Race Relations
A18:
United
??????????:
People naturally divide themselves according to their race. Go to a cafeteria and see where each individual race sits. It just comes natural to many to hang with people that are like them. I don't have any problem with that personally.
opebo:
America is so divided by race, and racism is so pervasive, that it would be reasonable to call American society 'racist'.
angus:
Quote from: Senator StatesRights on February 02, 2005, 12:14:11 AM
People naturally divide themselves according to their race. Go to a cafeteria and see where each individual race sits. It just comes natural to many to hang with people that are like them. I don't have any problem with that personally.
that's an astute observation. one I've made as well. I don't think I have a serious problem with it either, but I'll say it doesn't describe me very well. I am often the only white person in a room full of asians when I visit my wife's family, and I'm not at all uncomfortable. and now that I'm staying in deep afrosheen country, I ocassionally find myself in a room full of black people and I don't have a problem with that either. but since you brought it up, I will say that I was having a conversation with one of my colleagues who is black, and she was saying that when she walks into a room, she will invariably sit at a table with other blacks, preferentially. my white colleagues feel she is a bit racist (not for that reason, but for many others), but she is an ethical person and a hard worker and I expect her to get tenure. I actually like her quite a bit. I have no fundamental problems with racism, except that it mildly offends me. Still, I know many racists, black, white, asian, and other, who are otherwise well-adjusted and decent people.
For the question, I chose divided also. I think we have become more divided by race in the last twenty years. I think there was a time when we were becoming less and less divided. particularly during the 60s and 70s. I have a great deal of respect for people like MLK and the work they did to erase the divisions. But at some point nasty hatemongers like Malcolm X and Jesse Jackson became greater heroes to blacks, and you can say similar things about whites and their heroes, that we have actually regressed in this area. Sure, we're not as racially divided as most other countries, which is a good thing because we're far more racially diverse and if we were as racist as, say, the Jamaicans or the French or the Chinese, for example, we'd have huge problems. But our racism should be inversely proportional to our diversity, if we are to avoid nasty confrontations.
A couple of posts strike me as a little bizarre. OJ? that went a bit over my head. Also, MS and AL were specifically mentioned. It should be noted that, according to the US census bureau, the Deep South has some of the highest Diversity Indices in the nation. Anecdotally (as someone who has lived in 12 of the 50 US states over very broad geographic regions) I can say without a doubt that this particular part of flyover country (columbus, MS) is one of the least racially divided areas in which I have lived. My wife, who is neither black nor white, but who has by now lived in several US states, makes the same observation. Contrary to what is often posted by some of the more insular and less-traveled posters on this forum, I'd contend, based on data from the US government, as well as on my and others' observations, that places like MS and AL are among the least racially divided places ever. Yes, I am aware that AL became the last, in 2000, to remove legal language barring intermarriage, but I have taught at several schools now, and I can assure you that I have never seen blacks and whites get along in genuine friendship and confidence as they do at the one in which I'm working now. Now, you can say that that's just one data point, and the only data point I have from the south, but Census can provide many other data points.
Another comment I'd like to make is that egalitarianism will only be achieved by egalitarian measures. Bush said, in 2000, that he wanted to help combat the "soft bigotry of low expectations" I think that took great courage, in our politically-correct, racially-charged society, and I applaud him for the efforts, as well as the huge efforts this president has made to reach out to hire blacks, asians, and native peoples of the americas in government posts. The democrats have very few cards left to play, but they seem to enjoy playing the race card often. This is not helpful. Isn't it time we threw off the old stereotypes of a rich connecticut white anglo-saxon protestant yankee, and accepted him for the egalitarian westerner/rancher that he attempts to portray. Sure, it's not an exactly accurate portrayal, but this president is one of the least racist I've witnessed in my lifetime.
One final comment I'd like to make, as long as we're on democrats, is the false notion that only a Southerner can do well among black southerners. We read all too often that if the nominee had been Edwards at the top of the ticket, then they might have won a state or two like NC or LA. False! True, someone from, say, Darien, CT, who grew up among other rich white folks like himself may not be able to connect with the average impoverished type from inner-city Charlotte or Birmingham, but it's not an impossibility! Far from it. I submit Howard Dean. Yes, I'm always impugning Dean, and don't much like his style, but he alone had the balls and the ability to go beyond the political correctness and reach out to all voters. Because he knows all voters are potentially Democrats, and all voters are potentially republicans. Howard I don't like. Mostly because he's too much like me, an arrogant opinionated hothead who cannot possibly be elected because of our prudish national conscience. Now, I'm not campaigning for him, and would never vote for him. But credit where credit is due. He showed, in several instances, how a wealthy governor from a rural lily-white state can connect with impoverished inner-city blacks. Even Al Sharpton admitted this. Problem with dean is he'll say "Hey I'm the only candidate who..." does this or does that. Maybe it's true, but his style sucks. Still, he has shown that it doesn't take a venal southern lawyer who goes around pimping his youth in poverty as a son of a rural millworker to connect with blacks. We really need to come off these bizarre hurtful stereotypes. Dean's not the one. But someone with his lack of political correctness and his balls is sorely need in the DNC. In any case, he showed, to the satisfaction of many, that someone who grew up so far from the black-belt and so far from poverty can actually connect.
Race relations are certainly better than they were some 200000 years ago when Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon first met on the western banks of the Black Sea, in suspicion and hate, each knowing the other would get that mammoth and take it back to his own clan unless he killed the other first, but we still have a long way to go. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. The first step starts with a conversation.
opebo:
Quote from: angus on February 02, 2005, 12:23:35 PM
Isn't it time we threw off the old stereotypes of a rich connecticut white anglo-saxon protestant yankee, and accepted him for the egalitarian westerner/rancher that he attempts to portray. Sure, it's not an exactly accurate portrayal, but this president is one of the least racist I've witnessed in my lifetime.
The man was elected on the back of racism. He's exceedingly anti-egalitarian. His every policy is intended to increase inequality. True, he has a few token blacks in the cabinet, but his consitutuency is made up almost entirely of whites, and largely of racists.
No, I would say he is the most racist by far of recent presidents, though I'm sure Reagan and Nixon would've given him a run for first place.
Keep in mind that Bush is also a classist as well as a racist - when he 'reaches out' to his simple rural voters, appealing to their primitive hatreds and mindless patriotism, he is, I think, well aware of his condescension. He's duping the rubes for the plutocrats, but I'm certain he considers them a lessor order of being than His People.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page