Page 1 of 1 pages
Perhaps the “Race Chasm” will persist as long as individuals on each side continue to exploit and benefit from it.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act supposedly prohibited the use of race (along with gender and religion) to discriminate. Before the word discriminate became only used negatively it meant to distinguish between by some trait.
Rev. Wright uses black profusely on his church’s website as he also uses white in his sermons and political criticisms. (I notice you gave him an inferred pass in this article.)
When I was in the army in Alabama in 1963, I was appalled and sickened by the labeling of all the every day places and things with White Only and Colored Only
Posted by whattheheck on May 9, 2008 at 5:54 AM
“In states with large black populations, race is a major political force, but the African-American vote is big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote.”
Why is it just assumed that blacks that vote for blacks are NOT racially motivated (or females voting for females), whereas whites voting for whites IS racially motivated (or males voting for males)?
“The news industry and politicians, on the other hand, are happy to discuss and exploit race, whether by manufacturing controversy (think Jeremiah Wright)”
Wright has done this himself, surely one cannot think him un-newsworthy?
So what is the fraction of blacks who vote for Obama anyway? If whites were as massively racially selective as blacks have been in this primary season, Obama would be long gone (thankfully, the “race chasm” is almost entirely a black phenomenon, especially for people like me who are Obama supporters, regardless of his race).
Posted by wolf on May 9, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Wolf,
Good observations.
Posted by whattheheck on May 9, 2008 at 10:26 AM
I feel certain the racial tinged remarks made by Sen. Clinton, many in the media and those who would like to make race an issue have raised the percentage of blacks who prefer Sen. Obama. Consider the effect if those remarks were directed at the Jews, Hispanics or American Indians. These are all groups that have suffered and continue to suffer prejudices. These people, over time, have been sensitized to the most subtle of remarks directed against them or designed to sway public opinion against them. You can bet these minorities would swing their votes to candidates who are least likely to be biased against them. In this case blacks know that the remarks of Sen. Clinton are designed to activate biases against Sen. Obama and will, predictably, react defensively. I would.
Humbug
Posted by humbug on May 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM
When you wish upon a star,
makes no difference who you are,
anything your heart desires
will come to you.
Red and Yellow,
Black and White
and any colour
in between.
(my thanks and props and kudos to Louis Armstrong and C. Herbert Woolston and free use laws)
(and in case the Disney{.tm} police are after me; my thanks and such to Uncle Walt too.)
Posted by Jiminy Cricket on May 9, 2008 at 8:36 PM
“While I think I can understand these as attempts to compensate and encourage the black side of the chasm, I also see it as widening the divide in its exclusion of the those of us on the white side.”
The difference of course between segregation and BET is that one was enforced by an oppressive set of Jim Crow laws (and by white separatist terrorists with tacit approval from the political establishment) and the other is an entertainment channel designed to appeal to black Americans, but whose ‘exclusivity’ is enforced by, well, preference.
Posted by Matt W on May 11, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Wolf:
Why is it just assumed that blacks that vote for blacks are NOT racially motivated (or females voting for females), whereas whites voting for whites IS racially motivated (or males voting for males)?
In the case of Black folk, it’s not an assumption. Barack Obama did NOT automatically get the Black vote. Hillary was the overwhelming favorite among Black folks when the campaign started. She lost that support through the behavior of her own campaign, and her decision to keep Mark Penn in a central role after his validation of Shaheen’s ‘drug dealer’ smear and Kerrey’s ‘madrassa’ smear. I hope the media’s decision to write those events out of the first draft of history didn’t make you forget that.
If whites were as massively racially selective as blacks have been in this primary season, Obama would be long gone
If whites had challenged Hillary as thoroughly as Black folks challenged Obama, she wouldn’t have won her Senate seat.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 12, 2008 at 8:39 AM
whattheheck:
While I think I can understand these as attempts to compensate and encourage the black side of the chasm, I also see it as widening the divide in its exclusion of the those of us on the white side.
Sorry…folks got tired of waiting for inclusion, so they made their own.
And there are very few Black-oriented organizations that actually exclude white folks. What happens is people see “Black” or “African American” or “Negro” in the name and assume they can’t participate (with the notable exception of BET).
Historically, Black folks have wanted nothing more than inclusion.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 12, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Promehtheus 6,
OK, so they got tired of waiting, that doesn’t alter the effect.
I have yet to read or hear any ojection in the MSM re any of the
Black label *Hmmm even beer?) categories I listed.
Is there any doubt what would happen if someone were to start a White Entertainment Television channel? I would also add the Hispanic channel without seeing any media outcry. At least I can understand the BET even though I had two years of Spanish (over 50 years ago).
My only point is that we should NOT designate ANY racial listing which is inherently exclusive by title. Why put any of the ones you list in the name at all? Books, programs or businesses should be able to stand on their performance alone.
I can watch Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman or Tiger Woods without being reminded of their skin color. Can’t we all?
Posted by whattheheck on May 13, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Is there any doubt what would happen if someone were to start a White Entertainment Television channel?
Do you have a complaint that hasn’t been made and answered a couple of thousand times?
I can watch Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman or Tiger Woods without being reminded of their skin color.
Can you watch them without SEEING their skin color?
Can you understand, given all the Black people whose skin tone is pink, that race isn’t about skin color?
Can you look at Bill Cosby and not know he’s Black?
<i>OK, so they got tired of waiting, that doesn
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 13, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Oh…
My only point is that we should NOT designate ANY racial listing which is inherently exclusive by title. Why put any of the ones you list in the name at all?
It was the only way Black people knew they could participate in such when the organizations started. Context (particularly historical) helps a lot if you’re trying to understand rather than just compel compliance.
Books, programs or businesses should be able to stand on their performance alone.
Should be. But can they? Their performance varies according to who uses them…audiences are as targeted now as they were in 1850. Not even that much more subtly.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 13, 2008 at 9:43 AM
I can watch Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman or Tiger Woods without being reminded of their skin color.
It does not matter. Comedy, drama, sports
Posted by whattheheck on May 13, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Do you not think it is better to have an NBA rather than a BNBA?
I think it’s better not to invoke trivialities. But for the record, there were no Black players when the NBA started…and it was not necessary to put “white” in its name to make it so.
True or not?
As for organizations with Black, African or Afro American or Negro in their names, let’s pick a real one, go back to its origin and see if there was any way to know Black people could participate in them without being informed by its name. And let’s see if they excluded white people as mainstream (read: white) organizations did.
Your choice. Pick any one you want.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 13, 2008 at 12:15 PM
OK, I’ll stay with the NBA.
Regarding the NBA you said,”...it was not necessary to put
Posted by whattheheck on May 14, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Your argument makes my point exactly. A double standard will never breech the racial chasm because favoring either side by injecting black or white will offend the other.
Actually, I was answering your question, which was why specify the race in these organizations, since that offends you.
And your problem with affirmative action is that it is misunderstood damn near universally. It was implemented to teach white people how not to discriminate. To hire all the Black qualified college graduates that were working as janitors and such. The form it takes now (which, you will note, was designed and implemented by the mainstream that now abhors it) was shaped by passing it through the fires of hostile public opinion until it was as inoffensive to white folks as possible.
The Associated Press did a video segment that’s on YouTube now where a woman in West Virginia…96% white…said she’s scared of “the other race” because “we’ve had so much conflict with them.” Who has she even met that she could conflict with?
Black people have never been the obstacle to desegregation. Never. You have to understand that before your well-meaning suggestions will be acted on with better than all deliberate speed.
We are at the point where white folks have to make the first move for a change. You can’t just put the whole burden of racial reconciliation on Black shoulders anymore.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 14, 2008 at 9:41 AM
The Associated Press did a video segment that
Posted by whattheheck on May 14, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I have had no problem with the black people that I know. However, the burglar he broke into our house, the guy who held up the ATM across from my office and the one who shot a woman a block from there all happened to be black. I carried a gun to work the last few years I was downtown. The people I know by name would not do any of that.
So you have to assume every Black person you don’t know has the capability to to be criminal?
Why not just say that’s your problem rather than complain about organizations Black people create to dig themselves out? And do you make the same assumptions about white folks when you hear about a white criminal?
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 14, 2008 at 1:46 PM
I see you are a very selective reader
Posted by whattheheck on May 15, 2008 at 6:49 AM
<i>I see you are a very selective reader
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 15, 2008 at 9:58 AM
How about…
Harlem Globetrotters?
NAACP?
Congressional Black Caucus?
What are my assumptions which bother you so much?
Posted by whattheheck on May 15, 2008 at 10:47 AM
“Harlem Globetrotters” doesn’t have Black, Negro or any equivalent in it. Not to mention it’s not a social uplift organization…it’s a circus. This was absurd for you to even mention.
NAACP has always had white members, from its very first day until now.
The CBC is a social club…they didn’t allow a white guy who represented a Black majority district to join and did allow a Black Republican that represented a white majority district. You can call that divisive if you like.
So let’s give you one out of three.
What bothers me is your assumption that organizations with “Black” etc. in their names are necessarily divisive, and hence worthy of opposition. Because to this day, if you intend to address issues that are specific to Black people, you must have “Black” or some such in your name or no one knows.
The United Negro College Fund tried dropping the “United Negro” part and donations fell because no one knew who they were or what their mission was. And the UNCF supports HBCUs, which are not only open to white people but are actively recruiting them.
Honestly, that you had to reach for the absurdity of “Harlem Globetrotters” and the 66% error rate strongly suggests you can’t trust your immediate reaction in this regard. That you’re not looking at what these crews actually do before you oppose them. And the problem with THAT is you will inevitably oppose a solid organization, which will get you deemed irrational and hateful in turn, which ends all conversation between folks who could probably find legitimate grounds for cooperation.
Because Black people get as angry at being misrepresented as white folks do.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 15, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I was only joking about the groups I listed because this is not the point at all.
I am not personally offended by any of the specific examples, but by the basic idea. I can watch the BET channel if I want to. I have no need for the Black Pages. I’ve enjoyed the Globetrotters. I’ve also enjoyed concerts by Ella Fitzgerald, Count Basie, The Duke and Teddy Wilson. None of whom were listed as black entertainers or in any way divisive, but rather merged the whole audience into one.
What I am saying (if you will refer to my very first comment)
Posted by whattheheck on May 15, 2008 at 1:22 PM
<i>What I am saying (if you will refer to my very first comment)
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 15, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Sure, I’ll discuss it. (That’s what I thought have been trying to do all along here.)
The 1964 Civil Rights Act supposedly prohibited the use of race (along with gender and religion) to discriminate. Before the word discriminate became only used negatively it meant to distinguish between by some trait.
I think it would have been better to follow this and eliminate ANY racial bias in the laws. Instead we have had increasing use of color in a way which some think makes up for past unfair and preferential treatment.
‘m not saying that situations which are not labeled can’t still be unfair and discriminatory, of course they can and have been in many cases. However, using either color explicitly is in and of itself discriminatory
Posted by whattheheck on May 16, 2008 at 1:38 PM
This is too sweeping a statement. No group is ever unanimous in its beliefs or behavior.
They differed in technique but not intent. See, everyone wants a better life.
Now, keeping in mind that understanding isn’t agreement…do you recognize the government caused damage to Black people by its decisions and actions? And if so, do you think the government should take steps to undo the damage it caused?
I will tell you every Black Democrat and most Black Republicans will answer the first question “yes.” Can you understand why? And every Black Democrat will also say “yes” to the second question…even though many don’t believe it will ever actually happen. Can you understand why?
How do you reverse exclusion by a given quality other than by inclusion by that same quality? You really can’t. At this point insisting on “colorblindness” strikes me like forcing cops to obey the speed limit when chasing speeders.
Now. Like I said, everyone want a better life. We have been damaged by Jim Crow, redlining and all that. And the government won’t do anything about it because even it discomfits the most liberal of white people. So who is left to do this work? Us.
And if you tell us our having organizations dedicated to our own uplift under these circumstances bothers you, you’re saying no one should do anything about it, not even us.
Before I go further, can you suggest another interpretation than that the suggestion that Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage we’ve absorbed, when the government does nothing due to popular opinion, is tantamount to saying we’re stuck where we are, and should be?
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 16, 2008 at 7:35 PM
“See, everyone wants a better life.” OK, for the sake of the discussion, let’s assume that.
Over the years the government has caused black people (and others, most of us in fact) a wide range of “damage”.
When people place responsibility on an entire group we often tend to treat that group as an individual with all the traits a single person might have. This leads to a lot of problems including building divisions as individuals say to themselves, “Hey, I didn’t do that and would have been against it if asked.”
Think of a classroom which erupted into chaos when the teacher was called down to the office for a few minutes. She comes back and punishes the whole class by keeping them after school.
What is the reaction of those who did not do it?
The second paragraph of the Constitution begins with, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This is a statement of a goal rather than an accomplished fact by declaration.
We often hear people state this is a Christian country. Others are quick to say what the founding fathers claim the founding fathers were hypocritical because they held slaves which is in direct conflict with the statement of equality.
Not all of these men would qualify by many definitions of Christian. In fact the freedom to believe individually was one of their main goals.
They were a group of individuals, slavery had been a functioning part of life for years before they were born. The main idea of the declaration was opposition to Britain’s oppression of the colonists. This was no unanimous undertaking anymore than a vote today on farm subsidies, the war, or any other issue. They were going to have to compromise on many things in order to form a country out of several hundred thousand people. Some individuals thought slavery disgusting and demeaning to both slave and slaver holder, but the whole group is often blamed for not forbidding it.
Eighty years later the issue was decided by the most damaging war in US history. Here again we cannot take group credit for abolishing slavery, but enough individuals were willing to oppose it against the will of those who wanted to keep it.
The same goes for the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. The same today wherever negative racial acts are committed.
When a government enacts legislation which many believe to be a help to solve an injustice it sometimes causes more damage than cure. Affirmative action is one of those faulty attempts to fix an age old problem which falls way short. I think this is true of school busing, quota hiring or other rulings to attempt to repair those historical damages. Almost immediately the 1964 law was compromised.
A man comes up to a bunch of kids and begins handing out candy. He recognizes one child as Japanese. “You will not get any candy from me
Posted by whattheheck on May 17, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Can you suggest another interpretation than that the suggestion that Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage we
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 17, 2008 at 9:57 AM
I’m not ignoring all you’ve written, by the way. I just need this point to be clear. You can even skip the blame question if you like,
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 17, 2008 at 10:01 AM
How about using names for the organizations which are race-neutral, but still provide positive guidance and ideas.
There are plenty of examples of helpful organizations with names that are not race-specific. The Boy and Girl Scouts, W.E.B. Du Bois Club, etc.
How about something like “New Horizon” or “Free-for All” which are just general and not excluding by nature. Or something specifically goal oriented
Posted by whattheheck on May 18, 2008 at 6:02 AM
I can’t go forward without you answering the question.
Can you suggest another interpretation than that the suggestion that Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage we
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 18, 2008 at 8:35 AM
“I can
Posted by whattheheck on May 18, 2008 at 10:53 AM
<i> My answer is to call it something without the label BLACK. There is no reason black people can
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 18, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Fine. You are entirely free to reject my report that what you see as the “only alternative” is offensive to a lot of people. After forty plus years in advertising I have a bit of experience on selling both products and ideas.
If you prefer to use that approach because it makes you feel like you are getting even for past offenses against black people, go right ahead.
I still believe it would be better to get along with each other than to get even. That is my alternative
Posted by whattheheck on May 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM
<i>You are entirely free to reject my report that what you see as the
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM
“I realize white people are offended by assertions of Black identity. Denying that identity would damage us more than white opprobrium is no more an option than is denying one’s Christian identity to assuage atheists.”
How does leaving Black out of a specific reference to race “deny” your identity? Why would leaving it out of any program name or project deny your identity?
One does not need to say White Christian. Leaving the modifier “white” out of the title does not deny being white — it leaves Christian open to anyone. I am no longer what most would identify as a Christian, but I don’t need to be labeled a White agnostic. You only need to “assuage” anyone if you truly want to promote quality and acceptance of each other.
“We are not ideal concepts that constantly fall down, we are humans that occasionally reach sublime heights. If there is an alternative, give it to me. Otherwise I must put real events ahead of a theory.”
I have repeatedly given you an alternative which is do what you want for whomever you want, but do it without diminishing OR excluding anyone else. Black specifies only one just as the labels in the pre-1964 Civil Rights Act specified White Only and Black Only.
“You don’t understand. Nowhere have I discussed “getting even.” That you can read what I’ve written as some effort to “get even” is a problem. You don’t even realize it.”
Affirmative Action, quotas, “Racial Balance” and other efforts to raise black people are done at the exclusion, discrimination toward and expense of others.
I listed some good government examples of real events, here are some not so good real events.
• My dentist’s son could not get into the University of Illinois Dental School because of the racial quota system dispite his excellent grades.
• Our local school district has spent hundreds of millions of dollars busing kids, building schools and eliminated Honors Classes due to a quota ruling which has only served to lower the quality of education for all kids.
• There was no “quota” of how many of each race must live in our neighborhood, but we gradually became integrated without any problems. The problem for all now is the kids can’t go to the closest school — they all ride buses around town.
None of the above three examples has helped heal anything — quite the opposite effect.
Posted by whattheheck on May 19, 2008 at 6:16 AM
This IS my answer:
Posted by whattheheck on May 19, 2008 at 8:15 AM
What was my question?
This was my question.
<i>Before I go further, can you suggest another interpretation than that the suggestion that Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage we
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 19, 2008 at 8:29 AM
“This was my question.
Before I go further, can you suggest another interpretation than that the suggestion that Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage we’ve absorbed, when the government does nothing due to popular opinion, is tantamount to saying we’re stuck where we are, and should be?”
If we were face to face I could say, “Read my lips…”
Do whatever you want to do to help black people.
Form any organization you wish to have…dedicated to undo the “damage” you’ve absorbed.
Do it without the label “BLACK.”
Call it anything without including the word “black” in the name. PUSH has no black in the name, but people know what it is. It IMPLIES EXCLUSIVITY if you use the word Black, just as with the word Negro in NAACP (It doesn’t matter if white people have been participants, the perception is still in the name.)
Do not push for government programs like Affirmative Action quotas. Do something which does not take away from any other race.
I have answered your question repeatedly. I think you are just jerking me around, but I was hoping to have a legitimate reasonable discussion.
I’m done. I have no other answers.
Posted by whattheheck on May 19, 2008 at 10:00 AM
I have no other answers.
I know.
I’m not jerking you around. I know your position. It is the mainstream position. I’m not sure whether you refuse to understand me or if you really can’t.
Maybe if you say, Jeopardy-style, what the question is that you’ve answered, you’d realize it’s not the question I asked. The question you are answering is, “What do I think Black people need to do to close the race chasm?” That is obvious.
That is not what I asked. It is very obviously not what I asked. Can you honestly not see that you answered a question I never asked? I’m not even asking for the answer anymore…I want to know if you really can’t tell. Either way, that has to be my last question.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 19, 2008 at 10:36 AM
You stated…
This was my question.
Before I go further, can you suggest another interpretation than that the suggestion that Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage we’ve absorbed, when the government does nothing due to popular opinion, is tantamount to saying we’re stuck where we are, and should be?
——————
I suggested another interpretation other than “Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage absorbed”.
That interpretation… is that you start organizations to undo the damage, but that they NOT have the word Black in the name of the organization.
My reason for suggesting it that it is divisive with the word Black. If you really want to undo anything you will get better results by doing it without creating animosity and resistance.
Earlier I pointed out the fact that the government has done several specific things rather than the “nothing” which you state.
You also state, “...the government does nothing due to popular opinion,”
I listed things they have done which are NOT popular with a lot of people, such as, Affirmative Action and busing to achieve racial balance, permitting BET, etc.
You apparently will only accept an answer worded in some specific way and ignore all else I have written.
Posted by whattheheck on May 19, 2008 at 1:57 PM
You apparently will only accept an answer worded in some specific way and ignore all else I have written.
No, I just wanted my question answered. That’s past tense now.
I am still amazed that people can’t get over one word. I can’t get over that you said it doesn’t matter whether or not white folks are welcome as long as it has the word “Black” in the title…that the very idea puts white people off and YOU think the problem is with Black folks and the word “Black.”
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 19, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I have told you what I think will work better, but you dislike my response and insist it is therefore NOT an answer to your question.
It is AN answer, but not your preferred answer.
You want me to go along with what you want. You don’t want to give up anything or compromise in any way even if it may accomplish your ultimate goal.
This reminds me of a designer friend of mine who once got a call from a man in a nearby town. It seems the man found my friend, Ken’s business card lying on a sidewalk and liked the design.
He called Ken, made an appointment and disgused having Ken do a design for his business. When they got to the price the man said, ” That’s too much. The printer back home will do one for half as much money.”
When Ken asked why he didn’t just go to that printer and have it done, he said he had already done that, but didn’t like the printer’s design.
You have missed the whole point. There is no black in Affirmative Action, but the effect is the same as the narrowing when Black is there. It is discriminating just the same as if White were inserted into another group or program name.
You are apparently not satisfied with the results so far, but don’t what to change the approach.
The man didn’t get the business card he wanted either.
Posted by whattheheck on May 19, 2008 at 4:58 PM
<i>I have told you what I think will work better, but you dislike my response and insist it is therefore NOT an answer to your question.
It is AN answer, but not your preferred answer.
You want me to go along with what you want. You don
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 19, 2008 at 6:55 PM
My answer is objectively based on my 40 years advertising experience of what works better in dealing with a mass market.
In yes or no terms my answer is Yes. I have offered alternatives for your consideration.
Here is your often asked question. Why don’t you simply answer it the way you want it answered so we will both be happier?
——————————-
What was my question?
This was my question.
Before I go further, can you suggest another interpretation than that the suggestion that Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage we’ve absorbed, when the government does nothing due to popular opinion, is tantamount to saying we’re stuck where we are, and should be?
Posted by whattheheck on May 20, 2008 at 5:56 AM
My answer is objectively based on my 40 years advertising experience of what works better in dealing with a mass market.
It also targets white Americans’ opinions rather than Black American’s conditions.
My question is just asking you about an assertion I already made. It is my answer.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 20, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Why do you believe you cannot have organizations dedicated to benefit black people without using the word black? Do you understand why some people may be put off by Affirmative Action?
How would doing so target white opinions and not black conditions?
There are organizations which benefit more than one race —Goodwill Industries, the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities. Are these “targeting white American opinions”?
Of the three, Catholic Charities I would guess has limited itself primarily to Catholics for its support, but serves others too.
The Salvation Army gets more support from the evangelical Christian public, but does not limit who they give aid.
I suppose due to no particular segment of society as a support group Goodwill receives donations from the widest variety of people.
I’m sure the bilingual catering by US businesses and government has the same backlash effect as Affirmative Action. I maintain that having the broadest possible range of public support is the way to raise interest and dollars.
I, for example, am not opposed to imigration, I am opposed to illegal immigration and believe it is detrimental to the individuals who come here illegally and are paid less than they should be and must worry about getting caught and deported. Also to those who try to get in legally and to society as a whole due to the obvious division into those who understand English only and those Spanish only.
Posted by whattheheck on May 20, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Why do you believe you cannot have organizations dedicated to benefit black people without using the word black?
I don’t. I just think rejecting an organization for no reason but that it has “Black” or the equivalent in its name, is silly.
Do you understand why some people may be put off by Affirmative Action?
Sure. The troubles they face in their lives makes them wonder where the hell this privilege is that everyone claims they they have (I’m assuming ‘they’ are not open racists, have never been in a position to hurt a Black person and has never actually considered doing it anyway…your basic Good Guy or Gal).
White people feel discriminated against by not being invited to participate and benefit from programs that try to undo racism but may not notice them if we don’t make a point of saying they’re for Black people.
How would doing so target white opinions and not black conditions?
Because no Black person that didn’t vote for Bush is disturbed by programs that specifically include us and make our needs central. It counters the very specifically anti-Black bias of the overall culture.
I don’t know if there’s any way to do it that doesn’t offend great swaths of mainstream folk. But countering the bias comes first and we can search through the solutions for the least offensive.
There are common issues of course, and institutions to deal with them. And if you compare charities to charities you’ll find Black folks give just as freely across racial lines as any other group you can define.
But what do you think of St. Patrick’s Day Parades?
And your “don’t ask the government” suggestion is really a non-starter. Black people’s taxes were used to pay for that oppression.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 20, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Well, I guess at least we finally understand each other’s position. I have no problem with St. Patrick’s Day parades. But it’s not the same as my comments concerning the use of the word black for preferential treatment. More like black style music, much of which I enjoy. (Rhythm & Blues, Jazz, but not Rap)
(I may be part Irish
Posted by whattheheck on May 21, 2008 at 5:30 AM
BTW, I get the meaning for your name choice of Prometheous. Instead of trading livers to be fair, it might be better to both eat a bit of crow :-)
There’s been some reading into the name choice…the most interesting was that it’s a take-off on Vonnegut’s “Between Time and Timbuktu,” because it had a space ship named Prometheus 5. It was actually sort of random. Worked out nicely, though I’m not giving up my guts.
<i>Well, I guess at least we finally understand each other
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 21, 2008 at 6:41 AM
Sure, I hope you will do the same.
I think one of the big advantages of anonymous internet conversation is people can get into more intimate discussions than are likely between people in the neighborhood. At least guys don’t usually get into this quite as deeply.
Most people can sight an example of when they felt discriminated against in some way, but for me it was never anything I couldn’t get over in short order and put behind me. Even though I have a vivid imagination, I doubt I can really understand the feelings caused by an ongoing, multigenerational prejudice.
They say you can’t judge a book by its cover. Likewise, with people, character and other internal traits are what really matter.
I remember my dad telling how it was when he was a kid and being called “Swede” was an insult. Immigrants of many nationalities, Dagoes, Hunkies, Pollacks, Krauts, all stuck to their own group and such names would start many a fight.
Where I grew up there were so many Swedes (I’m half Swedish) it was a common name and no longer an insult. (Probably not what was said as much as how it was said.) Or maybe buy the late 1930s and early 1940s people had mellowed or the depression and then the war gave them all something in common. I am beginning to think as our economy separates us into two classes we may see race as less of a divider.
Thanks for hanging in there. It has been interesting and informative.
Posted by whattheheck on May 22, 2008 at 5:30 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Perhaps the “Race Chasm” will persist as long as individuals on each side continue to exploit and benefit from it.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act supposedly prohibited the use of race (along with gender and religion) to discriminate. Before the word discriminate became only used negatively it meant to distinguish between by some trait.
Rev. Wright uses black profusely on his church’s website as he also uses white in his sermons and political criticisms. (I notice you gave him an inferred pass in this article.)
When I was in the army in Alabama in 1963, I was appalled and sickened by the labeling of all the every day places and things with White Only and Colored Only
“In states with large black populations, race is a major political force, but the African-American vote is big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote.”
Why is it just assumed that blacks that vote for blacks are NOT racially motivated (or females voting for females), whereas whites voting for whites IS racially motivated (or males voting for males)?
“The news industry and politicians, on the other hand, are happy to discuss and exploit race, whether by manufacturing controversy (think Jeremiah Wright)”
Wright has done this himself, surely one cannot think him un-newsworthy?
So what is the fraction of blacks who vote for Obama anyway? If whites were as massively racially selective as blacks have been in this primary season, Obama would be long gone (thankfully, the “race chasm” is almost entirely a black phenomenon, especially for people like me who are Obama supporters, regardless of his race).
Wolf,
Good observations.
I feel certain the racial tinged remarks made by Sen. Clinton, many in the media and those who would like to make race an issue have raised the percentage of blacks who prefer Sen. Obama. Consider the effect if those remarks were directed at the Jews, Hispanics or American Indians. These are all groups that have suffered and continue to suffer prejudices. These people, over time, have been sensitized to the most subtle of remarks directed against them or designed to sway public opinion against them. You can bet these minorities would swing their votes to candidates who are least likely to be biased against them. In this case blacks know that the remarks of Sen. Clinton are designed to activate biases against Sen. Obama and will, predictably, react defensively. I would.
Humbug
When you wish upon a star,
makes no difference who you are,
anything your heart desires
will come to you.
Red and Yellow,
Black and White
and any colour
in between.
(my thanks and props and kudos to Louis Armstrong and C. Herbert Woolston and free use laws)
(and in case the Disney{.tm} police are after me; my thanks and such to Uncle Walt too.)
“While I think I can understand these as attempts to compensate and encourage the black side of the chasm, I also see it as widening the divide in its exclusion of the those of us on the white side.”
The difference of course between segregation and BET is that one was enforced by an oppressive set of Jim Crow laws (and by white separatist terrorists with tacit approval from the political establishment) and the other is an entertainment channel designed to appeal to black Americans, but whose ‘exclusivity’ is enforced by, well, preference.
Wolf:
Why is it just assumed that blacks that vote for blacks are NOT racially motivated (or females voting for females), whereas whites voting for whites IS racially motivated (or males voting for males)?
In the case of Black folk, it’s not an assumption. Barack Obama did NOT automatically get the Black vote. Hillary was the overwhelming favorite among Black folks when the campaign started. She lost that support through the behavior of her own campaign, and her decision to keep Mark Penn in a central role after his validation of Shaheen’s ‘drug dealer’ smear and Kerrey’s ‘madrassa’ smear. I hope the media’s decision to write those events out of the first draft of history didn’t make you forget that.
If whites were as massively racially selective as blacks have been in this primary season, Obama would be long gone
If whites had challenged Hillary as thoroughly as Black folks challenged Obama, she wouldn’t have won her Senate seat.
whattheheck:
While I think I can understand these as attempts to compensate and encourage the black side of the chasm, I also see it as widening the divide in its exclusion of the those of us on the white side.
Sorry…folks got tired of waiting for inclusion, so they made their own.
And there are very few Black-oriented organizations that actually exclude white folks. What happens is people see “Black” or “African American” or “Negro” in the name and assume they can’t participate (with the notable exception of BET).
Historically, Black folks have wanted nothing more than inclusion.
Promehtheus 6,
OK, so they got tired of waiting, that doesn’t alter the effect.
I have yet to read or hear any ojection in the MSM re any of the
Black label *Hmmm even beer?) categories I listed.
Is there any doubt what would happen if someone were to start a White Entertainment Television channel? I would also add the Hispanic channel without seeing any media outcry. At least I can understand the BET even though I had two years of Spanish (over 50 years ago).
My only point is that we should NOT designate ANY racial listing which is inherently exclusive by title. Why put any of the ones you list in the name at all? Books, programs or businesses should be able to stand on their performance alone.
I can watch Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman or Tiger Woods without being reminded of their skin color. Can’t we all?
Is there any doubt what would happen if someone were to start a White Entertainment Television channel?
Do you have a complaint that hasn’t been made and answered a couple of thousand times?
I can watch Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman or Tiger Woods without being reminded of their skin color.
Can you watch them without SEEING their skin color?
Can you understand, given all the Black people whose skin tone is pink, that race isn’t about skin color?
Can you look at Bill Cosby and not know he’s Black?
<i>OK, so they got tired of waiting, that doesn
Oh…
My only point is that we should NOT designate ANY racial listing which is inherently exclusive by title. Why put any of the ones you list in the name at all?
It was the only way Black people knew they could participate in such when the organizations started. Context (particularly historical) helps a lot if you’re trying to understand rather than just compel compliance.
Books, programs or businesses should be able to stand on their performance alone.
Should be. But can they? Their performance varies according to who uses them…audiences are as targeted now as they were in 1850. Not even that much more subtly.
I can watch Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman or Tiger Woods without being reminded of their skin color.
It does not matter. Comedy, drama, sports
Do you not think it is better to have an NBA rather than a BNBA?
I think it’s better not to invoke trivialities. But for the record, there were no Black players when the NBA started…and it was not necessary to put “white” in its name to make it so.
True or not?
As for organizations with Black, African or Afro American or Negro in their names, let’s pick a real one, go back to its origin and see if there was any way to know Black people could participate in them without being informed by its name. And let’s see if they excluded white people as mainstream (read: white) organizations did.
Your choice. Pick any one you want.
OK, I’ll stay with the NBA.
Regarding the NBA you said,”...it was not necessary to put
Your argument makes my point exactly. A double standard will never breech the racial chasm because favoring either side by injecting black or white will offend the other.
Actually, I was answering your question, which was why specify the race in these organizations, since that offends you.
And your problem with affirmative action is that it is misunderstood damn near universally. It was implemented to teach white people how not to discriminate. To hire all the Black qualified college graduates that were working as janitors and such. The form it takes now (which, you will note, was designed and implemented by the mainstream that now abhors it) was shaped by passing it through the fires of hostile public opinion until it was as inoffensive to white folks as possible.
The Associated Press did a video segment that’s on YouTube now where a woman in West Virginia…96% white…said she’s scared of “the other race” because “we’ve had so much conflict with them.” Who has she even met that she could conflict with?
Black people have never been the obstacle to desegregation. Never. You have to understand that before your well-meaning suggestions will be acted on with better than all deliberate speed.
We are at the point where white folks have to make the first move for a change. You can’t just put the whole burden of racial reconciliation on Black shoulders anymore.
The Associated Press did a video segment that
I have had no problem with the black people that I know. However, the burglar he broke into our house, the guy who held up the ATM across from my office and the one who shot a woman a block from there all happened to be black. I carried a gun to work the last few years I was downtown. The people I know by name would not do any of that.
So you have to assume every Black person you don’t know has the capability to to be criminal?
Why not just say that’s your problem rather than complain about organizations Black people create to dig themselves out? And do you make the same assumptions about white folks when you hear about a white criminal?
I see you are a very selective reader
<i>I see you are a very selective reader
How about…
Harlem Globetrotters?
NAACP?
Congressional Black Caucus?
What are my assumptions which bother you so much?
“Harlem Globetrotters” doesn’t have Black, Negro or any equivalent in it. Not to mention it’s not a social uplift organization…it’s a circus. This was absurd for you to even mention.
NAACP has always had white members, from its very first day until now.
The CBC is a social club…they didn’t allow a white guy who represented a Black majority district to join and did allow a Black Republican that represented a white majority district. You can call that divisive if you like.
So let’s give you one out of three.
What bothers me is your assumption that organizations with “Black” etc. in their names are necessarily divisive, and hence worthy of opposition. Because to this day, if you intend to address issues that are specific to Black people, you must have “Black” or some such in your name or no one knows.
The United Negro College Fund tried dropping the “United Negro” part and donations fell because no one knew who they were or what their mission was. And the UNCF supports HBCUs, which are not only open to white people but are actively recruiting them.
Honestly, that you had to reach for the absurdity of “Harlem Globetrotters” and the 66% error rate strongly suggests you can’t trust your immediate reaction in this regard. That you’re not looking at what these crews actually do before you oppose them. And the problem with THAT is you will inevitably oppose a solid organization, which will get you deemed irrational and hateful in turn, which ends all conversation between folks who could probably find legitimate grounds for cooperation.
Because Black people get as angry at being misrepresented as white folks do.
I was only joking about the groups I listed because this is not the point at all.
I am not personally offended by any of the specific examples, but by the basic idea. I can watch the BET channel if I want to. I have no need for the Black Pages. I’ve enjoyed the Globetrotters. I’ve also enjoyed concerts by Ella Fitzgerald, Count Basie, The Duke and Teddy Wilson. None of whom were listed as black entertainers or in any way divisive, but rather merged the whole audience into one.
What I am saying (if you will refer to my very first comment)
<i>What I am saying (if you will refer to my very first comment)
Sure, I’ll discuss it. (That’s what I thought have been trying to do all along here.)
The 1964 Civil Rights Act supposedly prohibited the use of race (along with gender and religion) to discriminate. Before the word discriminate became only used negatively it meant to distinguish between by some trait.
I think it would have been better to follow this and eliminate ANY racial bias in the laws. Instead we have had increasing use of color in a way which some think makes up for past unfair and preferential treatment.
‘m not saying that situations which are not labeled can’t still be unfair and discriminatory, of course they can and have been in many cases. However, using either color explicitly is in and of itself discriminatory
This is too sweeping a statement. No group is ever unanimous in its beliefs or behavior.
They differed in technique but not intent. See, everyone wants a better life.
Now, keeping in mind that understanding isn’t agreement…do you recognize the government caused damage to Black people by its decisions and actions? And if so, do you think the government should take steps to undo the damage it caused?
I will tell you every Black Democrat and most Black Republicans will answer the first question “yes.” Can you understand why? And every Black Democrat will also say “yes” to the second question…even though many don’t believe it will ever actually happen. Can you understand why?
How do you reverse exclusion by a given quality other than by inclusion by that same quality? You really can’t. At this point insisting on “colorblindness” strikes me like forcing cops to obey the speed limit when chasing speeders.
Now. Like I said, everyone want a better life. We have been damaged by Jim Crow, redlining and all that. And the government won’t do anything about it because even it discomfits the most liberal of white people. So who is left to do this work? Us.
And if you tell us our having organizations dedicated to our own uplift under these circumstances bothers you, you’re saying no one should do anything about it, not even us.
Before I go further, can you suggest another interpretation than that the suggestion that Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage we’ve absorbed, when the government does nothing due to popular opinion, is tantamount to saying we’re stuck where we are, and should be?
“See, everyone wants a better life.” OK, for the sake of the discussion, let’s assume that.
Over the years the government has caused black people (and others, most of us in fact) a wide range of “damage”.
When people place responsibility on an entire group we often tend to treat that group as an individual with all the traits a single person might have. This leads to a lot of problems including building divisions as individuals say to themselves, “Hey, I didn’t do that and would have been against it if asked.”
Think of a classroom which erupted into chaos when the teacher was called down to the office for a few minutes. She comes back and punishes the whole class by keeping them after school.
What is the reaction of those who did not do it?
The second paragraph of the Constitution begins with, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This is a statement of a goal rather than an accomplished fact by declaration.
We often hear people state this is a Christian country. Others are quick to say what the founding fathers claim the founding fathers were hypocritical because they held slaves which is in direct conflict with the statement of equality.
Not all of these men would qualify by many definitions of Christian. In fact the freedom to believe individually was one of their main goals.
They were a group of individuals, slavery had been a functioning part of life for years before they were born. The main idea of the declaration was opposition to Britain’s oppression of the colonists. This was no unanimous undertaking anymore than a vote today on farm subsidies, the war, or any other issue. They were going to have to compromise on many things in order to form a country out of several hundred thousand people. Some individuals thought slavery disgusting and demeaning to both slave and slaver holder, but the whole group is often blamed for not forbidding it.
Eighty years later the issue was decided by the most damaging war in US history. Here again we cannot take group credit for abolishing slavery, but enough individuals were willing to oppose it against the will of those who wanted to keep it.
The same goes for the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. The same today wherever negative racial acts are committed.
When a government enacts legislation which many believe to be a help to solve an injustice it sometimes causes more damage than cure. Affirmative action is one of those faulty attempts to fix an age old problem which falls way short. I think this is true of school busing, quota hiring or other rulings to attempt to repair those historical damages. Almost immediately the 1964 law was compromised.
A man comes up to a bunch of kids and begins handing out candy. He recognizes one child as Japanese. “You will not get any candy from me
Can you suggest another interpretation than that the suggestion that Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage we
I’m not ignoring all you’ve written, by the way. I just need this point to be clear. You can even skip the blame question if you like,
How about using names for the organizations which are race-neutral, but still provide positive guidance and ideas.
There are plenty of examples of helpful organizations with names that are not race-specific. The Boy and Girl Scouts, W.E.B. Du Bois Club, etc.
How about something like “New Horizon” or “Free-for All” which are just general and not excluding by nature. Or something specifically goal oriented
I can’t go forward without you answering the question.
Can you suggest another interpretation than that the suggestion that Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage we
“I can
<i> My answer is to call it something without the label BLACK. There is no reason black people can
Fine. You are entirely free to reject my report that what you see as the “only alternative” is offensive to a lot of people. After forty plus years in advertising I have a bit of experience on selling both products and ideas.
If you prefer to use that approach because it makes you feel like you are getting even for past offenses against black people, go right ahead.
I still believe it would be better to get along with each other than to get even. That is my alternative
<i>You are entirely free to reject my report that what you see as the
“I realize white people are offended by assertions of Black identity. Denying that identity would damage us more than white opprobrium is no more an option than is denying one’s Christian identity to assuage atheists.”
How does leaving Black out of a specific reference to race “deny” your identity? Why would leaving it out of any program name or project deny your identity?
One does not need to say White Christian. Leaving the modifier “white” out of the title does not deny being white — it leaves Christian open to anyone. I am no longer what most would identify as a Christian, but I don’t need to be labeled a White agnostic. You only need to “assuage” anyone if you truly want to promote quality and acceptance of each other.
“We are not ideal concepts that constantly fall down, we are humans that occasionally reach sublime heights. If there is an alternative, give it to me. Otherwise I must put real events ahead of a theory.”
I have repeatedly given you an alternative which is do what you want for whomever you want, but do it without diminishing OR excluding anyone else. Black specifies only one just as the labels in the pre-1964 Civil Rights Act specified White Only and Black Only.
“You don’t understand. Nowhere have I discussed “getting even.” That you can read what I’ve written as some effort to “get even” is a problem. You don’t even realize it.”
Affirmative Action, quotas, “Racial Balance” and other efforts to raise black people are done at the exclusion, discrimination toward and expense of others.
I listed some good government examples of real events, here are some not so good real events.
• My dentist’s son could not get into the University of Illinois Dental School because of the racial quota system dispite his excellent grades.
• Our local school district has spent hundreds of millions of dollars busing kids, building schools and eliminated Honors Classes due to a quota ruling which has only served to lower the quality of education for all kids.
• There was no “quota” of how many of each race must live in our neighborhood, but we gradually became integrated without any problems. The problem for all now is the kids can’t go to the closest school — they all ride buses around town.
None of the above three examples has helped heal anything — quite the opposite effect.
<i>
This IS my answer:
What was my question?
This was my question.
<i>Before I go further, can you suggest another interpretation than that the suggestion that Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage we
“This was my question.
Before I go further, can you suggest another interpretation than that the suggestion that Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage we’ve absorbed, when the government does nothing due to popular opinion, is tantamount to saying we’re stuck where we are, and should be?”
If we were face to face I could say, “Read my lips…”
Do whatever you want to do to help black people.
Form any organization you wish to have…dedicated to undo the “damage” you’ve absorbed.
Do it without the label “BLACK.”
Call it anything without including the word “black” in the name. PUSH has no black in the name, but people know what it is. It IMPLIES EXCLUSIVITY if you use the word Black, just as with the word Negro in NAACP (It doesn’t matter if white people have been participants, the perception is still in the name.)
Do not push for government programs like Affirmative Action quotas. Do something which does not take away from any other race.
I have answered your question repeatedly. I think you are just jerking me around, but I was hoping to have a legitimate reasonable discussion.
I’m done. I have no other answers.
I have no other answers.
I know.
I’m not jerking you around. I know your position. It is the mainstream position. I’m not sure whether you refuse to understand me or if you really can’t.
Maybe if you say, Jeopardy-style, what the question is that you’ve answered, you’d realize it’s not the question I asked. The question you are answering is, “What do I think Black people need to do to close the race chasm?” That is obvious.
That is not what I asked. It is very obviously not what I asked. Can you honestly not see that you answered a question I never asked? I’m not even asking for the answer anymore…I want to know if you really can’t tell. Either way, that has to be my last question.
You stated…
This was my question.
Before I go further, can you suggest another interpretation than that the suggestion that Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage we’ve absorbed, when the government does nothing due to popular opinion, is tantamount to saying we’re stuck where we are, and should be?
——————
I suggested another interpretation other than “Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage absorbed”.
That interpretation… is that you start organizations to undo the damage, but that they NOT have the word Black in the name of the organization.
My reason for suggesting it that it is divisive with the word Black. If you really want to undo anything you will get better results by doing it without creating animosity and resistance.
Earlier I pointed out the fact that the government has done several specific things rather than the “nothing” which you state.
You also state, “...the government does nothing due to popular opinion,”
I listed things they have done which are NOT popular with a lot of people, such as, Affirmative Action and busing to achieve racial balance, permitting BET, etc.
You apparently will only accept an answer worded in some specific way and ignore all else I have written.
You apparently will only accept an answer worded in some specific way and ignore all else I have written.
No, I just wanted my question answered. That’s past tense now.
I am still amazed that people can’t get over one word. I can’t get over that you said it doesn’t matter whether or not white folks are welcome as long as it has the word “Black” in the title…that the very idea puts white people off and YOU think the problem is with Black folks and the word “Black.”
I have told you what I think will work better, but you dislike my response and insist it is therefore NOT an answer to your question.
It is AN answer, but not your preferred answer.
You want me to go along with what you want. You don’t want to give up anything or compromise in any way even if it may accomplish your ultimate goal.
This reminds me of a designer friend of mine who once got a call from a man in a nearby town. It seems the man found my friend, Ken’s business card lying on a sidewalk and liked the design.
He called Ken, made an appointment and disgused having Ken do a design for his business. When they got to the price the man said, ” That’s too much. The printer back home will do one for half as much money.”
When Ken asked why he didn’t just go to that printer and have it done, he said he had already done that, but didn’t like the printer’s design.
You have missed the whole point. There is no black in Affirmative Action, but the effect is the same as the narrowing when Black is there. It is discriminating just the same as if White were inserted into another group or program name.
You are apparently not satisfied with the results so far, but don’t what to change the approach.
The man didn’t get the business card he wanted either.
<i>I have told you what I think will work better, but you dislike my response and insist it is therefore NOT an answer to your question.
It is AN answer, but not your preferred answer.
You want me to go along with what you want. You don
My answer is objectively based on my 40 years advertising experience of what works better in dealing with a mass market.
In yes or no terms my answer is Yes. I have offered alternatives for your consideration.
Here is your often asked question. Why don’t you simply answer it the way you want it answered so we will both be happier?
——————————-
What was my question?
This was my question.
Before I go further, can you suggest another interpretation than that the suggestion that Black people should have no organizations dedicated to undo the damage we’ve absorbed, when the government does nothing due to popular opinion, is tantamount to saying we’re stuck where we are, and should be?
My answer is objectively based on my 40 years advertising experience of what works better in dealing with a mass market.
It also targets white Americans’ opinions rather than Black American’s conditions.
My question is just asking you about an assertion I already made. It is my answer.
Why do you believe you cannot have organizations dedicated to benefit black people without using the word black? Do you understand why some people may be put off by Affirmative Action?
How would doing so target white opinions and not black conditions?
There are organizations which benefit more than one race —Goodwill Industries, the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities. Are these “targeting white American opinions”?
Of the three, Catholic Charities I would guess has limited itself primarily to Catholics for its support, but serves others too.
The Salvation Army gets more support from the evangelical Christian public, but does not limit who they give aid.
I suppose due to no particular segment of society as a support group Goodwill receives donations from the widest variety of people.
I’m sure the bilingual catering by US businesses and government has the same backlash effect as Affirmative Action. I maintain that having the broadest possible range of public support is the way to raise interest and dollars.
I, for example, am not opposed to imigration, I am opposed to illegal immigration and believe it is detrimental to the individuals who come here illegally and are paid less than they should be and must worry about getting caught and deported. Also to those who try to get in legally and to society as a whole due to the obvious division into those who understand English only and those Spanish only.
Why do you believe you cannot have organizations dedicated to benefit black people without using the word black?
I don’t. I just think rejecting an organization for no reason but that it has “Black” or the equivalent in its name, is silly.
Do you understand why some people may be put off by Affirmative Action?
Sure. The troubles they face in their lives makes them wonder where the hell this privilege is that everyone claims they they have (I’m assuming ‘they’ are not open racists, have never been in a position to hurt a Black person and has never actually considered doing it anyway…your basic Good Guy or Gal).
White people feel discriminated against by not being invited to participate and benefit from programs that try to undo racism but may not notice them if we don’t make a point of saying they’re for Black people.
How would doing so target white opinions and not black conditions?
Because no Black person that didn’t vote for Bush is disturbed by programs that specifically include us and make our needs central. It counters the very specifically anti-Black bias of the overall culture.
I don’t know if there’s any way to do it that doesn’t offend great swaths of mainstream folk. But countering the bias comes first and we can search through the solutions for the least offensive.
There are common issues of course, and institutions to deal with them. And if you compare charities to charities you’ll find Black folks give just as freely across racial lines as any other group you can define.
But what do you think of St. Patrick’s Day Parades?
And your “don’t ask the government” suggestion is really a non-starter. Black people’s taxes were used to pay for that oppression.
Well, I guess at least we finally understand each other’s position. I have no problem with St. Patrick’s Day parades. But it’s not the same as my comments concerning the use of the word black for preferential treatment. More like black style music, much of which I enjoy. (Rhythm & Blues, Jazz, but not Rap)
(I may be part Irish
BTW, I get the meaning for your name choice of Prometheous. Instead of trading livers to be fair, it might be better to both eat a bit of crow :-)
There’s been some reading into the name choice…the most interesting was that it’s a take-off on Vonnegut’s “Between Time and Timbuktu,” because it had a space ship named Prometheus 5. It was actually sort of random. Worked out nicely, though I’m not giving up my guts.
<i>Well, I guess at least we finally understand each other
Sure, I hope you will do the same.
I think one of the big advantages of anonymous internet conversation is people can get into more intimate discussions than are likely between people in the neighborhood. At least guys don’t usually get into this quite as deeply.
Most people can sight an example of when they felt discriminated against in some way, but for me it was never anything I couldn’t get over in short order and put behind me. Even though I have a vivid imagination, I doubt I can really understand the feelings caused by an ongoing, multigenerational prejudice.
They say you can’t judge a book by its cover. Likewise, with people, character and other internal traits are what really matter.
I remember my dad telling how it was when he was a kid and being called “Swede” was an insult. Immigrants of many nationalities, Dagoes, Hunkies, Pollacks, Krauts, all stuck to their own group and such names would start many a fight.
Where I grew up there were so many Swedes (I’m half Swedish) it was a common name and no longer an insult. (Probably not what was said as much as how it was said.) Or maybe buy the late 1930s and early 1940s people had mellowed or the depression and then the war gave them all something in common. I am beginning to think as our economy separates us into two classes we may see race as less of a divider.
Thanks for hanging in there. It has been interesting and informative.
register a new account »Posting Security