With all the world’s hate for the U.S. based on a myriad of reasons from our system of government, to our president, to our foreign policy… I’d just like to bring light to a fact that inspired an article on CNN today: Americans donated more money to charities worldwide than the citizens of any other country– twice as much in fact than the second most charitable country which was Britain.
In total, Americans donated almost $300 billion to charities last year in response to the needs created by the Asian tsunami, and hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, and Rita. Excluding relief funds for various disasters around the world, the 2006 total of philanthropic giving in the U.S. rose 3.2 percent from the previous year– the largest chunk of that money (32.8 percent) was given to religious organizations and the second largest (13.9 percent) was given toward non-profit organizations that promote education (colleges, universities, and libraries) according to the Giving USA Foundation at Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy.
What’s even more impressive is that while it would make sense that large corporations would give the majority of those donations for the tax write-offs, 75.6 percent of the total came from individuals, and approximately 65 percent of households with incomes less than $100,000 gave to charity.
Individuals gave a combined 75.6 percent of the total. With bequests, that rises to 83.4 percent.
The CNN article stated this:
“It tells you something about American culture that is unlike any other country,” said Claire Gaudiani, a professor at NYU’s Heyman Center for Philanthropy and author of “The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism.” Gaudiani said the willingness of Americans to give cuts across income levels, and their investments go to developing ideas, inventions and people to the benefit of the overall economy.”
So while we tend to be the object of hate from many other countries, we aren’t all bad. In general, I think American culture perpetuates a solidarity that inspires us to help other people in need– either on our own soil or beyond.
Props to us! God Bless America. 
:p
but you have to think that USA is the 3rd nation by population (im not completely sure) with only India and China ahead. Also Americans are so much more richer so :p
How much does stuff cost there?
A litre of milk costs 7 EEK thats 2.27187546 U.S. dollars per US gallon
Gasoline here costs 17 (Estonian kroons per litre) = 5.51741183 U.S. dollars per US gallon
a 3 room appartment here costs around 1 500 000 Estonian kroons = 128 607 U.S. dollars
All electronics are pretty much more expensive here like cell phones or computers etc by all the ads i have seen when watching American channels on satelite or well ads online. Cars are a lot more cheaper in the states aswell…
100 000$ per year lmao thats 8333$ a month and half the people dont earn that much in a year here…
anyway i don’t have anything against USA myself though i do not like the decisions taken by the leadership you have right now and well there are idiots everywhere and all the Americans i have met in person have always been incredibly nice.
Right now its a very popular thing to be against the states or hate Bush for example and when i ask why most people can’t explain their dislike and i have actually heard a girl say “but everyone says he is bad and the war with Iraq is bad”….
To me growing up the states have been like whats cool and where all the coolest things come from
and there should be a bloody edit button or something.
I think no matter how much you give to charity and what you do you still will be bashed. If you get involved somewhere you get bashed for it and while you dont get involved you get bashed aswell for not helping. All the money Americans give to charity is also pretty much taken for granted…
America should give more to its inner medical services…
Just watched the movie Sicko from Michael Moore…
Its interesting that you(the system) acctually leave the patients at the curb…
Or that you dont help the people who helped on 9/11…
Its said but ofcourse pure kapitalism brings to such a situation…
I see somthing similar(in the medical asspects) developing here…
If it happens, Im migrating…
Btw, how much does college cost there? Here you go there for free…
I second the edit button
To answer your question, Abysium… college can cost anywhere from about $6,000 for a bachelor’s degree from a state school (at in-state tuition) or a tech school or community college to around $110,000 for a bachelor’s degree from a private university like U.S.C.
Keep in mind though that there are also lots of grants and scholarships available for those who qualify either because they are low-income, a minority, or they maintained a high grade point average in high school.
Most schools also have work-study programs that allow you students to get part-time jobs on campus to help pay for their tuition, and almost anyone can get a Sallie Mae educational loan which does not start accruing interest until 6 months after you graduate or drop out.
Regarding Sicko, I haven’t seen it, so it’s hard for me to comment intelligently on it. But I can tell you that if it’s showing people being left on the curb to die, that’s not a very accurate picture of our health care system. There is a big brew-haha in our papers because a woman was left to die in the waiting room of Martin Luther King Harbor Medical Center in Los Angeles a few weeks ago and everyone is up in arms about it and it may happen that the entire hospital winds up being closed down. The fact that this one story is such a big deal shows that it’s not commonplace. As a matter of fact, one of the issues I have regarding illegal immigrants is that they are basically given all of their health care for free here and do not pay into the system that provides that care.
I will not, however, suggest that our health care system in Los Angeles is good. It is much better in other parts of the country– less populated cities. It is not uncommon to wait 6 – 8 hours to be seen in an urgent care facility (facilities that were created to take the burden off of emergency rooms by removing the people who are very sick, but not with life-threatening injuries). Even paying $300 a month for my health insurance, I would describe my health care as slightly below average, and that fee does not include the copays for treatments and prescriptions when I need them.
Well OK, I undestand that a movie can exagerate many things, but I still hope to hear from an American who watched it…
Minority scholarships? Sounds racist to me… Just cos Im Slovenian I can get a scholarship there? Or do I have to be black?
Thou we have free college we still have lots of social&talent scholarships (cos life aint free)…
But I do belive fuel is cheaper there… Also conumer goods…
Gasoline here costs 1.1Euro/L (also your cars drink way too much)
Cigarets here cost 2Euro/pack
Vodka here costs min7Euro/L
Chocolate here costs min1Euro/plate
Just to give you an idea…
Gas here in Los Angeles, 87 octane is around $3.09 USD a gallon (I’ll leave it up to you to do the conversion– I’m a victim of the English system)
Cigarettes are about $5.00 per pack I think… but they are heavily taxed so maybe that accounts for the price. I don’t know.
Not sure about alcohol either since I don’t buy it by the bottle– in a bar, one vodka martini costs about $8.00 – $13.00.
You can buy chocolate by the plate???? That rocks.
And a lot of people do feel that scholarships based on race or applicants being excluded by race is racist. That’s sort of a controversy here and people have different feelings about it. However, it seems that if racism is anti-white, it’s called Affirmative Action. If it’s pro-white, it’s called racism. And yes, that part is f’d up in my opinion. I actually used to be for Affirmative Action because a lot of minority citizens were not being let into college because they were being brushed aside even when they were qualified. So they changed the system and created quotas that force schools to admit a certain number of minority students. The problem is… with those quotas in place, many white students who are better qualified and had better grades are not admitted because less qualified minority students are. So that essentially, created more racism because a lot of people were erroneously assuming that if you were black, white, female, you got into the school because of the quota only and not because you deserved to be there. It made things more difficult for the people it was intended to help.
I’ll try to watch that movie Sicko though and get back here and post my opinion on it. I just thought it’d be really depressing to see a movie about a lot of sick and dying people. I’ve given up depressing movies for the most part– I’d rather laugh at something like Knocked Up. Maybe someone else has seen it and can comment in the meantime.
Abysium, minority scholarships are not inherently racist just like women’s colleges or historically black colleges aren’t. Context and history are important. We have historically black colleges, for example, because there was time when the universities such as University of Maryland, etc did not accept black students. Same deal for women’s colleges. Some minority scholarships (not all) have the same philosophy…it might have more difficult at one time for minorities to attend higher education for financial reasons. And frankly, you can give scholarships for anything and people do. There are scholarships for people who are left-handed, for people who are Italian, for people whose parents work for Amgen, etc. If a person wants to set up a scholarship, they should be able to give the money to whomever they see fit for whatever reason. Now their reasons COULD be racist but here’s the thing…not everything that deals with race is racist. A lot of minorities don’t understand this whenever they say something is racist. I’ve hard people say if a black man is arrested, “well, that’s racist.” Uh, no it isn’t. He was arrested because murdered 4 people. “Well, he’s being treated the way he is cause he’s black.” Okay, can we not overlook the fact that he killed 4 people?
Onto the other things, I was thinking the other day about how fortunate I am to live here. I’ve been rereading Isabel Allende’s biography and whenever I read about the civil unrest in other countries or the unstable govts, I realize how fortunate I am to live in a place where I don’t ever think I’ll wake up one morning and the govt has been overthrown by the military. Yes, America has problems just like every home has its own problems. And yes, America has done some fucked up things and perhaps the fucked up things we do are just more visible that the fucked up things other nations do to each other. But at the end of the day, I think we have a pretty great system to work with.
“There is a big brew-haha in our papers because a woman was left to die in the waiting room of Martin Luther King Harbor Medical Center in Los Angeles a few weeks ago and everyone is up in arms about it and it may happen that the entire hospital winds up being closed down.”
I don’t think that this issue isn’t commonplace…I mean, we’ve been hearing about the healthcare crisis, particularly in our emergency rooms for awhile now. Emergency centers have been closing because they are too expensive to run (for a myriad of reasons, illegal immigration perhaps being one of them and just the fact that a lot of people simply cannot afford adequate insurance) and the shortage in emergency leads to other issues such as people sitting in the emergency room for hours then having a heart attack. Or people coming into the emergency while having a heart attack and not being seen for hours.
I think part of the big issue stemmed from not only her dying on the emergency room floor, but the fact that her family called 911 and they didn’t do anything (not that I blame them — I mean, they did what they are trained to do). Morever, King has been under the gun for several years because the healthcare at that hospital is abysmal. Locals call it “Killer King.” There was a story a few years back about an unlicensed pathologist who had been misdiagnosing people with cancer, etc. That hospital has a really bad reputation and it should have been closed and revamped years ago.
Mara if I had a white college would that be racist or a white only country club.. or is a man’s only country club sexists?
Christopher, as I already said, context and history are important. Historically, when you saw a white college (and frankly, a college that only accepts white but doesn’t call itself a white college is, in fact, a white college) or whites only country clubs that excluded people on the basis of race because it felt that other races were inferior, etc, well that IS racist. And that is what you saw historically. But do I think that a whites only country club or college is inherently racist? No, I don’t. It could be racist depending on the facts and circumstances but the fact that it is whites only doesn’t automatically make it so. The fact that something deals with race doesn’t always mean that it is racist.
I’d also like to point out in case you were in any way implying such by your question (and forgive me, but it looked as if you were), that comparing historically black colleges to historically whites only country clubs is ridiculous because the country clubs were clearly racist when the black colleges weren’t. It isn’t racist to start your own college if the other schools won’t accept you because you are black or a woman and if people knew the history behind those schools and women’s colleges, they wouldn’t be so quick to say that it isn’t fair that there aren’t white colleges when there are historically black colleges and women’s colleges. That isn’t racist. Two different sets of facts, two different scenarios, one is racist and one isn’t.
I’m not aware of any colleges that only accept whites.. (I mean they probably exist). However excluding one group is always an ist or ism right? If I’m excluding a group just because I only want my group around.. I also disagree with your take on what decides what is racist.. the fact that creating an all black college because historically white colleges don’t accept blacks doesn’t make the black colleges any less racist than a white college. At least that is my opinion. I personally think race should not be a criteria at all for colleges, country clubs.. and for colleges it should be strictly based on grades, ect and for country clubs it should be strictly based on $$$. Personally I think your very wrong about two different scenarios, point.. both are racist. Two wrongs doesn’t make one right.
Christopher said: “I personally think race should not be a criteria at all for colleges, country clubs.. and for colleges it should be strictly based on grades, ect and for country clubs it should be strictly based on $$$.”
I think admissions should be based on your golf handicap and your club membership should be based on your grades.. but that’s just my twisted view of life.
lol, well what I mean was if u can afford the service it is yours regardless of your race… and if your smart and worked hard in school your admitted into college. I think it is a little bit of a joke.. does anybody really think that someone who scraped by at Compton High is going to excel at Harvard? Seriously that person is just wasting space for someone who worked their ass off in school.
Don’t ya love how our donation post turned into a racism post.
“I’m not aware of any colleges that only accept whites.. (I mean they probably exist).”
You’ll notice I said historically
There was a time when University of Maryland (I use this as an example of the many state schools that were white only) only accepted white students. This is part of the reason why historically black colleges were founded. My point about white colleges is that people will say, well there have never been any white colleges. Well, that would be inaccurate because if a school only ever accepted white students and specifically excluded other races, then that’s a white college. Just because the school doesn’t CALL itself a white college doesn’t mean that it isn’t.
“However excluding one group is always an ist or ism right?”
It isn’t always racism if that is what you’re asking. Whether something is racist depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding the exclusion. Racism has a particular definition– it is about racial superiority and hatred/intolerance of other races. Your exclusion doesn’t have to be on this basis. I mean, if you started an Irish club for Irish people to come together to celebrate their heritage, most of the people in that club will probably be Irish and white (I’m using this as an example). Your exclusion of non-Irish people doesn’t have to be racist. You’re not making any claims about the superiority of Irish people and denigrating other races. People tend to think of modern whites only clubs as racist because historically, that was the case. But it doesn’t have to be.
“I also disagree with your take on what decides what is racist.. the fact that creating an all black college because historically white colleges don’t accept blacks doesn’t make the black colleges any less racist than a white college.”
One, in my opinion, you clearly do not understand the definition of racism because you seem to think anytime something deals with race, that is racism. That isn’t racism. See my previous definition or look it up in a dictionary. Two, there is a difference between what University of Maryland did and what historically black colleges did. Historically black colleges NEVER excluded non-blacks nor was the purpose or motivation exclusion of nonblacks the way that other colleges excluded everyone but whites. Surely you see the distinction. The black college was created as a place where blacks could obtain higher education but it never excluded anyone else who wanted to attend. So no, the creation of historically black colleges was not racist.
“Personally I think your very wrong about two different scenarios, point.. both are racist. Two wrongs doesn’t make one right.”
See my previous statements in this post.
But are whites as generous in their philanthropic activities if they belong to a white-only club??
(trying to steer the conversation back on course…)
PJ, I get it
I only said what I did initially because it’s so difficult to explain the dynamics of race and other issues in the US to people who aren’t from here or don’t live here. And I mean, if there are scholarships for people who are left-handed (I got one in college) and for people whose parents worked for some random company that manufactures the boxes girl scout cookies are packaged in, what is the big deal if a private citizen wants to institute a scholarship at a university but stipulates that it has to a woman or a Mexican student?
Time for me to jump in here. I agree that “historically” speaking, we can understand the origin of black colleges and women’s colleges because indeed, those people needed an alternative when they weren’t allowed into the colleges being run by white men– who, at the time, were racist. However, I don’t think “tradition” and “history” are an excuse to perpetuate the exclusion of anyone based on race today, now. If we keep our goals in mind– which is to have a country where everyone is truly treated equally– that is difficult to do when people are more interested in celebrating their “history” and “heritage” (ie– in a way that’s exclusionary) rather than be part of “America here and now.”
It would be great if people could celebrate their heritage and be “color blind” but the truth is… anything you celebrate that does not include other people based on race simply sets one race apart from the others and encourages racism. For example, could I join the “Organization of Black Screenwriters?” Maybe I could legally, but if I showed up at a meeting, would people embrace me or ostracize me? The organization is intended to promote black writers in the entertainment industry plain and simple. It wasn’t created to promote me because I’m white.
While maybe these organizations do help people (like NOW, and the businesswomen associations of America), I refuse to join them because I am very much against how they promote women– by excluding men. I don’t think in the long run, that helps men to see women as equals. Men will see women as equals only when women prove their equals without excluding them. Same with Affirmative Action and minority scholarships.
Times have changed drastically since the days black colleges and women’s colleges were created. Our understanding as a society about equality has changed. Separate but equal will never lead this country to the place it needs to be. The only thing that will eventually end racism is when everyone can look at everyone else and know they got to where they are because they played by the same rules everyone had to play by. At that point, there will be no more excuses for the success of minorities and women, and anyone suggesting there is will look like a fool.
We live in a free country where people are welcome to join all-black churches, or go to all-black colleges, and become members of all-female organizations, etc. And that’s good– it’d be a shitty country if people weren’t allowed to do that. But I think the people who are involved in those things need to decide what’s more important– hanging on to a past, or making things better for the future of everyone.
I agree, I think. The “separate, but equal” doctrine didn’t work for segregated schools in the 50′s and 60′s. I guess it depends on the motivation and intent of the participant to see if it works in regard to today’s Black Student Union or the Latino Student Organization. Unfortunately, I keep hearing this voice in my head saying: “Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.”
“I agree that “historically” speaking, we can understand the origin of black colleges and women’s colleges because indeed, those people needed an alternative when they weren’t allowed into the colleges being run by white men– who, at the time, were racist. However, I don’t think “tradition” and “history” are an excuse to perpetuate the exclusion of anyone based on race today, now.”
What black colleges are using history and tradition as an excuse to perpetuate the exclusion of other races? Black colleges are not exclusionary. That is the point I am trying to make. There is a fundamental difference between what other institutions did by excluding non whites and what black colleges did and continue to do. The phrase separate but equal is completely inappropriate when discussing black colleges.
Aside from all of that, I don’t think equality has to mean that you cannot celebrate differences. In fact, because we are a country composed of so many different types of people, cultures and heritages, we should try to learn how to celebrate those differences in a positive way instead of making them seem like they don’t exist. It is the celebration of differences that makes us a great and unique country. We have Mardi Gras in Louisiana, we have French and Greek Festivals in Santa Barbara, we have China town and Olvera Street. Those things are not racist and they don’t encourage racism. I think it’s the coolest thing that I live in Southern California and on a given day, I can immerse myself in any culture in 20 minutes. I can get authentic Korean food or Mexican pastries, etc. The point is, differences are not always bad and we lose all of that when we try to make everyone alike. Heritage and culture can be fundamentally important to a person’s personal and individual history.
Acknowledging and celebrating difference does not encourage racism if you don’t imply it where it doesn’t exist — which I find in this country, we have a tendency to do. For example, I’ve had so many whites complain that black history month racist. In what way? How does celebrating the achievements and contributions of black for 28 days out of the year encourage racism, elitism or exclusivity? It doesn’t in the same way that Women’s History Month does not promote sexism.
As for your example with the organization, so what if it isn’t designed to promote you because you’re white. Does it matter? If you want to attend the organization, if you want to be part of that promotion, then you can. You aren’t excluded because you are white and moreover, are you speaking from experience or just assuming you’d be ostracized? There are obviously whites who are members of a lot of those types of organizations because they are there to promote the specific cause of that organization. And even if you were ostracized, would you assume it was because you were white? How would you know it was for that reason?
Ooh…I’m a kingpin
And PJ is a DEVIL
“I guess it depends on the motivation and intent of the participant to see if it works in regard to today’s Black Student Union or the Latino Student Organization.”
That’s all that I’m saying. I’ve been part of these organizations and I can tell you, the last thing people are thinking about is promoting racism. They’re discussing issues like how to increase the number of black students on campus, etc and tend to do a lot of community outreach (in their neighborhoods, etc). And also, some of these organizations exist mainly for support. If there are only 8 black students on campus, it’s likely that a few of them would be friends because they have common experiences and can relate to each other. The interesting thing is, people will assume that a group of black students are separatist but a group of white students aren’t.
Example: When I was in college, out of 800 students, there were perhaps, 10 blacks students. We didn’t ALL hang out, but we did tend to eat together or go out together. I was asked at least a dozen times each year from fellow white students, “Why are you guys so separatist? Why do you black students always sit together?” I found it so interesting because I could have asked these same students the exact same question.
Mara, I think you’re really coming from a place of idealism. Let’s look at reality here.
1. How do you think the black community would respond to a brand new organization created to promote white men in business? Think that would go over well? Or do you think we’d hear a lot about how racist the members are and how white men don’t need the help because they’re already in power?
2. No, I’m not speaking from experience with the Black Screenwriter’s Organization. I’m thinking I may actually go to one of their meetings just to test my theory. But it comes back down to WHY would I WANT to be part of an organization whose mission is not to benefit me? Why is a Black Screenwriter’s Organization better than say, the American Screenwriter’s Organization (I’m making that org up by the way for illustration purposes) that promotes all screenwriters regardless of their race or gender? Why is the one specifically dedicated to blacks better? Obviously, it’s designed to promote just blacks– not other ethnicities. And again, anything that is designed to promote one group based on ethnicity does not promote the idea that everyone should be looked at without their race being a factor. It does the opposite. It MAKES race a factor.
So yes, it does matter. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say “People shouldn’t treat me differently because I’m black” and then join clubs that use race as a basis for membership.
In terms of celebrating heritage… you are missing a big difference. It’s one thing to celebrate your heritage in a way that educates others about it (I’m all for celebrating Christmas and Hanukkah in school– as opposed to banning all those things because they might offend someone), but it’s something completely different to go to a church of all blacks (I was watching a black evangelist on Sunday morning on t.v. so I’ll use him as my example) and listen to him talk about how the world is racist and they have to support each other (as blacks) to overcome it. Now, don’t get this twisted. There’s nothing wrong with supporting people in your community, of our own race, etc. But if I decided to hire only white women because I felt they needed my support, at the exclusion of white men, black men, asian women, etc.– then that does little to help us all achieve equality. How can you “support” one group of people without it affecting some other group… and again, once you’ve decided to support a group based on their race, you are making race a factor.
We are posting at the same time… so my last comment was in response to Mara’s post before last… confusing I know.
Anyway… regarding the separatist thing. I went to an all-white high school with the exception of two black guys and a black girl. The black girl was a friend and I ended up dating (briefly) one of the black guys. The interesting thing was that the three black kids didn’t all hang out together at all. One was a jock, one was a goof, and the girl was kinda smart and nerdy. They found friends (white friends) based on common experiences, preferences, etc. that weren’t related to their race. They could have decided that was an important factor and all hung out together, but it wasn’t. People CHOOSE to make race a factor in their relationships or they don’t. If you were hanging out with the other black kids, then you were choosing to make race an important factor in who your friends were– not the other way around since you were specifically finding 8 out of hundreds of students who happened to be all black. I’m guessing for the white kids, race was not a factor in who their friends were because everyone was white (for the most part) so they looked at factors other than race when choosing.
“If you were hanging out with the other black kids, then you were choosing to make race an important factor in who your friends were– not the other way around since you were specifically finding 8 out of hundreds of students who happened to be all black.”
You’re assuming that I was choosing to make race a factor when I chose my friends and so did those other white students who always made an issue out of something that wasn’t a racial issue. I could have chosen to be friends with those individuals for a hundred reasons other than the fact that they were black. Maybe we all went to the same high school together (in fact, at least 4 of those students). Maybe we grew up in the same neighborhood. Who knows. But to assume that we hung out together because we were black is a gross assumption. Moreover, even if we were hanging out for that reason, that doesn’t make us racist. Perhaps we hung out together because as black women, we experience the world in the same way and could relate to each more than we could to white people. Does that make us racist? No, it doesn’t.
“I’m guessing for the white kids, race was not a factor in who their friends were because everyone was white (for the most part) so they looked at factors other than race when choosing.”
Interesting perspective. I happen to have friends who are black and I’m using race as a factor. These individuals only hang out with white kids (despite the fact that the school was 30% Asian — i.e., everyone else wasn’t white) aren’t using race as a factor notwithstanding the fact that out of all of the students on campus THEY could choose from, all of their friends were white. I fail to see your rationale.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. You said that it’s likely the black kids (10 out of 800) would be friends because they share a common experience — being black. Sure, it’s different if they went to the same high school, etc. but that wasn’t what you said until just now.
Let’s flip it around to illustrate. If I go to an all black school and there is only 1% white there, and I choose to be friends with ALL the white kids, why is that? It could very well be because we all experience being a minority so that common experience bonds us. But because that is the thread– if that’s really the only thread– and I came to that school not knowing anyone but just happened become friends with the entire group of white kids, then yes, I am choosing my friends based on that commonality which is the fact that we are all white in a black school. Now, if you’re black at that school, and there are 790 black kids, you are probably finding some reason other than being black to base your friendships on. It’s the difference between being part of the majority or part of the minority. Now I’m sure many of the black kids would be friends with me if I were there, but they wouldn’t be choosing to befriend me because I’m white. We’d probably share some other commonality– not related to race obviously– that was the basis of our friendship.
Maybe I’m not articulating this very well because I feel I have just repeated what I said before.
But here’s where I don’t think your argument holds, Mara. You’re saying that maybe you were hanging out with other black women because you all experience the world the same way and could relate to each other more than you could to white people. First, that attitude alone means you are setting yourself apart from whites. It’s hard to identify with the “human experience” when you already feel that people of a different race can’t relate to you– or you can’t relate to them. By having that attitude, you are choosing to have a “black experience” rather than a “human experience.” And second, if a bunch of white kids didn’t want to hang out with you because they could relate better to the “white experience,” they would indeed be separatist, wouldn’t they?
I’m not saying that every white person should be friends with every black person, vice versa, we of course form relationships with people we can relate to. But to suggest that you’re not making race a factor when there is only 1% of a school’s population made up of black students and you all happen to all be friends, it certainly appears that you sought out each other based on race (with the exception of those who already knew each other from high school).
“How do you think the black community would respond to a brand new organization created to promote white men in business?”
That really isn’t the point. The point is whether it is racist and it may not be. I’ve already touched this issue in an earlier post to Christopher. And I’m sure you already know I take issue with your use of the term “black community.” I really don’t know what that is. Would some black people be offended and think it was racist? Sure. Would they be right? It would depend on the facts and circumstances of that organization. Just because someone says something is racist (which people in this country are SO quick to do), doesn’t mean that it is.
“No, I’m not speaking from experience with the Black Screenwriter’s Organization. I’m thinking I may actually go to one of their meetings just to test my theory. But it comes back down to WHY would I WANT to be part of an organization whose mission is not to benefit me? Why is a Black Screenwriter’s Organization better than say, the American Screenwriter’s Organization (I’m making that org up by the way for illustration purposes) that promotes all screenwriters regardless of their race or gender? Why is the one specifically dedicated to blacks better?”
Well since you aren’t a part of this organization and have never been to their meetings, I don’t understand how you can speak on what it promotes. And it’s not necessarily that one organization is better or the other. It’s about what your values are and if you agree with what that particular org promotes. Maybe it is about encouraging black writers because perhaps, in the business, there are not very many. Maybe it’s a support network for black writers who feel ostracized and alone in an industry that is predominantly white. Maybe it’s for black writers to come and discuss the topics that are of interest to them and to promote the publication of works that are about black people and talk about things black people want to read about and can relate to. I’m not saying any of those things are true. I’m just saying that there are million reasons why this organization exists. If you’re down with what they’re doing, well then that would obviously be the better choice for you. And if you don’t want to join, then don’t. I don’t understand the question as to why you would want to join that as opposed to the other you mentioned.
Moreover, making race a factor is not always negative. It can be positive. If black writers realize that black people would like to read stories that they can relate to, well, yes that makes race a factor but not in a negative way.
“So yes, it does matter. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say “People shouldn’t treat me differently because I’m black” and then join clubs that use race as a basis for membership.”
Actually you can say that. To say otherwise is absolutely ridiculous to me. Women banded together and organized because they wanted equal rights while at the same time saying, you can’t treat us differently because we’re women. One has nothing to do with the other unless it promotes racism in some way. What you’ve cited doesn’t.
“In terms of celebrating heritage… you are missing a big difference. It’s one thing to celebrate your heritage in a way that educates others about it (I’m all for celebrating Christmas and Hanukkah in school– as opposed to banning all those things because they might offend someone), but it’s something completely different to go to a church of all blacks (I was watching a black evangelist on Sunday morning on t.v. so I’ll use him as my example) and listen to him talk about how the world is racist and they have to support each other (as blacks) to overcome it. ”
What difference did I miss? Black people and other groups celebrate their cultures all of the times in ways that educate others about it — it is other people who imply racism where there isn’t. Parents complain about Black History Month in schools as racist without realizing that 95% of what their kids are learning throughout the year is European, white history. Parents complain if their kids have to read Toni Morrison in their American Literature class as racist while completely ignoring the fact that most of the literature their kids will read will be white authors. People in this country need to relearn and re-educate themselves on what racism is because if we don’t, we can talk about color-blindness until we’re blue in the face and ultimately nothing will change. People won’t become less racist. Race will just be that elephant in that room. I think you’re the person who is the being idealistic if you think that at some point we’re going to achieve some pseudo-utopia where
“But if I decided to hire only white women because I felt they needed my support, at the exclusion of white men, black men, asian women, etc.– then that does little to help us all achieve equality. ”
You can support without excluding and I’m trying to figure out why you think all of these organizations and churches exclude other races. On what facts or information are you basing these conclusions? You can promote without exclusion and without bringing other groups down. It is a worthy skill to learn.
We’re totally posting at the same time!
“But here’s where I don’t think your argument holds, Mara. You’re saying that maybe you were hanging out with other black women because you all experience the world the same way and could relate to each other more than you could to white people. First, that attitude alone means you are setting yourself apart from whites. It’s hard to identify with the “human experience” when you already feel that people of a different race can’t relate to you– or you can’t relate to them. By having that attitude, you are choosing to have a “black experience” rather than a “human experience.” And second, if a bunch of white kids didn’t want to hang out with you because they could relate better to the “white experience,” they would indeed be separatist, wouldn’t they?”
Question: Do you really think you, as a white woman and I, as a black woman, really experience the world in the same way?
Christine, I’m referencing your last post but I didn’t cut and paste because I thought it would be too long.
Okay for one, I don’t know exactly what argument doesn’t hold water. I have said several times, everytime something involves race doesn’t make something racist. So if you’re referring that argument, I’m a little confused as to what you’re actually saying. I would appreciate if you could clarify that more.
In terms of the example I gave you, the point was, people assume things about other racial groups they don’t assume about others. People assumed that we were a separatist group merely because we ate meals together and went out together. There was no exclusion, no one chose not to hang out with other students because they were white. This was an assumption that was made. I didn’t say I chose those friends because they were black. Maybe it for the other reasons I listed. The point was, it was always assumed that it was because of race when in actuality, it could have been for a dozen other reasons such as those I listed. Heck, we could have met at the local church before school started. Who knows. And like I said before, the school had plenty of other ethnic groups and no one ever says to the white students who all hang out with each other, they’re being separatist by deliberately choosing to have only white friends.
My second point was that even if we did choose each other as friends because we share a common experience as black minorities, that too isn’t racist. The fact is, there is a black experience that is distinct from yours as a white person. That isn’t racist. That’s just the way the world is. Moreover, I find it a little insulting, no, not insulting but insensitive that you would suggest that by in some way acknowledging and perhaps (I didn’t say I did, but for the sake of argument) choosing my friends based on my black experience, that I am choosing that experience over the human one. I do not CHOOSE to have a black experience at all. My experience of the world comes from the way it treats ME. I only have a black experience because our society has created one. So, yes, to cope with this experience or have some relatability, I might choose people that share a similar experience.
To answer your question in the last comment… No, I don’t think we experience the world in the same way. But I would also say that I don’t experience the world in the same way that Christopher experiences it, or even my sister, or anyone else. And I guess the difference is… the fact that someone is white doesn’t ever strike me in that they might be experiencing the world the way I experience it. That never comes to mind. There are lots of white women who see things very differently than I do and I can’t relate to at all. And there are black women who share the same ideals I do and we actually are better suited as friends. So while some people might see race as an important factor in relating to someone, I just don’t. I’ve never seen gender that way either.
And since you brought up Black History Month, I’ll give my opinion on this. I think it’s ridiculous. We should be aiming for a curriculum that does represent blacks and whites and hispanics and asians and their historical accomplishments without needing a special “month” to teach it. I don’t believe in Women’s history month either. Does that exist? By making black history “different” as in a special month– we are just perpetuating that blacks aren’t a part of the bigger history.
And the truth is… if every other month teaches about the accomplishments of whites, that obviously means whites had more accomplishments. Which makes sense given the history of this country and that it’s really hard for women and blacks to make amazing accomplishments when they are enslaved or not allowed to work or be educated. But that is what it is. It doesn’t make the accomplishments of white men any less important to our current lives. I think we should be including the accomplishments of women and blacks — even if it’s relatively few– along with the accomplishments of whites. I don’t think we gain anything by picking out a group of people who happened to have the same skin color or the same genitalia and dedicating a month to their accomplishments.
It’s just like (I know, now I’m bringing a new tangent in) me reading in the paper about a week ago that the city of Los Angeles (or it might be one of the surrounding cities) is issuing an official apology to blacks for the injustices done to them in the past. Seriously… if that doesn’t help blacks feel victimized I don’t know what does. If the city wanted to issue an apology to women for treating them as second class citizens before I was born, I’d think that was just as ridiculous. That’s making an assumption that the women today have any right to accept that apology. We don’t. The injustices weren’t done to us. They were done to women who aren’t alive anymore. If anything, they should have apologized to them– and not the city… the people who lived then. The city now have no responsiblity to apologize for something people before them did and the women/blacks now don’t have any right to accept that apology.
It’s that kind of stuff that keeps people fettered to the past, taking on the injustices done to their great grandparents, and somehow carrying the big huge heavy chip on their shoulders that brings them down. The more I listen to how wrongly women were treated, the more anger I have toward men. But that’s a problem. Because the men who did those things are not the men who are here today. And the whites who did those things to blacks aren’t here today either. And truly, black people today can relate much better to whites today than they can the experiences of their grandfathers.
I think America would be better off if they found reasons they could relate to everyone rather than reasons they can relate to small groups of people. But that is just my opinion. Considering I see a lot of blacks all the time who complain about how unfairly blacks have been treated and how they’re still being treated unfairly, I don’t think what we’re doing now is working.
As a woman, I know sexism exists. I’m sure I’ve been discriminated against because I’m female. But seriously, so what? If it happened, it happened. The best thing to do is get over it and have the confidence you can compete at any level men are competing at. And the truth is… I’ve been given a lot of opportunities in my career by men, so it’s hard for me to wallow in how sexist the world is. I don’t need the support of other women to prove myself to men. All I have to do is prove myself as an individual and the mission is accomplished right?
I don’t need men to understand all the accomplishments of women throughout history to have an open enough mind to hire me. It just makes no sense to me.
“So while some people might see race as an important factor in relating to someone, I just don’t. I’ve never seen gender that way either.”
That’s fine. But I do think it’s insensitive and unfair of you to criticize those for whom race might be an important factor in relating to someone. I don’t share the same experience as all black women, however, many black women do relate to one another as black women. And for some women, that relation is an important one. For me personally, I can discuss things with my black friends that I can’t with my white friends simply because they don’t get what it is to be a black woman and the issues that I may want to discuss are things that specifically affect black women.
“And the truth is… if every other month teaches about the accomplishments of whites, that obviously means whites had more accomplishments. Which makes sense given the history of this country and that it’s really hard for women and blacks to make amazing accomplishments when they are enslaved or not allowed to work or be educated. But that is what it is. It doesn’t make the accomplishments of white men any less important to our current lives. I think we should be including the accomplishments of women and blacks — even if it’s relatively few– along with the accomplishments of whites. I don’t think we gain anything by picking out a group of people who happened to have the same skin color or the same genitalia and dedicating a month to their accomplishments.”
Out of everything that you’ve written, this is probably the most baffling and frankly, ignorant and uinformed. For one, European and white American history and European and white American literature are not taught most of the time (or as you said, during every other month) because white people have accomplished more. Rather, it is because those who design the curriculum are 1) white and 2) obviously see THEIR history and accomplishments, arts, etc as more relevant for education than that of other groups. It isn’t that other groups never did anything or did less. Fortunately, I attended a high where I took Latin American and Asian history my last two years. There is a wealth of information and knowledge kids don’t get and it isn’t because white people are the only people on earth to have every accomplished anything or even more. Two, your statement that because of slavery black people couldn’t accomplish as much says that you know next to little about black history. If you do, please correct me because what you’ve just written doesn’t suggest that in anyway. Thirdly, black history month is NOT about lessening the accomplishments of white people or making those of blacks more special or giving them a special month as you assert. Blacks started the month as a way to encourage black people BECAUSE white people told them they couldn’t accomplish anything, that they couldn’t do anything, to educate themselves about their own history (since schools didn’t do it) and to educate other people who were racist that blacks were just as good as everyone else. Moreover, because the accomplishments of every group are important and helped shaped this shape this country, the history should be taught. There are many ways to do this. It can be done throughout the school year, teachers can pick one particular month where they do it, whatever.
Anyway, I only brought Black History Month to illustrate something that people always imply is racist when it actually isn’t. As for the rest of your post, yes, I agree that many black people play the victim card. That sort of goes to what I said earlier about black people always saying something is racist when it isn’t. White people do the same thing. We live in a country that has a fundamental issue with race and we think the way to deal with it is not talk about it. Don’t say anything dealing with race. How do we work on solving a problem if no one wants to talk about its realities? It would be great if America found a way to relate to each other but it isn’t talking about race that gets in the way…it is race. Race is the pink elephant in the room.
“As a woman, I know sexism exists. I’m sure I’ve been discriminated against because I’m female. But seriously, so what? If it happened, it happened. The best thing to do is get over it and have the confidence you can compete at any level men are competing at. ”
And history is how we learn that we can get over something and have the confidence to compete at any level. Perhaps you personally don’t see the relevance but surely you can imagine how many women have been inspired through hearing the stories, the history of other women who walked the path before them.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, M. I believe that anytime you put any kind of focus on race, you’re creating a reason to single out race and look at it. And I don’t think that benefits us as a whole, even if some people find it inspirational. The fact that they find that more inspirational than say just a person (regardless of race or gender) paving the way for the same accomplishment is sort of troubling. Until we can truly see everyone as just a person and not a black person or a white person, etc., then race will be turned into an issue.
“The fact that they find that more inspirational than say just a person (regardless of race or gender) paving the way for the same accomplishment is sort of troubling.”
Again, I’m baffled. How is a black child who is told his entire life that he can’t accomplish anything because he’s black, that he is stupid because he is black, that he can’t ever be a doctor because black people aren’t smart enough to be doctors, finds inspiration because a black man like the one he is going to grow up to be was able to accomplish exactly what he wanted to do and showed him that black people aren’t stupid as he’s always been told, troubling? Why wouldn’t he find that more inspirational that just any other person becoming a doctor?
“Until we can truly see everyone as just a person and not a black person or a white person, etc., then race will be turned into an issue.”
Well, this is where your idealism comes in because you fail to realize that until individuals are treated as persons instead of black people or white people, race will never NOT be an issue. If there was no minority experience in the first place, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I think you just identified the problem– the people who are telling him he’s worthless because he’s black. Who is telling him that exactly? Not the schools. Not the folks in his afterschool program at the YMCA? Not anyone on t.v. From my experience– the black child isn’t being told that… he’s being told that white people are racist and he shouldn’t let those people hold him back and tell him he can’t do anything. In MY experience, that has equated to the children I’ve known whose parents are like that to disobey their teachers, become antisocial with kids of other races, and carry around a big huge chip on their shoulders. I’d like to know who exactly is saying all this stuff to black children so that they NEED to see that black people can accomplish something. Because if they want to see blacks being doctors, being politicians, being business owners, all he has to do in 2007 is open his eyes and look around.
Regarding your second point… that’s quite a conundrum, huh? You’re discounting the possibility of actually seeing people as people instead of examples of their race because you want to justify the “minority experience.” Continue perpetuating the minority experience and you’ll never be able to bring race out of it the equation. Continue to perpetuate treating people differently, and you’ll create more “minority experiences.” The only way for equality to be achieved is when race isn’t an issue. And to think otherwise– that equality can somehow be achieved when people continue to make race an issue– is delusional in my opinion. What we have now is obviously not working since you said yourself that many blacks think everything is racist. Where does that come from? It certainly doesn’t come from the people around them telling them that their race doesn’t matter– and that the race of other people doesn’t matter. It comes from them being fed that everyone and everything is against them.
The difference is… my parents told me I could be anything I wanted to be when I grew up and it didn’t matter what anyone else thought. If a child is being told his whole life he’ll amount to nothing… that has to be coming from his parents (who I assume are also black).
“Regarding your second point… that’s quite a conundrum, huh? You’re discounting the possibility of actually seeing people as people instead of examples of their race because you want to justify the “minority experience.”
Not really because you clearly did not get my point. *I’m* not discounting the possibility of actually seeing people as people instead of their races. *I* see people as people. But others don’t see ME that way. My point is that because race is such an issue in this country, people do, in fact, experience the world differently and until those *experiences* are changed, until people don’t experience their race as it has been defined by hundreds of years of racism, then society will never be able to reach this nirvana you envision of people seeing people just as people. So at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if no one ever mentions race. As long as I continue to have this black experience, then race is an issue. This is what I meant by race just becomes the elephant in the room. No one is talking about race or racism, but it’s still occuring.
Moreover, there is a black experience, not because black people have created one; it is there because we live in a society that made race an issue before we even entered the world. I didn’t choose to be black nor did I choose everything that comes being with black. Furthermore, there is no need for me justify any minority experience because the fact is, I experience the world differently because of my race and it’s there whether you acknowledge or not. Frankly, it’s easier for you because you personally don’t have to deal with it. But you don’t get to invalidate my experience because you disagree with it and in fact, it’s completely insulting that you would. Who are you, a white woman, to tell me that I don’t have different experiences from you as a black woman? Are you a black woman? From your pictures and what you’ve said about yourself, I would deduce that so you aren’t so don’t presume to know what I experience as a black woman because you don’t understand or don’t see color. If you don’t see it, that’s one thing. But to talk about it as though it’s a figment of my imagination, as if I’m some deluded black person always playing the victim is out of line. I’m an intelligent person who is not given to flights of fancy and I know what is real and what isn’t. You don’t get to define what is real for someone else because you don’t understand or recognize it.
“Continue to perpetuate treating people differently, and you’ll create more “minority experiences.” The only way for equality to be achieved is when race isn’t an issue.”
I have never advocated treating people differently. None of my posts have been about that. Black people experience the world differently from you. That’s it. You can accept it or not. As for the latter part of this statement, this is true but you have to decide when race is an issue and when it isn’t. For me, race is only an issue when something is racist, otherwise who cares? Acknowledging difference is not bad in and of itself. It’s what you do with that acknowledgment that matters. We have racism because historically, difference has been used to degrade and humiliate. We cannot change that we are different and we don’t have to act like we can’t talk about it. We have to change the way we see difference and re-define the way we respond to it. My original point was to clarify when something is racist and when it isn’t. Racism doesn’t occur everytime someone focuses or even mentions race. Racism has a specific definition and that doesn’t happen to be it.
“I’d like to know who exactly is saying all this stuff to black children so that they NEED to see that black people can accomplish something. Because if they want to see blacks being doctors, being politicians, being business owners, all he has to do in 2007 is open his eyes and look around.”
You are incredily naive if you think that black children don’t hear from their teachers and from schools that they will never amount to anything because they are black. It happens. They aren’t necessarily getting it from their parents. It comes from all kinds of place. It comes from the high school counselor who tells her straight A black student to apply to the community college down the street because as a black student, she wouldn’t do well at a four-year university. It comes from the preschool teacher who tells the four-year black child that special swings are reserved for the white kids because the white kids are better and aren’t dirty like the little black kids (which actually happened to ME). And, you might be surprised to know, but a black person can go through their entire life without ever meeting or seeing a black doctor. I didn’t see one until I was 19.
The point is, it is important for some children to have positive identification in their history because sometimes for them, those are the only positive role models they may have. Case in point: You say that your parents told you you could be anything. My mother did the same thing except the conversation that she had with me was probably very different from the conservation your mother had with you. Because my mother grew up in the 50s, she let me know from an early age that racism existed and that while things had improved, there would always be people who would pass me over despite my top grades, etc simply because I was black. She didn’t tell me this so that I would feel victimized. She told me this to prepare me for what I might encounter in the world and frankly, she would have done me a great disservice had she not. She taught me black history because she wanted me to have as many tools in my arsenal — to know that I was somebody, to know that me being black won’t stop me from doing anything. And how do I know this? Because of what black people before me and what those presently accomplished. She taught me through black history that you can overcome anything and those lessons of the people before me were to teach me, that if someone could obtain their education under the adversity and racism they had to endure, then so could I. Did I gain inspiration from my mother telling me I could do anything? Yes. Did I gain inspiration from knowing that black people before under intense odds had done what they set out to do? Yes. I gain inspiration from other stories as well, stories about women, stories about other people. But because I find inspiration from the black history somehow that makes me racist?
And it doesn’t make me feel victimized. Because of that foundation, I know how to respond when someone says to me at a job interview after looking over my resume, “Wow. I look at you and think about my son. He’s in jail and you’re here when the roles should be reserved. It doesn’t make any sense that my white son is in jail while you’re sitting here.” I’m prepared to deal with those situations so yes, I’m glad that I learned black history. For me, it was certainly a necessity.
I’m not saying there’s no such thing as a black experience, Mara. What I’m saying is that you can take that experience and choose to be a victim because of it, or you can shrug it off and choose to identify with all people because they’re human– not because they’re black. As a woman, I can choose to be victimized by sexism, or I can choose to ignore those who are sexist and continue to prove that they’re wrong in their beliefs. I don’t need to share the “experience” with other woman to know that it’s in my best interest– if I really want to eliminate sexism– to not be a part of a group that brings even more attention to the fact that I’m woman. If I want to eliminate sexism, I continue to do what I’m doing, succeed without the help of anyone else, and hope that the ones who are sexist finally run out of excuses about why I’m successful. Of course there’s a black experience, but getting wrapped up in the fact that you’re black and other people can’t understand you simply exacerbates the problem. You can sit there and point out that if people weren’t racist, there would be no black experience so the RACISM should stop, but quite frankly, that’s just telling other people to step up to the plate and make the first change. Eliminating racism is more important to minorities than to the majority, so instead of wanting to be the reactionary one, why not be the ones to make the first move? After all, blacks would have the most to gain from doing that, right? More than whites would, although I could argue that we all have something to gain from it. Nothing changes when we all just sit around and expect everyone else to do the changing.
I wasn’t suggesting that YOU were unintelligent or delusional at all, Mara. If that’s what you got from my comments, you either mistook what I was saying or I wasn’t expressing myself clearly. Quite the contrary. But I also know a lot– and I mean a lot– of blacks who are nothing like you. And while their pro-black, poor-me-because-the-white-man-is-keeping-me-down bullshit is only hurting themselves and creating more racism. So don’t tell me we are achieving lots of progress with our “black support organizations” and “black history month.” It’s not working. And I don’t see how you can disagree with that and say it is when you yourself are contending that the black experience is very real because blacks are treated differently. Maybe, just maybe… some of these things that are designed to encourage blacks aren’t doing what they were intended to do.
We have a choice in how we perceive things. You can say you have a “black experience” or you can believe you have an individual experience– which is the real truth. You are treated differently from a black person who is inarticulate, uneducated, and lazy because you are not any of those things. So where’s the black experience there? You are choosing to believe you share a common experience because of one factor out of many. You could just as easily say you share the “oldest sibling experience” (if you were I don’t know), but people don’t do that because it doesn’t matter. We all have dealt with being mistreated or underestimated for one reason or another. Blacks are not the only ones who deal with that. Everyone deals with it. Just as you’re suggesting that I can’t possibly experience the world the way you do, is suggesting that I can’t understand your experience but you can somehow understand mine enough to know that I can’t understand yours. That’s quite presumptuous I think.
And this idea that racism exists but isn’t talked about is simply not true. All we hear about anymore is how so-and-so is racist– everyone is making public apologies to everyone else for saying things “someone” deems to be racist. It is talked about constantly, but talking about it doesn’t fix it.
It doesn’t matter what the textbook definition of racism is. Let’s not get hung up on that. The nature of racism is treating someone differently because of their race. If race is never a component, racism is not possible. So Like I said before, the ONLY way to eliminate racism is stop making race an issue when it needn’t be.
Again, we are posting at the same time, so this thread is probably going to be hard to follow.
Okay, then let me ask you this… and no disrespect to your mother…
Do you think it’s possible that when you tell a child that the world is racist and they will encounter racism, the child grows up believing (prior to his or her own experience) that the world is racist? That is… why put a chip on a child’s shoulder just so they can be “prepared?” Because while you may find that you were better prepared because of it, I have known children (third graders from when I was teaching) who spout off how unfair the world is to them because they’re black. That’s not coming from their experience– it’s coming from their parents.
What does that mean to be “prepared for racism?” What would have happened to you if you hadn’t had that “preparation?” Without it, you would’ve experienced racism for the first time and probably have gotten angry about it once you realized what had happened. Am I right or wrong?
One of the black women I used to work with told her elementary aged sons never to say “I’m sorry” to anyone. Instead, they should say “I apologize” because no one could ever call them “sorry.” Now, despite the fact she confused two different meanings of the word “sorry,” that’s quite a chip to lay on your kids’ shoulders. Do you think white parents are telling their kids to say “I apologize” instead of “I’m sorry?” Perhaps… but I just don’t think so.
Okay, I’ll post this really quickly. I’m going to respond to everything you just wrote so it may be in 2 or 3 posts. Perhaps you might wait until I posted them to respond to make this easier to follow?
Christine to your first post,
When I talk about the black experience, it is not about choosing to become a victim because of it. That is not at all what I’m saying. It’s about acknowledging that black people (and other minorities but for right now, this is the token group for purposes of illustration), because of racism and the ways in which we deal with race, have a distinct experience. Now what people do with that experience is separate issue — whether they choose to become victims or choose to do something to overcome it and that seems to what most your first post was about. My point is that you have to talk to about these experiences in order to address the issues we have with racism. Ignoring it or not recognizing it or criticizing people who do, to me, is like trying to fix a problem when you don’t know what the problem is. The purpose of discussing the black experience isn’t to garner sympathy or wallow or any of those things and furthermore, it actually helps us when we identify the experiences of various minorities, to figure out where our problems lie. Why would we even address the issue of inequality if we didn’t recognize that people experience inequality because of their race?
Even in your example about sexism, I don’t think your approach necessarily does anything combat sexism and in fact, one could even make the argument that history hasn’t shown that to be true. Your attitude seems to be the wait and see argument. That is, if we just keeping working and striving, people will eventually see that women are just as talented and smarter. But you can’t strive and work and do any of those things if the company won’t hire you in the first because you are a woman or you can’t go to college because they don’t accept women. And the irony in your argument is that because of women banding together and focusing on their gender in that particular fashion, you are able to get that job that you have and strive and do all of the things that you can. Those women helped make it possible for you to get your foot in the door so that you can show people what you can do, maybe not as a woman but just as Christine. The wait and see approach didn’t do that. Frankly, I think that approach goes against human nature. People in power do not voluntarily hand it over out of their goodness of their hearts. It has to be taken. Those who are powerless have to stand up and demand it. Perhaps you object to their methods (which it seems that you do) and that’s fine. But to see degree, it has worked. There have been what I call side effects, but I can do things I would not have been able to do 50 years ago because someone focused on race.
I obviously mistook what your meant from your saying that I was trying to justify a minority experience. To me, that came across as you contending that what I experiene is not real but I see that is not what you were saying.
“The nature of racism is treating someone differently because of their race.”
I never disputed this. What I have said is that the difference in races is not necessarily or inherently bad. It is what we do with that difference that can be.
“Do you think it’s possible that when you tell a child that the world is racist and they will encounter racism, the child grows up believing (prior to his or her own experience) that the world is racist? That is… why put a chip on a child’s shoulder just so they can be “prepared?”
Hmm. That’s a strange question only because I think, as a parent, a big part of your job is to prepare your child for the world and what they may encounter no matter how ugly or difficult so that they can get through it, make good choices, etc. This is why we tell children not to talk to strangers and tell not to go places late at night and to always be on guard, etc and be careful how they choose their friends, etc. I don’t think it should be any different with race if that is something a child may encounter.
I think any child could grow up with any number of issues, chips on their shoulders because of what they’re taught and they way they are taught. I personally think the way my mother taught me was constructive because she coupled that with black history — it was like, okay, there’s racism but that’s not an excuse not to handle your business, so to speak. But if kids just get that the world can be racist with nothing to counteract such as what I had, well yeah, it’s not surprising when those same kids walk around like they are victims (when they really aren’t).
But again, to me, the issue lies in the method and not necessarily in a parent telling their child they may experience racism because they are black. I mean, that’s true. It’s a fact. It doesn’t do your children any good to teach them that life is fairy tale. I mean, whenever I said something wasn’t fair to my mother, it would irritate the shit out of me that she would always say “life isn’t fair.” And one day she sat me down and explained why she always said that. And I got it. Life isn’t fair. It can be pretty fucked up. It isn’t fair that people prey on little children, it isn’t fair that you might not get that great job because you’re a woman or not an attractive woman or whatever. It isn’t fair and because you’re going into the situation knowing that sometimes things will be unfair, you’ve got to have a way to deal with that in a constructive manner. Making yourself a victim is not constructive. But preparing your children for racism doesn’t necessarily mean that you are making your children victims.
“What does that mean to be “prepared for racism?” What would have happened to you if you hadn’t had that “preparation?” Without it, you would’ve experienced racism for the first time and probably have gotten angry about it once you realized what had happened. Am I right or wrong?”
What does it mean to be prepared for anything? Again, I find this to be a very strange question. And actually, when I experienced racism for the first time, anger is not what I felt. I felt deeply sorrowful and grieved that in this day and age, things like what happened to me still happen. I don’t know why I felt sorrow as opposed to anger. I think for me, because I had the strong foundation that I did, I could deal with it in a positive and constructive way.
“One of the black women I used to work with told her elementary aged sons never to say “I’m sorry” to anyone. Instead, they should say “I apologize” because no one could ever call them “sorry.” Now, despite the fact she confused two different meanings of the word “sorry,” that’s quite a chip to lay on your kids’ shoulders. Do you think white parents are telling their kids to say “I apologize” instead of “I’m sorry?” Perhaps… but I just don’t think so.”
Well, as I suggested earlier when just comparing what our own mothers might have said to each of us (and you can correct me anytime), the conversations that white parents have with their children may be very different from those black parents have with theirs. So whether white parents are telling their kids the same thing is really moot. Different experiences warrant different conversations.
I wanted to say one more thing in regards to choosing to identify with someone based on race as opposed to based on other things.
Your post seemed to suggest that by identifying with others based on shared racial experiences, that is in some allowing yourself to be a victim of racism. Hopefully, my earlier post clarified what I mean when I say by experience. But I would like to say that this identification again, can be a very constructive thing. When I said earlier today, for example the different reasons why black screenwriters might form an organization, you interpret that as separatist and racist and counteproductive when in actuality, it may serve very important and constructive purposes. For black writers who may feel ostracized in a predominantly white industry, that group could be a source of encouragement and support for them. People relate to people with whom they have things in common and it can be very difficult to be the “only one” at your job or what have you. You may go through things that other people go through because of their race and need to commiserate and gain support and encouragement.
So when I’m talking about identifying with other black people because we share a common experience, it isn’t about victimization or any of those things. Well, it CAN be depending on who it is. But my point is, identification based on race occurs for one simple reason: people gravitate to people who are like them or have similar experiences, etc. Again, that is human nature.
And at that the end of the day, it might just not be about you and you know what? Sometimes everything isn’t about you. The black group of writers who get together because of their shared experience aren’t getting together to promote themselves over you as a white person. It’s not about you as a white person at all. It’s about them. You interpret it as counterproductive because you’re reading a bunch of stuff into that simply isn’t there. When you say things like that, it makes me think of the class I sat in once where the students were talking about standards of beauty and how the European model shouldn’t be the only standard, but women of all races are beautiful. The two white girls in the room complained “why isn’t white beautiful?” No one said that it wasn’t. It wasn’t about you. It was about them.
I think the same idea can apply to groups that relate and bond on the basis of race without being racist or promoting racism.
God this is so ridiculous and I don’t know how we got so off topic but I will say ONE MORE THING. And then I’ll stop inundating you with posts, Christine.
On the black experience…
Identifying with people because you share the same experience (which my last post discussed) and having the experience itself are two different things. You’ve said more than once that by choosing to, I suppose, identify with people based on a black experience, I’m choosing to identify with that experience as opposed to another. I experience the world differently regardless of who I associate myself with and this is what I was getting to earlier when I said I don’t choose the black experience over something — it just is. In other words, my black experience is not derived or defined by self-identification or me in some way focusing on being black. It doesn’t require me to focus on it all. Rather, the experience exists because of society’s treatment of me as black. Without that, there is no black experience. That’s what I was getting to earlier.
Mara, I really do understand what you’re saying and I agree with all the reasons that you stated of why people tend to gravitate together, etc. And it’s not that I somehow feel threatened by the idea that the black screenwriters organization wants to somehow kick me out of my job and promote themselves. It’s not that at all because personally, I think it would be great to have more blacks writing mainstream films instead of sticking to the gang movies or pro-Black Spike Lee type stuff. I am all for that.
But I think the “sanctioning” if you will of these organizations that specificallly make a point of promoting a specific gender or race are part of the reason race continues to be brought into things it has nothing to do with. And in general, I think that part of the problem is that the race card is pulled left and right– even to the point that whites aren’t taking it seriously anymore (and I’ve cited before the Duke Lacrosse players, Imus, etc)– and that’s not good. In general, I think it would behoove us to stop making everything about race. Even if, in theory, we should be able to gravitate toward other people of our gender in these organizations and share the experience, etc. I think sacrificing that, and focusing on creating a culture where race is not a part of every problem that exists, will get us closer to where we want to be– and need to be– as a culture.
I think often times that “commiserating” with people who share a common experience, particularly when that experience is a minority one and historically has not been one that shares equal rights, breeds something other than support. It tends to breed a victim mentality and an exclusionary mentality that doesn’t help anyone– not even the person experiencing it.
I don’t feel I subscribe to the “wait and see” method either. That would be appropriate if I were sitting around doing nothing, expecting someone to hand me something because it’s unfair what’s happened to my gender. For me, I feel like there is no man who has worked with me who could possibly say that I’m not as competent because I’m a woman. If they felt women weren’t as competent, and then worked with me, I did everything in my power to show them that their preconceived notion was wrong. They can still be sexist if they want to be, but it will be difficult for them to use me as an example of support for that theory. Now, idealistically, if everyone did that, it would be hard for them to find any example of inferiority to support their racist or sexist beliefs. I don’t see that as sitting around waiting… my strategy not only benefits me personally, but it might assist in changing the way a sexist person thinks. And if it doesn’t, it doesn’t. I have no control over anyone but myself.
But I really feel because this is a capitalistic society, that the cream will always rise to the top, and everyone will always want the cream. Money, in the U.S. comes before racism for the most part. If I own a business and I see that a black man can make me money, I’d be hard pressed to hire a white man instead simply because he’s white if it means risking the money I’d make. So things do change on their own. People force themselves to go against their own prejudice beliefs if it means getting ahead, which in turn, tends to change those beliefs when they see minorities succeeding.
Regarding your last post, there are a million reasons to identify with people. You’re black, you’re a woman, you live in Los Angeles, you are a first-born/youngest, you’re a democrat/republican/independent, you survived a disaster, you went to Harvard/Duke/Berkley, you were adopted, you’re divorced, you’re diabetic, etc. The list goes on and on. There is no one “black experience.” Just like there is no one “female experience.” Sure, you and I can talk about PMS and understand in a way that men can’t but who cares? It is such a small part of what makes us who we are. And the longer we live, the less important the attributes we were born with are in making up our personalities, beliefs, etc. I’m sure Michael Jordan has had a much different “black experience” than you have. And I’m also sure that I probably don’t share that much in common with Madonna, but we’re both white women.
It’s this idea that this common experience has any bearing on anything. It doesn’t. Being black has nothing to do with being a screen writer. And it’s been MY experience that people who tend to get involved in these groups become somehow less self-reliant, and more reliant on others who share their experience to help them out, which only exacerbates the prejudice against them. Once you create a group called “Black Organization of anything” it ostracizes anyone not of that race. I mean honestly… would you join a group called “White Women for the Betterment of Los Angeles?” If I were you, I wouldn’t. But then again, I wouldn’t either because I feel it brings an unrelated factor (gender) to an issue that can be addressed without becoming exclusionary.
BTW… if anyone else has any thoughts on this subject, feel free to jump in. Mara and I are not trying to scare other people off…
Jesus Christ.
I think next time we should have a bikini mud wrestling match to settle these types of things..
“But I think the “sanctioning” if you will of these organizations that specificallly make a point of promoting a specific gender or race are part of the reason race continues to be brought into things it has nothing to do with.”
And I don’t think that it does particularly since I’ve been a part of these organizations and know where they are about. Promotion does not have to occur at the expense of other groups. And I’m not suggesting that you feel threatened by these groups or anything like that. What I am suggesting though is that it is almost like you’re making this about you and racism (a general you, not you Christine) when it isn’t. A bunch of black writers getting together to promote black writers and not put down or denigrate any other group is not racist. It doesn’t concern you at all. In fact, you’re welcome to join if you want. If the nature of racism is that people of different races are treated differently, then there is no problem because that is not what is happening in that scenario. Now if these groups excluded whites or something like that, you’d have a different argument.
The reason race continues to be brought into things that have nothing do with race is that people don’t understand fundamentally what racism is. We have created a culture where everything is racist — we’re afraid to have honest conversations at the fear of being called racist or using the race card, etc. We’re so afraid of that label “racist” that it has lost its force by becoming an underhanded trump card; a sleazy tactic if you will.
“I don’t feel I subscribe to the “wait and see” method either. That would be appropriate if I were sitting around doing nothing, expecting someone to hand me something because it’s unfair what’s happened to my gender.
That isn’t what I meant by wait and see (sitting around expecting someone to hand you something). In your earlier post, you said that you would not make gender an issue but work hard and hopefully people would one day no longer have sexist notions. You’re not explicitly demanding equal treatment. You’re hoping that one day you’ll get it if you just continue to work hard. And my response to that is that is not how you got the educational and employment opportunities you have now. Therein lies the irony — you criticize those who would make gender an issue yet the very fact that gender was made an issue is the reason you were able to attend USC, that you are able to ultimately, pursue whatever dreams you may have. You didn’t get that because women just worked hard and hoped someday people would no longer be sexist and give them fair opportunities.
“I think often times that “commiserating” with people who share a common experience, particularly when that experience is a minority one and historically has not been one that shares equal rights, breeds something other than support. It tends to breed a victim mentality and an exclusionary mentality that doesn’t help anyone– not even the person experiencing it.”
I think that’s incredibly presumptuous especially considering the history that black people have had in this country. History shows that in many people, it provided the support and encouragement that people needed. It can be extremely helpful just to know that someone gets you because they’re going through the same thing you’re going through and understands. I don’t see how you can be okay with that for other situations but not race.
“Sure, you and I can talk about PMS and understand in a way that men can’t but who cares? It is such a small part of what makes us who we are. And the longer we live, the less important the attributes we were born with are in making up our personalities, beliefs, etc.”
Who says that being a woman is a small part of who I am? You? Who says that being black is a small part of who I am? Again, you?
“It’s this idea that this common experience has any bearing on anything. It doesn’t. ”
This too is presumptuous. You aren’t black so how would know whether that experience has any bearing and on what? Who are you to say whether someone’s common experience has any bearing on anything?
“Regarding your last post, there are a million reasons to identify with people. ”
There are, so why is identifying based on race different from those other things?
Hey, you’re number 1 in yahoo searches as well.
But yeah, this is probably a convo that could go on for DAYS and DAYS. So Christine, after you’ve posted your next post (if you will at all), I won’t keep this thread going (though I’ll probably want to say SOMETHING ;( )
I’ll restrain myself.
Christopher, Christine is bigger than me so she’d most likely win…though I could always resort to girlie tactics and pull her hair or something…
Mara said: “Christopher, Christine is bigger than me so she’d most likely win…though I could always resort to girlie tactics and pull her hair or something…”
YES! By all means, pull on her *something*
Christine said: “BTW… if anyone else has any thoughts on this subject, feel free to jump in. Mara and I are not trying to scare other people off…”
Even Trouble, Christopher and I aren’t brave enough to get in the middle of this cat fight! 8)
OK, I lied — and since I’m a Little Devil, that’s perfectly acceptable — here are my 2 cents worth:
What you 2 are really arguing about is the sense of community, or the scale of community.
Mara is describing an ethnic or cultural community. A Black Student Union (an example I raised earlier) is a good example. They form a group (community) based on skin color and cultural experiences such as racism, heritage, social activities, political activism, whatever. They may form the group for noble reasons (such as promoting black candidates for the Student Government Association), or they may form for less noble reasons (such as forming a safe, comfortable social environment where black students can meet other black students).
What Christine is describing is a larger community concept. It follows her “can’t we all just get along” liberal mindset (JUST KIDDING, ‘TINE!). Seriously, if you look at the premise that we are each, as individuals, worthy of the same rights and access (to an education, a job, whatever) as each other, then having a community based on one trait — be it skin color, or religion, or gender, or breast size (I just threw that in for ‘topher) — is detrimental to that global concept. Christine sees the black student union as a group which is building a wall of exclusion (am I saying that right, ‘tine?) which undermines the larger goal of defining us all as being a part of one community.
I’m not sure this is a debate than can be won by either side (unless there is wrestling involved) because it forces you to make a personal choice as to which community is more important to you at the time. If we were under attack by Martians hell-bent of destroying the human race, then I think we would all (or mostly all) think of ourselves as human beings first and we would respond accordingly to kick the Martians’ collective ass — that would include Americans, Europeans, Africans, etc. If, on the other hand, you’re talking about global warming, then there are a great percentage of the planet who don’t see it as a “human race” issue. They see their need for fossil fuels as more important than a pseudo-scientific, speculative issue which is the cause celebre in the media today. So who’s right?? Christopher is because he runs the web site… (*)
The way I see this is the second race enters an equation is only about exclusion of someone else. I am also not a fan of black history month.. why.. did black people not contribute to all of history.. do they need their own month. Even if most of the history being taught is European, that includes black people, they did contribute to society, even as slaves they were contributing. History is history, by painting them as needing a special month it makes them seem insignificant at least that is the way it affects me. I always admire someone more when it isn’t pointed out they were the first woman or first black person to do it… I mean.. who cares? I think it subtly works against the people we are trying to celebrate.
This is my last post concerning this subject:
“Even if most of the history being taught is European, that includes black people, they did contribute to society, even as slaves they were contributing.”
You’re right in that the history includes black people but when this history is taught, aside from being enslaved, black people are glaringly absent. And that’s really sort of the point, Christopher, with that month. It’s not that Blacks are asking to be their little month because they’re more special than everyone, it’s that we’d like people to know that we are as special as everyone else — we’d like to see ourselves in this country’s history as well and frankly, we just don’t. If black history was included in the regular curriculum, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Maybe it isn’t a big deal to you because you’re white and you’ve always had your history. Your history is everywhere. Maybe you don’t notice that in high school, practically everything you read is written by someone white. So no, I’m not surprised that you wouldn’t get how empowering it can be for a black high school student to read something by a black author or see that blacks contributed so much to this country particularly when absolutely everything else they read or learn is about people to whom they cannot relate. Perhaps the tables would have to be turned for you to understand that.
“The way I see this is the second race enters an equation is only about eclusion of someone else.”
And you’re certainly allowed to have that opinion. But here’s the thing with this black experience and coming together because of that experience in various orgs such as the black screenwriters organizations: Everyone can argue on this board until they are blue in the face that blacks don’t have a distinct experience, that being black has nothing to do with a screenwriter, etc it doesn’t matter, etc but the fact is, blacks DO relate to each other based on their experience of their race. There is an experience. No, not all black people have the SAME experience but obviously, if many black people relate to each other because of shared experiences, then there must be some experience they’re talking about.
Telling people that they can’t come together and organize based on this common experience (whatever it is) doesn’t solve racism. People are feeling the need to organize BECAUSE of racism. If you want to end racism, stop wasting time complaining about black organizations that do not exclude anyone and aren’t doing anything to hurt you, in fact aren’t even thinking about you, and expend your energy eradicating the root problem that makes people feel that they need that specific kind of support and organization.
That was me.
Mara,
Do you think that is mostly because they didn’t actually contribute to the time periods being taught? I mean why are we singling out black people exactly? What makes them more special? 100 years from now when we talk about this decade black people will be a part of the conversation without being pointed out as black.
In my mind there is no such thing a white, black, ect history.. there is history each race, gender, ect contributed or didn’t we should need to focus on something to make up for the lack of contributions. We aren’t teaching white history when the history of the world from 1000 AD to 1200 AD is taught.. we are just teaching history a history in which black contributed in ways that were not significant enough to be noted by historians.. or if they were noted it wasn’t important enough to point out they were black… (Jesus was dark skinned / arab) it wasn’t a significant fact at the time.
Mara white people relate to each other also the fact is if I have the White Screenwriters Guild of America, most people even white people would see that as raciest. Black people don’t relate to each other anymore than white or any other race relate to each other, but the reality is until blacks or society give up black history month, black colleges, the race that needs these things will always viewed as inferior by many people.
“Do you think that is mostly because they didn’t actually contribute to the time periods being taught? I mean why are we singling out black people exactly? What makes them more special?”
No, I don’t because I actually know black history. Obviously, you don’t or you would not have asked that question. I’ve already explained why black history is important and to whom. If you find it offensive, then ignore it, don’t educate yourself about it, whatever. It doesn’t have to concern you but it is a grave injustice when significant portions of our population are left out of this country’s history. And it’s not just blacks. That was my token group for an example example. I could also talk about Native Americans, Chinese immigrants and slave trade, etc. I could even ask you the same question: what makes whites so special that the majority of history and literature taught is about them? And I can tell you, it isn’t because no one else did anything.
“We aren’t teaching white history when the history of the world from 1000 AD to 1200 AD is taught”
Actually you are. It’s not called white history but look, if the peoples and cultures involved are only white, then white history is what you have. The Asian continent has some of the oldest cultures and histories yet those are hardly mentioned at all. Is it that they did not contribute? No. If you don’t believe me, then pick up a few history books at the local Barnes and Noble and get back to me.
“Black people don’t relate to each other anymore than white or any other race relate to each other, ”
I’m sorry but is there something you haven’t told me because I’m really confused on how you can say how black people relate. This is my ultimate issue with this position (also as articulated by Christine). You are not black. Therefore, you cannot say whether black people relate to each more based on their race than they relate to other people. In fact, the fact that many black people do obviously negates this. As I said to Christine, you cannot discount someone else’s experience because you don’t understand it or agree with it. You don’t get to tell me who I relate to and on what basis. I can tell you and if you think it’s wrong or don’t see it, that’s one thing. But it’s absurd and beyond ridiculous for you, a white man, to tell me a black person who I relate to and on what basis.
“but the reality is until blacks or society give up black history month, black colleges, the race that needs these things will always viewed as inferior by many people.”
Blacks are not viewed as inferior because there are black colleges and black history month. Racism was here long before any of that.
Hmmm, Christopher and Mara mud wrestling??
What do you think, Christine? It wouldn’t change either of their minds, but the sheer messiness (and potential for naughty groping) might subdue the argument for a short while.
No naughty groping!
But at least all of this posting made me a Kingpin
I knew I could get you to come back 4 more.
Mara, I think your seriously misrepresenting the history. Nobody is saying blacks, Chinese, or anybody else didn’t have a history during 1000-1200 or any other time period but when your writing a book and you must pick the most important historical aspects of a time period your going to focus on what was most important. Could we go continent by continent and talk about each aspect of each culture.. we could but why? I mean what are the most important key moments in history at different time periods they were influenced by different cultures… the reality is if America was a mostly black country then the last 200 years of world culture would have mostly been influenced by “blacks” instead American is a mismash and the world is influenced by our mishmash. The whole idea of black history over another other unique culture is a little bunk.. why focus on one? Should we make one month Italian history month?
Your right they are not view as inferior because of that, but because they now exist they push the idea that they are not equal. I mean I really don’t even understand this idea of “black history” things like Martin Luthur King are just a part of American history.. it is ridiculous to single it out as extra unique because it involved a black person.
2 more cents:
I like Black History month. When it first came out, I thought it was lame, but now that I see my kids learning about the contributions of black Americans (and other nationalities), I appreciate the impact it’s made, because it was NOT taught when I was in grade school.
Mara is right. The history book is and always has been, essentially, written from a white, male, academic (liberal) perspective and there’s nothing wrong with adding new perspectives to the curriculum to paint a more complete picture.
In college, I had on old, dyke history teacher who constantly harped on male violence in society (she wanted to abolish all sports because it was “para-military training” and represented a threat to women in general and society as a whole) and used a textbook called “Herstory” which featured, almost exclusively, females in American history. I used to detest that old carpet-muncher and her militant, extremist views, BUT I did learn a lot about women in history. That was a good thing even though the class was about American History from 1815 – Present, not just Women in History…
That being said, I think there is a difference between Black History Month and the Black Screenwriter’s group. The former is inclusive and the latter promotes exclusivity. As I said in my last comment, your perspective is usually going to depend on which community is most important to you at this point in time.
Christopher — history is greatly skewed by publishers and authors. China, for eample, has had a much longer and more technological advanced history than the West, yet little is taught about the subject. That’s fine in a “History of Western Civilization” class, but to think that Chinese and Blacks are properly represented in American history books because they are mentioned as slaves and slave labor is naive, I think.
Oops, didn’t see ‘topher’s post while I was writing my comments about Chinese history. Nevermind…
Christopher: I think you don’t fully appreciate the cultural differences brought about by racism in modern history. In my father’s lifetime, blacks were not allowed to fight along side whites in the military, they had their own sports league, etc. Hell, in my lifetime, blacks weren’t allowed to live in certain neighborhoods and there were separate bathroom and water fountains in the department stores when I was little. Segregation and flat out racists attitudes are still very RECENT history.
I’m 45 and when I was in high school blacks and white did NOT date. To do so was not illegal, but it was so taboo that you risked a beating by “your side” if you did. Nowadays, I see a lot of interracial dating in our town. I have to admit that *sometimes* I think there is some “trophy-ism” involved, but I usually catch myself and think “it’s nice they aren’t constrained the way we were”.
On the other hand, the “mixing” of the races results in a lot of mulatto kids and there are people saying “that kid ain’t white” as well as “that kids ain’t black”. It’s a different kind of discrimination…
69 comments… *snicker* oops, now it’s 70… damn it!
Mara, keep going, you’ve almost caught Trouble!!
“Mara, I think your seriously misrepresenting the history.”
Nope. See PJ’s earlier posts or take an African-American history class — I’m sure it would be an eye-opening experience.
“The whole idea of black history over another other unique culture is a little bunk.. why focus on one? Should we make one month Italian history month? ”
I have already explained why I chose black history month as my example. I have never said there be a focus on one group. Blacks are my token group because it is a good example and well, I happen to be black; I’m more versed in that particular area. And anyway, you’re missing the bigger point which PJ articulated much better than I did — the way that US history is taught alone misrepresents history. It is white focused and white centered not because whites are the center of the universe. Rather, it is that way because those who write the textbooks and design the curricula have left everyone else out of the picture, not just blacks. The Chinese and the Native Americans are just another example of groups that are not really represented in US history. Some of the statements that have been made concerning this subject really just reveal a lot of ignorance which is even more reason to include these stories. I mean, white people are covered more because they’ve accomplished more? That’s like saying the reason every author you read in high school literature classes is white is that obviously white people wrote more which I HOPE people know is hardly the case.
And why you should care about these things? Well, who doesn’t want a more complete picture of our history? And why should we leave out groups when their history is part of the history of this country? As I said before, perhaps if you weren’t white, you’d get this. But obviously you don’t. And I can’t fault you for that. It isn’t your fault you’re white. So that’s fine. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.
And a little fyi, there *are* other history months, even one for the Italians.
Point Taken.
However I still feel when your needing to point things out to such an extreme level as to have a “Black History Month” that your creating an environment of discrimination. Additionally I was not saying that blacks or anybody else were accuratly represented in history books on the other hand if we need to hold a seperate black history month that focuses on their accomplishments there are only two reasons for that.
1. They had so many accomplishments (to the point where they have made most of history and it makes sense to point out all they have done).
2. They have not had the types of major accomplishments that make up the majority of general history and they require a month to focus on their minor accomplishments for the sake of equality.
Personally it makes sense if you have a race enslaved or stricken with poverty like the Chinese were that they would have less “major” accomplishments like.. inventing electricity.
I’m also not condoning not including blacks or anybody else in history.. I’m saying hey find the stuff that is important and teach it in regular history there is no reason to think that blacks are not being fairly represented by todays liberal school system.
“However I still feel when your needing to point things out to such an extreme level as to have a “Black History Month” that your creating an environment of discrimination.”
Interesting. You don’t think that teaching the history that only focuses on white people eight to eight and a half months every year is extreme? Step out your whiteness for awhile and try to see things from my perspective.
“Personally it makes sense if you have a race enslaved or stricken with poverty like the Chinese were that they would have less “major” accomplishments like.. inventing electricity. ”
Do you know what other groups in this country have contributed?
“1. They had so many accomplishments (to the point where they have made most of history and it makes sense to point out all they have done).
2. They have not had the types of major accomplishments that make up the majority of general history and they require a month to focus on their minor accomplishments for the sake of equality. ”
Or 3 which is a more accurate answer: The people who write the books and design the curricula don’t care about groups other than white to include their history.
“The people who write the books and design the curricula don’t care about groups other than white to include their history.”
I have to disagree with that, Mara. I worked for a publishing company that produced text books for elementary school students. Those books are revamped and rewritten (at least in Cali) about every five years. And they are now, more than ever, very responsive to trying to include accomplishments of all races– including the native Americans which happens to be the most underrepresented in the country. It’s not a bunch of white people sitting around a conference table nixing stories about black accomplishments. Maybe years ago, but not anymore. It just isn’t.
Are black accomplishments still under-represented? Yes, but I believe “Black history month” is partially to blame for that.
But I will say that as long as there is a “black history month,” what is the inspiration to include the black accomplishments in the mainstream history books? These kinds of separations don’t ever help blacks. Why would those creating the curriculum include MLK, Jr. in “regular” history when people can say, “Oh… we don’t have to include him because they’ll learn about him during Black History Month.” And not in a racist way do people mean that. They simply mean, he’s already being taught about somewhere. Now, if blacks want to be represented and learned about only ONE month out of the year, then by all means, support your black history month. But I’d think they’d want to be a part of what is taught EVERY month.
And having your own “special” month slows down the process of that integration.
I disagree.
Your perspective is irrelevant to the facts of the situation, this is not about perspective it is about representing an accurate historical account. It is silly to to think blacks played a major role in lets say.. American history until at the 1950′s onward or that Native Americans have had a noteworthy existence since the 1905 in America. Did either group do historically important things before and after the respective time periods. Yes. Major contributions… not compaired to the “white” majority (and I say “white” because white is basically a mismash of about 100 cultures. This is also just a numbers game. Minorities are just that… they have less of a chance to produce someone who does something historically important because there are less of them.
More to the point, I hate to hear… the first “_________” to accomplish “__________” because it just isn’t important. Insert (woman, man, black, white, or any other group) into any accomplishment. The reality what is important is that it was a “person” who accomplished or did something of historical context. What I am TRYING to say is that race is irrelevant to history and or that it should be and until it is not then minorities are just shooting themselves in the foot.
I disagree with Mara’s post.. looks like Christine was hoggin my airtime again.
The point of my last comment was… that times have changed. While Black History Month and Affirmative Action may have helped open doors that weren’t open. At some point, we are doing a dis-service to ourselves if we don’t recognize WHEN it’s time to adopt a new strategy. Hanging on to some of this stuff is impeding progress.
And no… I certainly don’t condone the Mara/Christopher mudwrestling… but more for Mara’s sake than Christopher’s. He often forgets that he’s wrestling someone who weighs about 40 pounds less and wasn’t a state wrestling champ in high school. I’ve learned from experience from when I thought we were just having some sexy fun and he practically broke my arm.
And geez, PJ… you’re old.
And btw… mulatto kids always grow up to be super hot. Seriously. Every one of them… well, except Barack.
“Your perspective is irrelevant to the facts of the situation, this is not about perspective it is about representing an accurate historical account. It is silly to to think blacks played a major role in lets say.. American history until at the 1950’s onward or that Native Americans have had a noteworthy existence since the 1905 in America. ”
1. It is partly about perspective – in your view, from your perspective, black history month is somehow racist, is making blacks seem special, etc, when that isn’t what it does at all. It’s about, from the white perspective, feeling like blacks are getting special treatment. So yes, *it has* been about perspective. But apparently, the white perspective is the only one that counts. From the black perspective, we have a history and contributions that have helped shape and form this country that are not represented. The fact that that history is mostly excluded does not make for an accurate historical account. You can’t have it both ways, Christopher because if whites want equality and things to be fair, the first thing they should do is stop putting their perspectives and views above everyone else’s. And that is exactly what you’re doing.
2. Your second point about blacks not playing any major role until the 1950s is again, inaccurate like many other statements have been made on here. I’m not surprised you said this. But unless you want to educate yourself more on this issue in particular, I don’t have anything more to say about it.
“What I am TRYING to say is that race is irrelevant to history and or that it should be and until it is not then minorities are just shooting themselves in the foot.”
Two things here:
1. Race being irrelevant and whether *it should* be irrelevant to our history are two different things. The reality is this: race is incredibly relevant. Our country underwent major shifts socially, politically and legally just in the 1940s to 1960s alone due to race. You cannot talk about the modern Civil Rights Movement, for example, without discussing race. We have the 15th amendment because of race. Our Constitution has a provision that claims blacks are 3/5 of a person. Race is very much relevant to our history as a nation. To think otherwise is fantasy.
2. The history of the various races in this country as part of this country is also relevant because of the dynamics of race IN this country. This is this nation is so hung up on race in the first place. You keep insisting that things like black history month keep race an issue when race is an issue regardless. Black history month is not making race an issue, NAACP is not making race an issue. Race is already an issue.
“More to the point, I hate to hear… the first “_________” to accomplish “__________” because it just isn’t important.”
No, it isn’t important to *you*. That doesn’t make any less important to someone else.
“And they are now, more than ever, very responsive to trying to include accomplishments of all races– including the native Americans which happens to be the most underrepresented in the country.”
Whether they are responsive and whether the history is an accurate representation are two different issues. I’ve looked at the textbooks and they fall glaringly short. As to the other things you wrote in that paragraph, I was not saying that the omissions are deliberate conscious acts but they are omissions nevertheless that do not occur because other groups did less or accomplished less. The history of those other groups negates that possibility.
“But I will say that as long as there is a “black history month,” what is the inspiration to include the black accomplishments in the mainstream history books? These kinds of separations don’t ever help blacks. Why would those creating the curriculum include MLK, Jr. in “regular” history when people can say, “Oh… we don’t have to include him because they’ll learn about him during Black History Month.”
The fact of black history month is not responsible for these omissions. In fact, many schools don’t even bother covering it.
“At some point, we are doing a dis-service to ourselves if we don’t recognize WHEN it’s time to adopt a new strategy.”
Well, who says when it’s time? Because from my perspective, things like NAACP are still necessary. Perhaps it’s a vicious cycle. Blacks keep these organizations because they feel the effects of racism and the organizations make whites feel more resentful. Who changes first and how do you decide?
Well, considering this issue affects blacks more than whites… why would it matter who changes first? Wouldn’t they have the vested interest in making sure it changes?
“It is partly about perspective – in your view, from your perspective, black history month is somehow racist, is making blacks seem special, etc, when that isn’t what it does at all. It’s about, from the white perspective, feeling like blacks are getting special treatment.”
Wait a sec… so Black History Month… even though there is no White History Month or Native American History Month or Jewish History Month or Asian History Month… is somehow NOT giving them special treatment??? Isn’t special treatment defined as being given something more than others are getting? How, exactly, do you figure?
BTW… I agree with Christopher about “the first _________ to accomplish ________.” I get really annoyed when someone mentions a woman who has done something important and then they have to qualify it because she was the “first woman” to do it. Again… the fact that she was a woman to do it was not an accomplishment and it takes the focus off of what her contribution really was. Again, once we can get past this idea that women are somehow not doing as much as men, no one will feel the need to mention she was the first woman to do it, the first black to do it, etc. That phrase is only used when men have done something first.
No one says Madame Curie was the first woman to win the Nobel laureate in two different sciences. The fact is– she is the ONLY PERSON who has ever won the Nobel for two different sciences. When women accomplish something men haven’t, they are no longer referred to with the gender caveat. I don’t find it inspiring at all to hear that a woman finally accomplished something men already did. It’s like we’re holding women to a lower standard by celebrating an accomplishment that several uncelebrated men did before her. Let’s celebrate PEOPLE who accomplish thing and not make such a big deal about what gender they are. Once we raise the bar for everyone, men and women will be celebrated alike for their accomplishments. The same goes for blacks.
“Again… the fact that she was a woman to do it was not an accomplishment and it takes the focus off of what her contribution really was. ”
That’s your opinion. Just because you don’t see it as a big deal doesn’t mean that it isn’t. You can’t make a blanket statement and say that such statements are unimportant. If they are to you, then fine. But obviously, to those who make a note of it or point it out, it’s important to them.
“Let’s celebrate PEOPLE who accomplish thing and not make such a big deal about what gender they are.”
You are free to do that but your doing that doesn’t mean that other people cannot celebrate in that particular way. For some people, the gender or race of a person is a big deal. Whether you disagree with that is fine. That’s your choice, but you can’t tell other people what is and is not important to them. Stop defining someone else’s experience and worry about your own.
“Wait a sec… so Black History Month… even though there is no White History Month or Native American History Month or Jewish History Month or Asian History Month… is somehow NOT giving them special treatment??? ”
No, as I’ve written a dozen times, from my perspective and that of many blacks, it is not special treatment. Obviously from your perspective it is. It isn’t special because blacks by creating a black history month are only doing what whites have already done for themselves — telling and celebrating their history and their part in US history. They just happen to be doing it one particular month out of the year. And as for white history, what would be the point of one special month when it is already told and celebrated 8 months out the academic year? Special would mean that blacks are doing something some other group isn’t. They aren’t. And as I have said before, if blacks were accurately represented in US history, there would no need for a month. But they aren’t. Hence, the month. This is not difficult.
Again, as an fyi, blacks are not the only group that celebrates its history in a particular month. I encourage you to check the veracity of some of the things you write.
“Well, considering this issue affects blacks more than whites… why would it matter who changes first? Wouldn’t they have the vested interest in making sure it changes?”
Two things:
1. If this issue affects blacks more than whites, then blacks are doing what they feel is in their best interest obviously. So…your criticism serves no purpose except to complain about what someone else is doing that doesn’t affect you. In other words, there is no point to this discussion.
2. If this affects everyone (as you keep saying), then you have a vested interest to change as well. Thus, instead of harping on what someone else should do, your time and efforts are better served making the changes on your end. You can only control you. If you’re really interested in working to form an American “community” and “experience” instead of subsets, then worry about doing your part. Believe me, nothing is going to change because you keep saying black organizations are racist and people shouldn’t form alliances based on race, etc. As long as people feel affects of racism, they will continue to form these groups.
“You are free to do that but your doing that doesn’t mean that other people cannot celebrate in that particular way. For some people, the gender or race of a person is a big deal.”
Yes, the Klan would agree with you on that point. That doesn’t mean they’re doing anything that promotes forward progress with equality, does it?
Mara, I’m starting to get the sense you are too close to this subject to be objective. The fact you can tell me that Black History Month when no other group has their own month ISN’T special treatment– is simply illogical. (now if other groups do have their own month, then they suck at publicizing it because I’ve lived in this country for 33 years and never heard of it). But feel free to back up your statements with facts– what other group has a “month” and when is it??? And to say that every other month is “white history month” is just asinine. If that were the case, NO blacks would be mentioned outside of black history month and that just is not true. But even so… why would you promote settling for one month as an alternative to what you should be getting– an integrated curriculum that more accurately depicts the accomplishments of all races? At what point, did settling for one month become okay? And not only okay… but something to be proud of?
To suggest that my criticism isn’t valid because I’m not black is ridiculous. First of all, racism affects all Americans. And the fact that blacks– like yourself– thinks it’s all about you and only you (and whites can’t possibly understand this complicated situation) is exactly the problem. You can’t see that everyone is in this together… you are constantly looking for ways to be different and set yourself apart but then you complain when whites treat you differenlty and set you apart. ??? And you can tell me that the “black experience” was created before you got here and you are subject to experiencing it– but the reality is– our perceptions create our experiences. Plain and simple. You’re the first one to deny there is a “black community” because blacks don’t all agree on everything– yet you want us to now buy into this solidarity based on the “black experience.” You can’t have it both ways.
I can understand you liking your black groups which I still contend are– by nature– exclusive. That’s fine. But if Christopher tells me that I’d get my point across to him much better without whining, I have two choices: 1. to stop whining which will further my goal of getting what I want from him which is to listen to me or 2. I can tell him I have every right to whine because it’s important to me that I can whine and that will ultimately continue to leave us exactly where we are without any forward progress. For you to tell me that my opinion is just an opinion and it doesn’t matter because you can do anything you want– is pretty much expecting other people to fix your issues without taking accountability.
You are the first one to complain about how racist society is– under-represetnation in schools, not enough black doctors, teachers saying racist things to you as a child. The system is obviously broken if that’s the case. I’m telling you that some of the things blacks do– perpetuate this stuff. But you don’t want to hear it. Well, if black history month is doing so much more than actually integrating black history with the American history that’s taught all year long– the world shouldn’t be as racist as you say it is, should it? If your system were so great at solving the racism problems, there should be some results, right? If blacks can be totally fulfilled by joining groups to commiserate with other blacks in a way that does not include whites, how in the world do you expect to achieve equality? If my goal in life is to play on a pro b-ball team, deciding to start my own little league and never try out for the pros doesn’t really get me any closer to that goal. I can’t really sit around and wait for the pros to notice me and then complain when they don’t.
“If you’re really interested in working to form an American “community” and “experience” instead of subsets, then worry about doing your part.”
I do worry about doing my part– which is exactly why I’ve encouraged this discussion and spent a great deal of time trying to explain my point. But my part is actually promoting that black history IS represented in mainstream teaching– not set apart. Because as long as it is set apart, that is poor compensation for what the curriculum SHOULD be. My part is to everything I can to INCLUDE blacks, not exclude them by creating “white organizations.” It amazes me that there are blacks who would prefer their own month instead of working toward making their contributions mainstream.
And yes, while racism DOES affect all Americans because we are really as good as our weakest link– blacks feel the affects of racism daily MORE than whites. Therefore, it makes logical sense that THEY need to start the process in making their own lives better. I can’t stand when people sit around and bitch but aren’t willing to do anything about their situation. If I have a leak in my apartment and I complain to my landlord and he doesn’t fix it, yes, that sucks. He has a responsibility to fix it. But who does the leak really affect every day? Me. So instead of sitting there bitching every day because he isn’t doing anything, I can decide to fix it myself and even though I shouldn’t have HAD to do that, my life is still better because I did. Or I can just continue to complain and my situation never changes.
If you feel you’re under-represented as a race in mainstream curriculum, do something that makes you mainstream. Forming your own little clubs and creating your own little month continues to keep you unintegrated.
And if you think my opinion on this doesn’t count because I’m white, then again… you aren’t doing much to solve your problem. If I tell you that there are a lot of whites who see the black screenwriters organization as exclusionary and that perception simply alienates whites (and alienating the people that you want to include you doesn’t seem like a logical strategy to get what you want), then that might be something you should consider as valid. But the truth is… you want whites to not be racist, but you don’t want to hear about the things you could change to help your situation. You want all the whites to think what you’re doing is fine and dandy and NOT be racist, and no responsibilty falls on you whatsoever. That’s not how it works. That’s a victim mentality. Blacks and whites are both responsible for racism. Both do things that perpetuate it.
Every time I hear a black person who I know was lazy and an awful employee bitch about how they got fired because their boss was racist when I know that simply wasn’t the case, makes me not want to hire a black person because I don’t want to inadvertently get a lazy, incompetent one that will blame me when he decides not to put effort into his job. Now does that make me racist? Yes. And it’s my responsibility to take that experience with him and realize that not all blacks are like that and it’s wrong of me to consider that the next time I hire a black. It’s my responsibility to make sure my actions don’t become racist as a reaction to him. Is it his responsibility to not blame white people for his shortcomings? Yes. It is. Everyone has a part here.
Fact is… a lot of whites feel that if blacks want to go off and do their own thing and create all these black organizations, then why should we do anything to help them mainstream? They want to be separatists, let ‘em. Now you can sit there and tell the whites who feel that way that their wrong, but perceptions are important. YOu will never encourage them to change by doing that. If you really feel that society is racist, then take a look at possible things that could be perpetuating that and address it. Look at the things YOU can control. And if constantly pointing out race where race doesn’t matter is one of those things (and I believe it is), then that’s worth looking at. I mean… if you actually care to change anything. But part of me gets the sense you’re happy being this underdog who can share the “black experience” and must learn about their history in a single month out of the year and that you’ve somehow found a purpose in being able to be someone who “understands” why these black associations and this need to share the “black experience” is necessary. And that mentality makes no sense to me at all.
Isn’t it possible, Mara, that maybe what blacks think is in their best interest, really isn’t at times? Is it possible that maybe blacks might be wrong about something? I think banding together and creating your own little groups is much easier than having to fight for mainstream equality. But if that is their choice, please don’t bitch about not having mainstream equality.
“Mara, I’m starting to get the sense you are too close to this subject to be objective. The fact you can tell me that Black History Month when no other group has their own month ISN’T special treatment– is simply illogical. (now if other groups do have their own month, then they suck at publicizing it because I’ve lived in this country for 33 years and never heard of it). ”
I’m not too close. I’m just explaining to you why black history month exists and why it isn’t special. Taking the time out to cover black history would only be special if it weren’t done for any other group. That simply isn’t true.
” and when is it??? And to say that every other month is “white history month” is just asinine.”
Not really. If every other month is spent teaching the history of whites, then that is what you have. You don’t have to call it white history for it be so. That’s like the white college example — if a school only accepts white students and excludes students of other races, it is a white college; it just happens to call itself Ole Miss.
And in any case, you missed the point again which IS: If mostly white history is taught and other groups are not represented or represented accurately, then something must be done to tell a story that is richer and more complete. That can be in an integrated curriculum, it can be done in a month just as long as it’s done. That it’s done is the point. You’re getting caught up in the fact that the history might be done in a particular month while ignoring the fact that white history isn’t being ignored at all, in fact quite the opposite. In anyone is getting special treatment, it would be whites, not the other way around.
“But feel free to back up your statements with facts– what other group has a “month” and when is it??? ”
You asserted that no other groups had a month not me so it was your place to back up what you said. Every single group you mentioned has a month and if you had bothered to look it up before you wrote it, you would have known that.
“To suggest that my criticism isn’t valid because I’m not black is ridiculous.”
Okay, where did I EVER say that your criticisms are not valid because you are not black?
“And the fact that blacks– like yourself– thinks it’s all about you and only you (and whites can’t possibly understand this complicated situation) is exactly the problem. You can’t see that everyone is in this together… you are constantly looking for ways to be different and set yourself apart but then you complain when whites treat you differenlty and set you apart. ??? ”
Again, this is not what I said and not where I take issue with your statements. I take issue with your assertions that certain things like race are unimportant in the bigger picture. It is to some people who experience their race because of the way they are treated because of their race. And frankly, it isn’t your place to define someone else’s experience or invalidate them which is what you do everytime you say things like “well the common experience of race doesn’t mean anything” or “being a woman is a small part of who were are.” That obviously isn’t true for a lot of people for whom those things like gender and race are defining. If it isn’t defining for you, then fine. But unless you’ve walked in someone else’s shoes, you can’t say what defines them or what factors are important to them or what factors they use to relate to other people.
“I’m telling you that some of the things blacks do– perpetuate this stuff. But you don’t want to hear it…If blacks can be totally fulfilled by joining groups to commiserate with other blacks in a way that does not include whites, how in the world do you expect to achieve equality?”
I hear what you’re saying. You’re not hearing me. I never said blacks can be totally fulfilled by joining groups. What I SAID was that these groups can serve as a source of support for those who are feeling the effects of racism. What about that do you not understand? Why is it so hard for you to understand that black people may get together to commiserate for the same reason any other people with the same or similar experiences in common do? Because people who are similarly situated understand what you are going through and it helps to have the support of those who do. Surely this isn’t a foreign concept to you. It is not counterproductive to the goal of equality for me to discuss certain issues with my black girlfriends that have the same issues as I do because we’re black. The issues are already there. How is it harmful for me to seek support, comfort, solace and encouragement with people who get me because they’ve been through it?
“But part of me gets the sense you’re happy being this underdog who can share the “black experience” and must learn about their history in a single month out of the year and that you’ve somehow found a purpose in being able to be someone who “understands” why these black associations and this need to share the “black experience” is necessary. And that mentality makes no sense to me at all.”
“Isn’t it possible, Mara, that maybe what blacks think is in their best interest, really isn’t at times? Is it possible that maybe blacks might be wrong about something? I think banding together and creating your own little groups is much easier than having to fight for mainstream equality.”
If this what you think, then you haven’t heard anything I’ve said at all. You haven’t, Christine. I’m done with this conversation.
I meant to write one more thing before I hit enter:
Christine, you wrote: And yes, while racism DOES affect all Americans because we are really as good as our weakest link– blacks feel the affects of racism daily MORE than whites. Therefore, it makes logical sense that THEY need to start the process in making their own lives better.”
And obviously blacks are doing that. You disagree with the method. And what I find most interesting about your position is that you criticize the method, yet have offered no alternative. If black writers organize because of the effects of racism in that particular industry, how do you combat the racism that causes the organization in the first place? You constantly harp that blacks aren’t doing anything, don’t want accountability, etc while ignoring the fact that blacks doing all of those things BY organizing. They are trying to help themselves. Now if you disagree with the method, again that’s fine. I’m not dismissing your opinion by saying “that’s fine.” I’m simply saying there is nothing wrong with disagreement. But you cannot say that blacks aren’t doing anything to help themselves, that they are abdicating responsibility — perhaps you think that their method isn’t really helpful. Perhaps they think it is. Different perspectives.
The last thing I wanted to say is that everyone is going to define what they think is helpful however they define it. Blacks would not continue to organize in this manner if it wasn’t helpful to them. So it’s like…I guess the question is, helpful to whom and from whose perspective. Obviously from yours, it causes more problems than alleviates. But have you ever considered that for black people, it is more helpful to have these groups than not? Who’s right? I don’t know — it depends on what side of the fence you are on, so to speak.
That’s all I’ve ever been saying. You see groups as separatist, I can understand why those people in those groups don’t see it the way you do. I can see from your perspective why a group might alienate whites and I can see from the black perspective, why the group isn’t about whites at all.
“Blacks would not continue to organize in this manner if it wasn’t helpful to them.”
Yes they would. People do things all the times that are not destructive. The reality of this situation is that if a group alienates white people the people doing the alienation are much more affected than the white people. It is as bad as Mexicans choosing not to learn English.. they just won’t ever really get ahead and that is their choice but if I sit there and say hey.. you really need to learn English to integrate into society and a group chooses not to, than it’s their own fault that they aren’t integrated. This is the same situation with all the minority groups. Remember history is written by the winners… and I mean this in a VERY broad and general way, what religions, customs, holidays that are focused on are very much influenced by the cultures who were dominate and because of this they have the most recorded history. As minority controls and influences the culture more they become a larger part of the history this is just a fact, regardless of what country or history we are talking about.
I also just wanted to clarify one of your examples. Blacks are 15% of the population, at Old Miss they are 13.5% of the student body which is very good considering the average across the country is around 14%, there is no reason why their % of the student body would be higher than 15% so things are pretty good at old miss these days. Obviously this was not the case in the past, but at some point it’s not the past anymore and a cry of integration through separation just creates the separation.
I personally think that many of these organizations just holds back the country and minorities at a whole.. at some point guess what.. your as integrated into curriculum or culture as you deserve to be based on accomplishments and influences you have in culture. We are well past that point in America where we are a integrated culture. There are examples of where a minorities still don’t exist.. for example not owning a NFL team but those are SERIOUSLY flawed statistical examples.. when you only have a sample size of 32 which is also affected by million variables all of which are more important than race it’s hard for me to cry RACISM. (I mean you do still need a cool 3 billion to buy the team).
As far as the “first _____ to _____” issue, sometimes it is warranted. Jackie Robinson was the first black to play in the MLB in the modern era (he was not technically the first ever). Amelia Earhart was the first woman to set several aviation records. The significance is that Jackie Robinson was so good that the white management realized he would be beneficial to the Dodgers and ended 80 years of segregation to bring him on the team. Amelia Earhart was doing something that was incredible at the time, not only for the technical or physical feat, but also because of the gender barriers of the day. Yes, M. Curie was the ONLY person to win Nobel prizes in 2 sciences, but she’s not the only double winner. The fact that she accomplished her second Nobel prize 9 years before women in the U.S. were given the right to vote is notable, not (necessarily) derogatory. Other times, it is simply a journalism trick used to inflate the significance of the story…
Christine wrote: “And geez, PJ… you’re old. -) ”
Yeah, but my wife is blond, 42-DD and your age, so I must be doing something right!
Mara: Geez, lady, you’re racking up the comments! Soon you will bypass Trouble AND no longer be a Kingpin. But somehow, I suspect you are already a Little Devil in your own right
“But feel free to back up your statements with facts– what other group has a “month” and when is it??? ”
You asserted that no other groups had a month not me so it was your place to back up what you said. Every single group you mentioned has a month and if you had bothered to look it up before you wrote it, you would have known that.”
Again… I don’t know of one that does, Mara. If you’re the one telling me that there is… feel free to back that up with a fact. This is the attitude I’m talking about. I looked it up. The only thing that came up was Black History Month. So I believe that is the only one that exists. You’re the one saying that other cultures do this, so YOU back up what you’re saying. The truth is… you can’t. Which is why you’re trying to put it off on me. And btw… Ole Miss does accept black students. 13% of the student pop there is African American. Maybe you feel everything is so racist because YOU don’t have your facts straight.
Hehe. I wrote that before I read Christopher’s comments– about Ole Miss.
Anyway, I’m done with this conversation too. And I do understand what you’re saying, Mara. And I understand that many blacks feel they need the support of others who can understand their experience better than other races can. But just like eating a bowl of ice cream may help me feel better at the moment after a sucky day, it may not be helping me lose ten pounds in the long run. And while you’re obviously not one of the blacks who deems everything that doesn’t go their way because the world is just racist, those people do exist. And there are lots of them. And to think they are somehow getting that way on their own– which I think you agree is a destructive behavior to themselves and multiculturalism in general–just isn’t possible. Something is creating that because this attitude that they should somehow be handed everything without working for it because “white people” have it, is coming from something… and I’d venture to say that white people aren’t the ones telling them that.
And PJ… yes, I think you must be doing something right.
By the way, I wasn’t suggesting, PJ, that it was intended to be derogatory. But again, if we’re going to say that race and gender shouldn’t be a factor– we can’t really pick and choose where they are a factor. We either make it an issue or we don’t. We can’t choose to make it an issue when it serves us and then complain about it being focused on when it doesn’t serve us.
Time out, everyone take a breath:
Christopher and Christine, this is your site and you’re entitled to your opinions, to say whatever you want, and to run it however you want, BUT as a third party here, I have to say that you’re both dissing Mara pretty hard.
The fact is that there are other History Month celebrations out there. Here are 2 from Google that have a month long “celebration” noted by federal law (and these were the only 2 minorities I tried):
Hispanic Heritage Month —
http://www.clnet.ucla.edu/heritage/hhhispan.htm
Asian Pacific American Heritage Month — http://www.infoplease.com/spot/asianintro1.html
As I said before, it’s your site, but I don’t think you’re being fair to Mara. Her perspective, as a black woman, is bound to be different than yours, especially with your white, oppressive, and obviously racists backgrounds.
OK, I’ve done my part in an attempt to get a Nobel Peace Prize nomination — let the bullets fly again! Just remember the topic of the post — America’s compassion for others! (y)
“I also just wanted to clarify one of your examples. Blacks are 15% of the population, at Old Miss they are 13.5% of the student body which is very good considering the average across the country is around 14%, there is no reason why their % of the student body would be higher than 15% so things are pretty good at old miss these days.”
You didn’t clarify anything. Ole Miss was a whites only school.
I just feel the need to defend myself because I really cannot stand when people misquote me or take what I say grossly out of context as been done here.
“Again… I don’t know of one that does, Mara. If you’re the one telling me that there is… feel free to back that up with a fact. This is the attitude I’m talking about. I looked it up. The only thing that came up was Black History Month. So I believe that is the only one that exists. You’re the one saying that other cultures do this, so YOU back up what you’re saying. The truth is… you can’t. Which is why you’re trying to put it off on me. And btw… Ole Miss does accept black students. 13% of the student pop there is African American. Maybe you feel everything is so racist because YOU don’t have your facts straight.”
Sigh. Do you read anything I write or are just honestly misinterpreting? This is what I said about Ole Miss as an example: Christopher said earlier that he had never heard of all whites colleges (when I was explaining why there are historical black colleges). And I wrote that colleges didn’t call themselves white schools, however, if they only accepted white students and rejected other students based on their race, they were, in effect, white schools. They just happen to call themselves some other name. Ole Miss is an example of a school that did not accept black students. University of Maryland is an example of a school that did not accept black students (which was the first example I have given Christopher like 20 comments ago). Now perhaps Christopher meant that he hadn’t heard of them today as opposed to when those colleges were founded and I misinterpreted HIM. That is entirely possible.
Moreover, I don’t feel everything is racist and if you had read any of my comments, you would known that since I have specifically WRITTEN several times everything is not racist. So I really don’t know what you’re talking about.
And finally, in terms of other months, I find it interesting that I can google every single group that you mentioned and figure out the month in less than 2 seconds but you can’t. Hmmm.
And one final comment on black organizations. It is because of these organizations, because of special interest groups that many strides toward equality have been made. Your last statement about some blacks wanting something for nothing, for me, is really an issue separate from your issue with black orgs. There are always people who want something for nothing but guess what? That sentiment is not what drives many of these organizations. If black lawyers in Los Angeles want to increase the representation of blacks in the law and in corporate America for example, they might make a concerted effort to do so. Not by separating themselves because they are not exclusive as you keep saying, but by pooling their resources together. Maybe they create a mentor program to black students to see them through law school. That is a method for working toward gaining equality, Christine and it is one that was worked. Has it completely eradicated racism? Of course not, but then again, you haven’t proposed any method that will.
This is the problem with being unable to edit my posts because I get the sense that you may not follow my white college example and really, it’s back too many posts to go through all that. So for your convenience:
I was commenting to Christopher earlier that I will hear white people complain that there have never been white colleges when taking issue with black colleges. I pointed out to Christoper that one, black colleges are not exclusive. They are historically black schools for a reason (which I explained) but they are not exclusive. They happen to be mostly black and continue to be because that is who applies and wants to attend (I didn’t tell Christopher that but that is something I want to clarify since you both seem misinformed on this point). But they are not exclusive like white colleges were. He said he had never heard of white colleges. I then told him that if a school only accepts white students, then it’s a white college. The school didn’t CALL itself a white college, but they were white. Ole Miss is an example of that. I was not implying there were white colleges now…I thought that since I’d said people say they never heard of white colleges and he responded with the same question, that was what he meant.
When I wrote the post to you about black vs white history month and how if every other month you teach white history, then white history is what you have regardless of what you call it, I referenced the college example as an analogy that has the same reasoning. Perhaps you didn’t follow it because you hadn’t read or understood that earlier post.
But you’re trying to cloud the issue, Mara. We know why there were historically black colleges. The point I’m making, is that things have changed. There are no all-white schools, so the fact that there once was is pretty much irrelevant. It doesn’t affect you personally or any other black. Period. Now if a group of black lawyers pool their resources to create scholarships for black students to go to law school, do you think I could apply and get one of those scholarships? As much as you want to pretend they’re not exclusive, I– being white– would not get one of those scholarships because the POINT of the group doing that is to promote BLACKS getting into law school. Therefore, it is exclusive. Now, if there was a group of white men pooling resources to send more white males to college, everyone would say they’re excluding blacks because they’re racist. Just because you think you can justify reverse racism by saying “well it’s necessary because whites already have an advantage blacks don’t have” is a valid argument for justification, but let’s not call it something it isn’t. It’s reverse racism. If you tell me that yes, promoting black students by offering scholarships to black students from resources pooled by black lawyers is racist, but it’s necessary. I’m more like to agree. But don’t pretend it’s not exclusive and it’s not racist. It is.
*sigh* why don’t we all just go (d)
“There are no all-white schools, so the fact that there once was is pretty much irrelevant.” This was written in response to a specific question. If you don’t know what it was or recall the conversation, please reread the post. There was a context to that discussion so the point was not, as you put it, irrelevant.
“If you tell me that yes, promoting black students by offering scholarships to black students from resources pooled by black lawyers is racist, but it’s necessary. I’m more like to agree.”
Racism and exclusivity don’t always mean the same thing and you seem to think that harping on the definition of racism is unimportant but actually it is. If we’re going to talk about racism, let’s talk about racism. Racism is NOT about acknowledging and celebrating difference. That would be ridiculous since we can all see people look different and in many ways, are different, have different experiences, etc. It isn’t about merely excluding people. Exclusion in and of itself is not bad and in some cases, can be a very good thing. Racism is about using that difference or exclusion to promote hatred/intolerance of other races and racial superiority of one race over others. Period. That’s what it means. So yes, I do object to you making things racist that I do not believe are. As I said before, I would not necessarily think a bunch of white lawyers getting together to promote white lawyers would be racist. Now would a lot of people today probably think so? I wouldn’t doubt it but that doesn’t mean that they are right; it means that they are ignorant and need to educate themselves on this issue before they say anything else. A lot of black people run around saying things are racist that aren’t because they don’t understand what racism is. They’re ignorant. Now, I know why people would have that gut reaction and that is, as I’ve already said, because historically, whenever you saw white groups like that, those groups acted with a racist intent and purpose. They were racist groups. *But* that isn’t to say that a white group must always be racist. They don’t. And to impose that label on those groups because they are white is unfair if they are not racist.
And please stop putting words into my mouth. I do not justify racism (and I take issue with the term reverse racism, btw. Racism is racism. I don’t know what “reverse racism” is) and haven’t said remotely anything close to what you wrote in that last part of your post. I simply don’t agree with your definition.
Because I don’t like people misquoting me and accusing me of not having my fact straights, that’s why. Call me stubborn.
You’re stubborn.
I agree… it’s time to let this one go. There’s no new information being debated at this point.
If I did misquote you or misconstrue what you said, M, then I’m sorry. It was certainly not my intention as I feel this subject is far from needing anything more to make it more complicated than it is.
But I am going to hold true to my promise to let it this one just up and die where it fell. No more resurrection attempts from me.
My (g) to PJ and Christopher. Second best to seeing Mara and I mudwrestle I know… but you gotta take what you can get.
Just thought i’d make this clear. The USA gives more money in dollars than any other nations HOWEVER if you take into account the gross national income of the US the amount it donates is very small. Infact the amount the USA donates puts it 21st out of the worlds nations on % of its GNI. Britain is 7th on this list but Sweden is 1st as it gives 1.03% of its GNP to charity. The US gives .17% of its GNP. So actually Christine you Americans are cheap compared to some nations!
Okay… well, we can stop if you want… :s
Adam has a point there…
Sure he does, but Christine has a better point (and better cleavage too)!
Kudos to Britain and Sweden for their giving levels, but let’s see them increase their standard of living/GDP levels to our level and maintain that percentage. Our country thrives because we adopted a profit driven model. Our citizens thrive because we believe in individuality first and then helping the greater good. I don’t believe ANY other country on earth has succeeded as well as Americans have in that regard.
Americans *could* give 90% of their income to charitable causes which help other countries, but there would *STILL* be a group of ungrateful asshats (both foreign and domestic) whining about how the remaining 10% of our wages are still more than the average wages of a 3rd world worker!
In other words, don’t try to “demonize” American giving levels — our real $$$ value is greater than anyone else’s and the only reason our % of GNP is 21st on the list is because our GNP far surpasses the others. Sweden, for instance, had a GDP Per Capita (2006) of $32,200. Britain had $31,800 and the US had $44,000. That’s one hell of a difference when you look at a per capita basis!
Sorry, I meant to change all of the GNP references above to GDP (the “new” slang, umm, I mean, terminology)
One other point I meant to add: Everyone cries foul that 12% of Americans live below the “poverty line”, but few realize that Britain’s numbers are 17% (Sweden does not report such numbers, apparently). So what that means is that the US creates far more GDP, give far more $$$ to charity, and has fewer people living in poverty than the Brits… where would you rather be, statistically-speaking?
Very good points, PJ.
Yeah, I know…. I can’t help myself. It’s hard to be humble when you’re this smart :$
(it was JUST a joke. No one should feel threatened by my superior intellect
)
I think it strayed from my point a bit! I was talking about generosity not who’s better off!
Adam,
The thing is..
If I give like $7,000-$10,000 a year (which I have done before) and someone in Sweden gives $2000-$3000 a year because they average income is less in Sweden than mine, so here they are giving a higher % of there income, yet they are contributing significantly less money…. however the real point is the value of $1000 is the same, just because I make more doesn’t mean I can afford to give more.. I live a more expensive life style because I make more money which helps support my own government. When I buy a car I pay a luxury tax, sales tax.. when buy a lot of stuff I pay a lot of sales tax.. I am contributing to the American economy which also is good for me. The reality is the $7000 contribution is very difficult for me to give up.. just because I make more and just because we enjoy a higher standard of living doesn’t mean that I’m not giving up twice as much as the person contributing $3500… I am.. especially when the cost of living is similar (like US vs Brittian or US vs Sweden) I suppose it could also be argued that I’m giving up more since our cost of living is significantly higher than many places in the world. (Where else does a little shack cost 1.7 million).
Exactly the point I was making! The US is both more generous AND better off. The % of GDP is simply a poor measure of generousity!
In addition to that, don’t forget that the value of the $1000 given by an American vs. the $500 given by a Swede carries the same value in whatever country is receiving the aid. The grand given by the American still buys double the stuff. Although I realize that has nothing to do with generosity itself… but lets not forget who works more days and work hours than any other country– Americans. We take less vacation than most countries and work longer hours each day, so I might even suggest that for the money we make, we work harder for it than anyone else.
Is that true even in Hollywood, Christine??
Yep. It buys the same… we’re just good at finding new ways of wasting the money out here.
Americans pay less less tax than europeans. The Dutch have to pay 50% on there income, all of them. We Brits have income tax, national insurance, VAT(sales tax) Cigs/alchohol duty, fuel duty(fucking ridiculously high!), Interest on savings, road tax, airport tax, infact, if it costs you money over here then theres tax involved. The highest income tax band from what I see is 35% in America? Correct? Its 40% income tax for high earners for Brits.
So Americans have more money and give less! Face it guys you’re all tighter than a nuns c**t!
Thats how you’re the wealthiest country in the world! For now…
First of all, Adam… let’s try to tell the truth here…
Yes, the Dutch pay more in taxes. The reason is that many social services are offered by the public authorities. The taxes thus finance a long list of welfare services, such as kindergartens, education, care for the elderly, access to medical aid and hospitals. In many other countries these things are covered by private insurances or by social security contributions. Furthermore Denmark offers a high level of welfare which is accessible – often free of charge – for all. So THAT’S why they pay more taxes… in the U.S., we have to pay for higher education, medical aid, medical insurance, hospitals, and have no access to welfare unless you fall below the poverty line. While it might help your argument to try to compare apples to oranges and pretend they’re both apples, it kind sucks when someone calls you on your bullshit, doesn’t it?
And yes, the U.S. does pay less taxes than Europe (our highest tax bracket is 35%), however… is it really our problem that European governments operate less efficiently and therefore need to collect more taxes?
By the way… if you really want to figure in how much someone pays in taxes, you need to include FICA for Americans. You aren’t really taking into consideration how much an individual pays in taxes until you add what he/she pays in state AND federal income tax and FICA. Add those three together, and that will give you an accurate picture to compare against.
uhhh… are we being racists or separatists (or whatever “ist” there is) here by pointing out who’s giving more? I think Christine’s intention in posting the article is not to demean other nationalities nor to say that them Americans are far more superior than us because they give more. I think her point is that, despite all the flak that the USofA receive, they still do have something to be proud of, to quote… “So while we tend to be the object of hate from many other countries, we aren’t all bad. In general, I think American culture perpetuates a solidarity that inspires us to help other people in need– either on our own soil or beyond.”
I’d rather just say… Kudos to you America, may God bless you… and keep the $$$ coming…
Ha! Thanks, Benz. Some of the other comments sort of proved my point… Americans can basically do more philanthropy than all the other countries and people will still find a reason that it’s not good enough. Oh well… I guess I’d rather not live up to those “expectations” than the alternative which would be living in a country that has those expectations of someone else. (y)
Sorry but if theres one thing Americans aren’t, its efficient! Generous, yes, the statistics are there(I guess!) but not efficient!
If you’re talking about governments (and Christine WAS talking about government programs), then I would whole-heartedly agree. The US Federal government is one of the worst bureaucratic monstrosities ever conceived.
If, however, you’re talking about corporations and individuals, I would take exception to that statement. Yes, there ARE some highly-accomplished losers here in the US, but there are also some very exceptional people and organizations too.
Take, for example, ChrisVsChris — couldn’t have been done by a Brit — it took a real American conservative to design this masterpiece of efficiency!
lol
If CvC is the height of American achievement we might want to drop this subject.
i agree with u adam. American and efficient (u)…………all they do is brag.
Alex, you have to understand when we are so dang superior its very difficult not to.
Well said, Christopher!
By the way, I noticed that Adam was talking about the tax rates in Europe vs the USA. What Adam (and others) may not remember is that in the late 1970′s, Americans in the highest tax bracket were paying 72-77% marginal income tax. It was Reaganomics which lowered tax rates to a high of 28-33% and, as a result, we saw an dramatic *increase* in revenues.
Since the 1930s, U.S. banks were the flagships of American economic might, and emulation by other nations of the fiercely free-market financial system in the United States was expected and encouraged. But the market turmoil that is draining the nation’s wealth and has upended Wall Street now threatens to put the banks at the heart of the U.S. financial system at least partly in the hands of the government.
The government’s about-face goes beyond the banking industry. It is reasserting itself in the lives of citizens in ways that were unthinkable in the era of market-knows-best thinking. With the recent takeovers of major lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the bailout of AIG, the U.S. government is now effectively responsible for providing home mortgages and life insurance to tens of millions of Americans. Many economists are asking whether it remains a free market if the government is so deeply enmeshed in the financial system.