When it comes to race, American politics is as polarized as a red and blue election map. On one side are those who try to distract from the issue; on the other side are those who work to sensationalize it. As this campaign season shows, what unifies both is bigotry. Take the reaction to my recent In These Times article… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (51)Page 1 of 1 pagesPerhaps 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 — drinking fountains, benches, public transportation. Being from the north I had only heard and read of such and never really thought much about it.
I had hopes the 1964 law would make things different.
Well, it at least removed those shocking signs. But different isn’t always better. Since that time we’ve seen color added to things like Black Entertainment Channel, The Black Pages, Black Pride, and in plain clothes as Affirmative Action.
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.
Whether used to label a whole category of the voting spectrum, as an adjective in a list of crimes and social slights, or a method to unite those who have so long faced the negative-only definition of the word, such distinctions will not help to bridge any chasm — real or perceived.
Posted by whattheheck on May 9, 2008 at 6:54 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 10:10 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 12:37 PM 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 9:36 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 9:21 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 9:39 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 9:46 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 9:27 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?
OK, so they got tired of waiting, that doesn’t alter the effect.
There would BE no effect if they hadn’t gotten tired and made their own. The exclusion would continue and as long as no one mentioned race everyone except Black people would be cool.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 13, 2008 at 10:37 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 10:43 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 — each is good at what he does and none depends on special categorizing to be allowed to do what he does.
Targeting audiences is just common sense marketing whether the category is Swedish korv, surf boards or music. None requires a whole network, special channel or other exclusive device.
If they did we would have Better Black Homes and Gardens, Black American Medical Association or go back to Black Baseball League, etc.
Do you not think it is better to have an NBA rather than a BNBA?
Posted by whattheheck on May 13, 2008 at 12:01 PM 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 1:15 PM OK, I’ll stay with the NBA.
Regarding the NBA you said,”...it was not necessary to put “white” in its name to make it so.”
But,”...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.”
Somehow they knew.
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.
Now if we go the affirmative action route we need to set a racial quota on NMBA membership as we have done in schools from K-12 and on into colleges.
How far should we go with this approach. Should we set quotas by neighborhood? By city? By state? Would this eliminate the chasm or exacerbate it?
I have lived in the same house for 41 years and watched as our all white neighborhood gradually (and peacefully — no redlining, no block busting) blacks, browns, yellows all moved in. Two doors away is a family from Pakistan and adjacent to my back yard is a black family. They all came without adding a label of any color.
I guess we will just continue to disagree on the methods and the reactions to them, I speak from my point of view and only for myself, but I find the Black or White before the noun offensive and divisive.
Posted by whattheheck on May 14, 2008 at 9:38 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 10:41 AM 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?
I have no idea and neither do you, right?
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.
She may have had any one of these or simlar experience.
That is not what is at issue here. If were are to ever change things it must come through realizing what we have in common with each other — not what is different.
People can either do that or continue to insist on special treatment and privilege. It may feel good and like an old debt is being collected, but it will only keep divisions alive.
The comment by the You Tube woman was short sighted or prejudiced, but if it comes from her life experience it is just as valid as that of the black person being unfairly treated.
Posted by whattheheck on May 14, 2008 at 2:41 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 2:46 PM I see you are a very selective reader — good way to remain prejudiced.
I gave no indication that all the people of any color is likely to be a criminal. Obviously all people have that capability. I was speculating the woman you mentioned may be reacting to such an event. A child who has been bitten by a dog may become phobic about any dog. (Don’t jump to my equating dogs and blacks.)
You seem happier assuming the worst my comments. I guess that is yoour privilege
I give up on the chasm between the two of us. Let’s hope this is not the continuing pattern between the races.
Posted by whattheheck on May 15, 2008 at 7:49 AM I see you are a very selective reader — good way to remain prejudiced.
Actually, I need...NEED, mind you...to make a point.
You seem happier assuming the worst my comments.
The point: if you are offended by organizations with the word “black” in their names, even when you can’t name a single one that excludes people who are NOT Black, you have cause for reflection and I would be foolish to automatically assume the best. After all, you don’t seem to be extending much benefit of the doubt either.
(Don’t jump to my equating dogs and blacks.)
You obviously mean well. You need to see your own assumptions in order to do well.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 15, 2008 at 10:58 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 11:47 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 1:20 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)— Perhaps the “Race Chasm” will persist as long as individuals on each side continue to exploit and benefit from it.
Those who are in business and choose to insert Black into the name may benefit financially, I guess they think so or they wouldn’t do it. You can bet they’re not going to attract much business from any other racal group by doing so. No major brand product has ever made it by inserting White as far as I know.
Picture this: “Fly White American Airlines” What if Marshall Fields had said, “Give the White Lady What She Wants” “ The Pepsi White Generation”
When adding the adjective black the PR effect is a negative to whites and IMO, is to blacks, what we called in the army “eyewash” or in advertising “fluff” (meaningless). It’s like saying, “We’ll allow you to use black labeling because it will make you feel better, but the whites cannot because that will be construed as discriminatory.”
I can tell you flat out that you don’t win friends and influence people by doing it. But if that is not a goal then keep doing it.
One of the cardinal rules in selling, whether a product or an idea, is… Don’t piss off your audience.
If there is going to be any change for the better between races we need to emphasize our commonality NOT our differences. This whole champaign of “Diversity” is just BS and counter productive, IMO.
People all have the same basic needs:
Food, shelter, clothing
Or using the Maslow pyramid of needs our primary need is always security with others varying depending on the situation.
In my view unity is what we should be after.
Posted by whattheheck on May 15, 2008 at 2:22 PM What I am saying (if you will refer to my very first comment)— Perhaps the “Race Chasm” will persist as long as individuals on each side continue to exploit and benefit from it.
I don’t dispute that. What I dispute is also from your first comment.
Well, it at least removed those shocking signs. But different isn’t always better. Since that time we’ve seen color added to things like Black Entertainment Channel, The Black Pages, Black Pride, and in plain clothes as Affirmative Action.
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.
Are you prepared to discuss that? Because, again, Black people have only ever tried to close that divide.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 15, 2008 at 7:41 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 — it differentiates between us by color.
I do not think it helps anyone, but rather maintains division between the races.
You say, “Black people have only ever tried to close that divide.”
This is too sweeping a statement. No group is ever unanimous in its beliefs or behavior.
Posted by whattheheck on May 16, 2008 at 2:38 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 8:35 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 — your country attack ours in 1941 an my cousin died in that war.” The child was obviously not a veteran of WW2 and may in fact have been a third or fourth generation American.
Those who were victims may view government or societal actions as universally approved or at least tolerated by the whole as if the group were an individual. Those of the group committing the acts who did not approve or participate will feel like the kids our troops tarred with the same brush as the actual offenders.
My only contention regarding the use of black in naming associations is that it diminishes the possibilities of achieving true equality. The same applies to white. I believe the original goals in the paragraph are still out there and our government and its laws should attempt fairness and equal opportunity for all. We can try to do it through legislation — some may work and some may not, but generalizing the blame will not repair the damages.
Posted by whattheheck on May 17, 2008 at 10:39 AM 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?
Suppose Black people formed Black organizations that never assessed blame. Would that be okay?
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 17, 2008 at 10:57 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 11:01 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 — jobs, education, or similar.
Posted by whattheheck on May 18, 2008 at 7:02 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’ve absorbed, when the government does nothing due to popular opinion, is tantamount to saying we’re stuck where we are, and should be?
Because if you can’t, there’s no point in currying your favor, is there? Whatever explanation you put forth, whatever motivation you offer.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 18, 2008 at 9:35 AM “I can’t go forward without you answering the question.”
My answer is to call it something without the label BLACK. There is no reason black people can’t have an organization dedicated to whatever you choose without making it a Black named group or project.
What is your problem with my prior reply?
I don’t expect you to curry my favor — you seem intent on creating conflict for some reason where is is totally unnecessary.
The governent has periodically done a number of things, some good, some not. You seem to chose to ignore any attempts other than black instituted ones.
To begin with you are not a slave.
You can own property.
You can form any and all of those groups which I believe alienate the races.
You can vote.
It is illegal to discriminate so you now have a legal recourse.
Each of the above were accomplished with government involvement.
The government can pass laws, but cannot change the image of one group as seen by another group, only individuals who are willing to deal equaly with other individsuals can do that.
I still maintain that colored labels should have been eliminated by the 1964 Civil Rights Act — for all races and it works both ways or not at all.
I firmly believe labeling is most often used for political or economic advantage and is as divisive as is the bilingual labeling which is done for the same selfish reasons.
Both are short term feel good gestures with long term detrimental effects on the country as a whole and in particaulr the minorites involved.
Posted by whattheheck on May 18, 2008 at 11:53 AM My answer is to call it something without the label BLACK. There is no reason black people can’t have an organization dedicated to whatever you choose without making it a Black named group or project.
What is your problem with my prior reply?
To reject something because it has the word Black in it strikes me as absurd.
You say it makes white people feel excluded...but suppose you are, by the nature of the issue being addressed?
The governent has periodically done a number of things, some good, some not. You seem to chose to ignore any attempts other than black instituted ones.
That would not only be silly, it would be impossible.
However, you still haven’t be able to offer an alternative to the interpretation of...and this is of critical importance...actual events rather than theory that I’ve offered above. And so as to keep folks’ nervousness in check, I’ll point out here that there IS no alternate interpretation logically possible, but Black people chose to assume otherwise. Which is part of the reason I find the rejection of our efforts due to something so trivial as a name troubling.
It’s almost like the reverse equivalent of the old anti-civil rights argument about the right of free association.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 18, 2008 at 12:47 PM 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 — take it or leave it. It’s up to you.
Good luck. I mean that sincerely.
Posted by whattheheck on May 18, 2008 at 2:50 PM 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…
I still believe it would be better to get along with each other than to get even. That is my alternative — take it or leave it. It’s up to you.
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.
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.
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.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 18, 2008 at 4:37 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 7:16 AM “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 haven’t answered my question.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 19, 2008 at 8:22 AM This IS my answer:
• Do whatever you want to do to help black people.
• Do it without the label “BLACK.”
• Do not push for government programs like Affirmative Action quotas.That is NOT theoretical.
I don’t know how to say it any more plainly than that.
I can see now that there is little chance of breeching this “chasm.” If two people can’t do it — millions will never be able to.
I guess I’ll write my congressman and get him started on a White Caucus, The White Pages,(I suppose Caucasian, since the white pages include all races.) and an all white TV channel.
Then we can start on setting a quota for the NBA, etc.
Things won’t be as interesting or civil, but we’ll be singing off the same song sheet. (No, that will make it “different” song sheets.)
Posted by whattheheck on May 19, 2008 at 9:15 AM 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?
Where did you answer this? What was your answer?
You have not answered my question.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 19, 2008 at 9:29 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."Âť
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 11:00 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 11:36 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 2:57 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 3:28 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 5:58 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.
All I wanted was my question answered. I said it was a pause, I couldn’t go on until I knew if you understood what I was saying.
You gave me the answer to a question you were prepared to answer. You, objectively, did not answer the question I asked. Whatever your reason.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 19, 2008 at 7:55 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 6:56 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 12:11 PM 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 1:55 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 3:19 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 — I am a bit Scots Irish, but they were Scots which “...did the work the Irish didn’t want to do.” :-)
It took me a while to find it, but here is something by Abraham Lincoln which I saved from a magazine many years ago.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
A. LincolnI like to read history and biographies. Recently I read “Team of rivals,” by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It tells of how Lincoln asked several former men who opposed him in the race for president to serve in his cabinet.
At first some of those who accepted thought he was an ignorant backwoods country hick, but almost all came to have great respect for his governing and his way of treating people.
If I don’t hear something better from this election’s candidates I may just write him in.
-------------------------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 :-)
Posted by whattheheck on May 21, 2008 at 6:30 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.
Well, I guess at least we finally understand each other’s position.
That’s all I ever needed. Now, if you could share that understanding with folks that can hear you but not me, I’d be appreciative.
Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 21, 2008 at 7:41 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 6:30 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Sirota
- Tuning Out the Braindead Megaphone
- Mandate for Change
Voters' message to Obama: think big - Knowing When To Walk Away
- McCain Banking on a Confederacy of Dunces
- Signs of an Earthquake in Oregon
- Remembering Those Other American Dreams
Democrats struggle to win blue-collar voters
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
