about devils and opportunity are not mutually exclusive. My rage, then, is really about the situation rather than a person or persons...it's the behavior that is contemptable. My rage, then, is really about the situation rather than a person or persons...it's the behavior that is contemptable. I don't have rage because my interest is in healing.
I do agree with this, though. Rage can be a beautiful thing...and I share your interest in healing...I recognize that hot lava eventually get's you to green grass. "Rage can be a beautiful thing..." Then I should be on the 100 most beautiful people list cause I'm one enraged mofo. Not rage per se, though. The components of rage, awareness of the offense and the energy to respond to it, are there. Denying it brings a lot of the damage the article speaks to. But too many folks' want no more than to relieve the stress when it arises rather than to address root causes, eliminate the source. The trick (what I do, anyway) is to deal with the idea seperately from the energy. It insures I actually deal with the issue instead of just blowing up. I recognize the validity of an angry reaction; I do not champion a right to it because that rage is a personal obstacle. And it can be overcome without losing a stitch of your original nature. Rather than "combatting stereotypes," as Texiera suggests, I find the behavior described in the article mostly to be an acquiesence to stereotypes. Don't misunderstand me, I realize black men often have to manuever to avoid coming into harm's way (getting harrassed or even killed by the police is an haplotypic hazard). But all this tap dancing in the office, grinning on elevators, and saying yes ma'm and no ma'm is degrading. Don't misunderstand me, I realize black men often have to manuever to avoid coming into harm's way (getting harrassed or even killed by the police is an haplotypic hazard). But all this tap dancing in the office, grinning on elevators, and saying yes ma'm and no ma'm is degrading. Oh, hell yeah. I was in the Army for just under six months. Got an honorable discharge...bad case of not being able to follow stupid orders. If the Viet Nam war hadn't just ended my ass would have been in Leavenworth (then again, I wouldn't have joined...). But yeah, manuevering...
I'm not saying all that adjusting comes free, even under the best of circumstances. Back when the NY Times did the How Race is Lived in America series, the most interesting article to me was the "notebook" of the reporter who dealt with the corporate aspect. Seems she had trouble getting the upper eschelons to speak at all.
These, by the way, are the guys Cobb wants to define "blackness." Whatever that is...
"Many of our members have not found that it is advantageous to participate in articles like this,’’ a representative of the group told me. A managing director of a Wall Street brokerage firm who I approached put it more bluntly: "There’s no upside," he said. I don't have any reason to think that their assessment of the downside of being interviewed for such articles is correct. What I wish, however, is that when they find themselves being squeezed or frozen out of senior management positions that they and their allies, friends, relatives, fraternity brothers and sorority sisters etc. in the black community refrain, too, from using black folks' political and moral capital to publicize and complain about their treatment. I would prefer that they suffer their indignities, humiliations, slights and hurts silently and avoid even being quoted anonymously about their troubles. If you can't be black when the corn is ripe, there is little point in trying to be black when it develops a little mold. I think Cobb would appreciate their ability to suck it up in times of trouble.
I call it the OJ Syndrome. Or the MJ Syndrome. Depends on my mood. "Some did not want to draw attention to their race, preferring to earn whatever acclaim they might deserve based solely on how good they were at their job." Ripped from the headlines: in the article you referenced above. The attention needn't be paid to "their race." The attention needs to be paid to the pathological "race" of the racists. 'Draw attention to their race' - Really? How does one draw attention TO the elephant in the room? Everyone is fixated on the elephant without speaking to it. Attention is not the problem. Intention is the problem. Just as P6 talked about breaking down RAGE, so too, must attention be linked to purposeful action. How does one draw attention TO the elephant in the room? Bullseye. Those who gave that response were ducking. They didn't want to say
...which is also ducking. They're saying they will face retaliation for speaking about what they admit actually happens. And they would. And this talk about attention brings me back to what I said earlier:
That is, of course, the proper paradigm. For the Attention to be elsewhere (on the "stereotyped", as those who have to "combat" racism)... is to misplace and take the Attention away from "the pathological "race" of the racists."
Somewhere there's a disconnect. Situational Hearing (auditory exclusion) is part of the Pathology. And it's clear how no parts of this situation (as a "White Advantage" vs. "Black Disadvantage") produces something "White Folks Can Hear." There simply is precious little evidence that they Hear & Obey. Besides that, calling something a Black Disadvantage makes it easier to blow of. My point was neither about White Advantage or Black Disadvantage. It was about Responsibility.
Situational Hearing (auditory exclusion) is part of the Pathology. The the human condition is pathological.
That, my friend, is incorrect. My evidence is anecdotal, as any evidence on the topic will be in the current state of society. And here's a fact: if you want white folks to deal with racism, you have to let them do it. It's a process.
Please explain. I don't see how I'm hindering or prohibiting White Folks from "doing it." So what is your issue here? So with anecdotal evidence as the standard: I see yours and raise you mind. Now what? My issue: This article is not an insult to Black folks. This is an attempt by white folks to address white folks' issues of race. You don't like the image it paints of Black folks' image in white folks minds, but it is challenging that image and therefore must present it. You are not going to back them out of their preconceptions so I support efforts to move them through those preconceptions and out the other side. Practically speaking, it and similar will improve your situation to the degree that it convinces white folks we are not what they (obviously) think we are. It will not directly address your issues, but it will not make them worse, either.
I didn't go into detail with the anecdotes because every so often I already make note of white folks that don't sound like Tim Wise, yet get it. You get to agree, disagree, expand... You also get to see why I don't do "blackness" tests. Because by many folks' standard I would fail.
...which is also ducking. They're saying they will face retaliation for speaking about what they admit actually happens.<>
And they would. <>Amen. In a hearbeat. And what is worse is that the folks who would be pushing them in front of that oncoming train would swear up and down that they were doing no such thing. My point was neither about White Advantage or Black Disadvantage. Care to address that, P6?
"Get" what? Be upfront with your issues. No Articles Of Subjective Faith allowed. I see yours and raise you mine. Deal?
Unfounded. Again, I addressed where the source and responsibility lies. Said nothing no way, no how about whether I liked or disliked "the image it paints." When you stop imagining things then you can comment about what I "don't like."
I'm still trying to see what is causing you problems here. Again, I don't see how I'm hindering or prohibiting White Folks from "doing it" or, in this case, trying to "back them out of their preconceptions."
Dude, I didn't disparage the article. What I said was clear. And clearly it is not the jumping off point for your remarks which are pretty off-the-wall, considering... But your Article of Faith assumption is that it will "convince" White folks. Such is your hope. IMO, it's unfounded. But I don't and haven't disparaged the efforts. Let's get that straight. And, for what I did say, Tim Wise like and all... Well, it was about White Folks directly addressing their issues. So I never was *directly* concerned about "my issues." Let's get that straight too.
And I also get to say that is not relevant and you should be upfront with what your actual issue is and how it is related to what I said. At no point have you shown how it was - your unfounded claims about what I "like" (me clearly not stating anything here about my likes or dislikes in terms of the images) are proof. Seems like you got me confused with T3 or somebody else. I'd appreciate if you actually contended with what I actually said, stop making assumptions and debating those assumptions you make instead of what I said, in the context I said it, etc. Indeed, your own statement disparaged the article and the undertaking/exploration more than anything I've said here or elsewhere ever has:
Sure. White folks are responsible for racism. That's never been in dispute here.
That they got work to do, and however clumsily they are working on it. The ones that are working need correction, not dismissal...and we need to remember our own reactions do feed back into the mix.
It's the royal you...not you specifically.
You wrote of responsibility. I've been talking about intent, and the article. What I said has to do with the conversation as it developed, not directly to what you said. My reaction to what you said is "Sure. White folks are responsible for racism. That's never been in dispute here." I'm REAL busy telling everyone exactly what I think. Not withholding a thing. Is your problem simply that I said nothing in response to your first point, or are you reacting to something I said in the conversation that developed?
And this is where you're having your problems. Where do these comments come from? Where was the "dismissal"? The thing you're missing (and missing wildly) is how I, for one, didn't "dismiss" a thing relative to "the ones that are working."
Okay. Where in the conversation did this "develope"?
Seriously... Where? Because I'd like to know how my statement, even as it focused on cause and responsibility, says something other than "Let Them Do It."
That developed from what part of the conversation? And this?
And please relay to me how this direct response from you developed from something in the conversation that preceded me asking you: What is your issue?
So who and where are the remarks in this overall conversation that suggested that the article was "an insult to Black Folks?" I just want to know how you get all that from The Elephant In The Room... developing. In truth, my statement and the crux of it has always been like O's:
That makes pointing out RESPONSIBILITY and CAUSE all the more pertinent. To say to Black folks "it's not your yoke or burden to carry" is different from anything that developed in your mind in this conversation. Like I said (to Black folks far and wide)... "Let Them 'GRIN' and bear it."
Okay. Where in the conversation did this "develope"? You didn't read the rest of the page? I wrote nothing on your responsibility topic, did I? Okay, N. First:
There were two disconnects. First, the topic I was discussing was the content and intent of the quoted article. You are not discussing the same topic. Every question you ask would vanish if we were on the same topic, and I'd love to know what you think I'm implying. Second, I thought it safe to disregard mid-sentence capitalization. I don't usually assume like that, since it generally indicates specific definitions and/or essences. Now, this is what you want to discuss.
Things are as pertinent as they are. And yes, that is different than anything I would say because it stops short of the meaning I would have given if that were my intent...as it is now. You can't get mechanical cause and effect around collective issues out of your individual personal actions. You can, however, shift the odds. That's ALL you can do. You can shift the odds because there are multiple solutions to any given problem, so you throw your weight behind the one that lands closest to the position that serves you best. In this particular case, white folks are trying to solve white folks' race problem (which is "I don't want to be blamed for racism"). There's a lot of different ways that can be solved. You want to incent folks to take positions that make your life easier. You do NOT want to give them the idea that they got it nailed right now. This is done using the "spoonful of sugar" technique. Tell them what they're doing right as well as what they're doing wrong. And you do that because it is (collective) your burden to live with the repercussions of your choices...to act or not to act. If you do the minimum, you get the minimum. We are responsible both for assuming the best position we can in the game and for getting the best rules we can for the game. I posed specific questions. Where did that stuff develope? That stuff that just happened to pop up when you were speaking to the "royal me" via the "specific me" who you quoted. And, no. I didn't read the entire page but I know Big Ole Elephants when I see them. Now, as far as "disconnects", my initial statement informed you that my reaction wasn't to what you said. And as far as your focus on the content and intent... Well, of course, you were projecting when you acted like I was disparaging the article and it's undertaking. It was you all the time. And the Auditory Exclusion is still in effect. Anecdotes and all...
I, for one, don't know what's so complicated. Intutitively, as humans, there's a sense. And if they can relate to the Black Disadvantage reality-storyline, the same can be done for White Advantage (since you wanted to talk about that). Same coin.
And, no. I didn't read the entire page Disconnect explained.
Fine. The rest of what you say refers to a comment Temple3 made. In other words, you don't know where those specific things developed from. Of course we both knew you just pulled them from out of nowhere with no reason for why you pulled them. So you pulled the "Read The Rest Of The Page" card. Well, where on the rest of the page did that stuff develope from? Why is that so hard?
Why is that so hard? Why is reading so hard? I don't repeat myself, even when I'm trying to be nice. Almost anyone else's ass would have been cut off on that admission.
The three specific things came from your misunderstanding the topic I was discussing, and my assuming you were talking about the discussion that was already underway. I already implied that. Now it's directly stated. Make what you will of that answer. Or ask T3 about your other problem. You already have everything you need to understand my intent and if you don't want to read the actual discussion, you don't want an answer. I read everything applicable. Been done that. Done that before any of this started. There was plenty in "the rest of the page" that didn't apply. Now to the specifics and damn your intent. I asked you how you came up with those specific things that showed up specifically in your responses not to T3 or anyone else but to me. And you don't have to be nice to me. That maybe be important to you. But not to me. Just answer the question. Here they are again: if you want white folks to deal with racism, you have to let them do it. You don't like the image it paints of Black folks' image in white folks minds You are not going to back them out of their preconceptions My issue: This article is not an insult to Black folks. Those things developed WHERE? Where did anyone pose anything as a hinderance to White Folks "dealing with racism" in their own way? Where did I (since you responded to the "royal me" through/at me) say something about not liking the "image painted" in White folks mind? Where did anyone, especially myself, insist on "backing them out of their preconceptions"? And where, P6, did anyone (again, especially myself) stipulate to how they thought the article was an "insult to Black folks"? I don't care whether you're nice or in an "damn, I can't explain that RAGE", I just want to know where you came up with that stuff because in anything applicable... Well, I don't see where any of that developed. That's why I still suggest that you be upfront with your issues. Be mean if you have to but be upfront and tell me where that stuff comes from - even if it comes from ignorant or untenable assumptions or other pontifications you like to unleash.
I read everything applicable. No you didn't.
Son, you done lost your fucking mind. I answered you. Like I said, make of it what you will. In other words... just come up with stuff out of the blue then come up with the justification for that out of the blue stuff out of the blue. Okay. Suffice it to say that you can't identify where those things developed from ("I won't repeat myself") and, more importantly, why they showed up, full-grown, in your responses to me - i.e. why you thought those things were relevant and particularly important for you to say in your response to me. It really doesn't hurt to say that you really had no reason. For the things you said, I'm like... (how did you say) "Sure... No one disputed that."
|
|
|
||
damn this sounds like a whole bunch of "shuckin' and jivin' to please the white man" to me. it's as if we almost have to defer-like the slaves in roots- to white people so that we can get just a little of their respect. do some people not realize that it is not the way we are presenting ourselves, rather how they are viewing us? one quote even stated: "Most black men are able to shift from a sort of relaxed, authentically black pose into a respectable black man pose" question: what is authentically black? being ghetto, uncouth, poor? and why does this sentence imply that blacks cannot be and are not inherently respectful?
i will grant that some points are relevant-blacks like a lot of other people act differently around friends, family and co-workers/supervisors or bosses. half the stuff i say in front of my friends will not be repeated in front of my mom on fear of a serious beat down by her. and i know i damn well better not curse in front of my boss- this is just commonsense. too bad this article looks at us, particularly black men, as needing to change, instead of fighting the ignorance that surrounds our everyday lives