INTRO:
40 acres and a mule, was what they promised us. I personally don't know anyone whom's ancestors received that kind gesture. What I do know is that they gave us a word. A word that has carried condescending and demeaning stigma for over 400 years. Nigger is was they called us. This word was not used as an exclusive NOUN referring to an individual, but as an inclusive ADJECTIVE to describe an entire race of people. The word was is pejorative, condescending, demeaning; describing us as inferior, stupid, dumb, ignorant, savage, uncivilized and the list goes on.
I was compelled to write this blog out of necessity. The extraction and the subsequent verbal manifestation was motived, in part, by one Dr. Laura Schlessinger. In short Dr. Laura is a radio show host that posed and a rather controversial question: If black people can use the N-Word why can't everybody else? I have heard many different answers to this question, but none that could quite satisfy the public. Here's my attempt to do so.
PRACTICAL ANSWER:
This is by far the simplest conceptual explanation for why everyone isn't allowed to use the N-Word. Introducing "Circle of Familiarity" (c of f). Everyone has friends and/or family; when a friend or family member calls you a name or makes a descriptive inference in regard your lifestyle, appearance or beliefs, that any reasonably prudent person influenced by society would find offensive, you may not, necessarily, be offended by their comments. As long as this person is within your "c of f" their words may be moderately offensive or not offensive at all. Now if a perfect stranger walks up to you and calls you ugly, short, or fat I am sure your response ,for the most part, will be entirely different. The "c of f", in regard to the N-Word does, sometimes, transcend race. I have personally heard (not that I agree with it) whites and hispanics use the N-Word in the presence of their black friends. In this particular instance, the usage of the N-Word was deemed acceptable due to the relationships with their "c of f". I personally was offended when I heard it, because I didn't have that type of relationship within that circle. Whether you feel like the exclusive, and partially acceptable, use of the N-Word by African-Americans is right or wrong, you can understand that if you are not within a "c of f" you cannot say certain things to certain people. Period!
ABSTRACT LOOK:
Disclaimer: A famous linguist once noted that ever so often words have a way of reinventing themselves.
The N-Word historically has been used (mostly by white people) , like I stated in the intro, as a demeaning and condescending word. Regardless of any ADJECTIVE that was placed in front it, it was defamatory. And in most cases it was used simply as an ADJECTIVE to describe African-Americans as inferior. Now fast forward to the 21st century. African-Americans, true to our creative culture, have taken the word, patented it, and remixed it to mean, for the most part, something entirely different. N-word in some cases is used as a greeting by a fellow black person, illustrating that they recognize a black person and are welcoming them into the ascribed "c of f" as an African American. It has historically been used as a NOUN, of course spoken with the correct slang or diction, by black people to recognize another person as black(i.e. "my nigga"). Now don't get me wrong black people have you used the word negatively towards each other. However, in 'almost' all cases the N-Word must be preceded my an acrimonious adjective in order for the word to carry negative connotations. Members of other races also use the N-Word as a NOUN when preceded by an ADJECTIVE, but no matter what ADJECTIVE precedes it, it will always carry a negative meaning in the presence of black people that are not apart of your "c of f". This NOUN/ADJECTIVE dichotomy must be noted in order to attain a general understanding of the perpetual usage of the word.
ITS ALL ABOUT POWER:
Im my opinion it is all about power. They gave us this word with malicious intent. We have taken this word patented it, and remixed it. Exclusive rights to its usage. It now carries, in some cases, a positive meaning. They can no longer use the word outside of their "c of a" and not receive some sort of societal backlash. Yep I said societal. When it comes to being an African-American there are not too many things that society backs us on and the almost exclusive use of the N-Word, is one of them. And the people that "coined the phrase" can't stand it. The power and freedom to use the word is now gone. Whether you as an African-American embrace the word or not, all parties involved must make an effort understand the "c of f" concept and the "Noun?Adjective" dichotomy.
If you have any thoughts on this, no matter what race, feel free to comment. This a conversation we need to have.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Arizona Immigration
Bill S.B.1070 Article 8 sec 11-1051b states:
FOR ANY (LAWFUL) CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE (REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS) THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Reasonable Suspicion? What is that? How do you define that? Is your definition differ from mine? Chances are, it does.
Just a note in regard to reason:
If the definition, that is to be excepted and applicable under this law,is subjective (meaning that it may vary from person to person), the decisions made cannot be excepted as an objective truth. Never can you deem a decision objective based on subjectivity. This would be in direct violation of the term law.
Note on practicallity:
Furthermore putting the freedoms and liberties of a certain group of people in the hands of street level bureaucrates is absolutely reprehensible. Where does "reasonable suspicion" stop? And how you prove, objectively, that there was none, if by chance, someone needed to defend themselves againt such a judgement call? You can't. Therefore this law, conclusively, is unreasonable and irrational.
Constitutional Prohibition:
Article I sec. 9:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
This means that any subsequent year, posteriorly in occurrence of 1808, the federal government alone will have the power of allowance,or disallowance, in regard to the migration or importation of all persons. This simply means that no state can change, amend, or create any laws that pertain to immigration. It is solely a duty of the federal government; and this clearly was an attempt by Arizona legislators to violate the constitution. These types of charades must not be allowed to be propagated, if we are going to protect the stable and civil union of the United States of America. No mas.
FOR ANY (LAWFUL) CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE (REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS) THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Reasonable Suspicion? What is that? How do you define that? Is your definition differ from mine? Chances are, it does.
Just a note in regard to reason:
If the definition, that is to be excepted and applicable under this law,is subjective (meaning that it may vary from person to person), the decisions made cannot be excepted as an objective truth. Never can you deem a decision objective based on subjectivity. This would be in direct violation of the term law.
Note on practicallity:
Furthermore putting the freedoms and liberties of a certain group of people in the hands of street level bureaucrates is absolutely reprehensible. Where does "reasonable suspicion" stop? And how you prove, objectively, that there was none, if by chance, someone needed to defend themselves againt such a judgement call? You can't. Therefore this law, conclusively, is unreasonable and irrational.
Constitutional Prohibition:
Article I sec. 9:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
This means that any subsequent year, posteriorly in occurrence of 1808, the federal government alone will have the power of allowance,or disallowance, in regard to the migration or importation of all persons. This simply means that no state can change, amend, or create any laws that pertain to immigration. It is solely a duty of the federal government; and this clearly was an attempt by Arizona legislators to violate the constitution. These types of charades must not be allowed to be propagated, if we are going to protect the stable and civil union of the United States of America. No mas.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Briefly; Race and Poverty
"When we talk about unemployment, the levels of underemployment, the decrepit schools, disgraceful school systems and decrepit housing, we’re talking about power and privilege versus poverty and relative powerlessness - and Race is integral." -Cornell West
My response:
@Dr. West. Well said. It all starts with education; the level of education attained, more often than not, is directly a reflection of your socioeconomic class. And with the growing wealth discrepancy between blacks and whites, the point you are making is perfectly clear.
Subsequent remarks:
There is irrefutable evidence that points to a direct relationship between education, or lack thereof, and poverty. Many people believe (or lead you to think they believe) that the playing field is even. This could not be further from the truth.
The evidence that the belief of this theoretical "even playing field" exists is the implementation of standardized high school exit exams. If you analyze the scores of these examinations you will discover that there is a huge divide between the number African-Americans that pass and number of Anglo-Saxons that pass. Why is that? Are whites simply smarter than blacks? I was in one of my poli-sci classes and my professor, whom is an African-American, made some very interesting comments. She basically communicated to us that she refused to believe that whites were smarter that blacks and that when this proposal to abolish standardized exams came up to for vote, that she would vote in favor of continuing these exams. I must admit my thoughts about her, in response to her comments, were very condescending. To say that she is professor I felt she was a bit naive. She had fallen victim to the fallacious propaganda of the proponents of these exams. Thats exactly what they want you to believe.
To make the this easy to understand lets take a look at a couple of high schools in Houston, TX. There is no way that anyone could believe that the kids at Katy High School and the kids at Jack Yates High School are receiving the same caliber of education (no pun intended). The Katy Independent School District has far more programs and tools that can be utilize to enhance their students education. Jack Yates High School does not have access to the same programs and tools. Why is that? Wealth. Many of you who own homes or are shopping for homes are aware that there is a tax, paid by you, to the school district that your neighborhood is in. What are these taxes used for? These taxes are used to help enhance the facilities, programs, and personnel of the respective district. Katy has higher taxes therefore can afford better and more of the aforementioned attributes. Who can afford to pay these higher taxes? Wealthier people.
Based on recent studies there is a growing wealth divide between whites and blacks. Numbers don't lie. With that in mind, it is safe to say that a higher percentage of whites are able to afford to send their kids to schools that are able to provide a better education. While a higher percent of black due to the income divide are forced to go to school that are not as well equipped. Based on this, there is clearly inequities in regard to education.
My beef with the standardized exam, is that it assumes that all high schoolers are receiving, to a degree, the same level of education (hence that word standardized). When in reality they are not. So these standardized tests that prevent kids from graduating are really hurting african-americans, not because they are not smart enough but because of their socioeconomic status. This a big problem and will continue to ruin future of young black people.
Full circle:
Due to the growing gap in wealth between blacks and whites (race), a higher percentage of whites are receiving a better high school education. While on the other hand the education of the young African-American is limited. Consequently, the direct correlation between education and (poverty), adversely affects African-American communities. "Race and Poverty"
My response:
@Dr. West. Well said. It all starts with education; the level of education attained, more often than not, is directly a reflection of your socioeconomic class. And with the growing wealth discrepancy between blacks and whites, the point you are making is perfectly clear.
Subsequent remarks:
There is irrefutable evidence that points to a direct relationship between education, or lack thereof, and poverty. Many people believe (or lead you to think they believe) that the playing field is even. This could not be further from the truth.
The evidence that the belief of this theoretical "even playing field" exists is the implementation of standardized high school exit exams. If you analyze the scores of these examinations you will discover that there is a huge divide between the number African-Americans that pass and number of Anglo-Saxons that pass. Why is that? Are whites simply smarter than blacks? I was in one of my poli-sci classes and my professor, whom is an African-American, made some very interesting comments. She basically communicated to us that she refused to believe that whites were smarter that blacks and that when this proposal to abolish standardized exams came up to for vote, that she would vote in favor of continuing these exams. I must admit my thoughts about her, in response to her comments, were very condescending. To say that she is professor I felt she was a bit naive. She had fallen victim to the fallacious propaganda of the proponents of these exams. Thats exactly what they want you to believe.
To make the this easy to understand lets take a look at a couple of high schools in Houston, TX. There is no way that anyone could believe that the kids at Katy High School and the kids at Jack Yates High School are receiving the same caliber of education (no pun intended). The Katy Independent School District has far more programs and tools that can be utilize to enhance their students education. Jack Yates High School does not have access to the same programs and tools. Why is that? Wealth. Many of you who own homes or are shopping for homes are aware that there is a tax, paid by you, to the school district that your neighborhood is in. What are these taxes used for? These taxes are used to help enhance the facilities, programs, and personnel of the respective district. Katy has higher taxes therefore can afford better and more of the aforementioned attributes. Who can afford to pay these higher taxes? Wealthier people.
Based on recent studies there is a growing wealth divide between whites and blacks. Numbers don't lie. With that in mind, it is safe to say that a higher percentage of whites are able to afford to send their kids to schools that are able to provide a better education. While a higher percent of black due to the income divide are forced to go to school that are not as well equipped. Based on this, there is clearly inequities in regard to education.
My beef with the standardized exam, is that it assumes that all high schoolers are receiving, to a degree, the same level of education (hence that word standardized). When in reality they are not. So these standardized tests that prevent kids from graduating are really hurting african-americans, not because they are not smart enough but because of their socioeconomic status. This a big problem and will continue to ruin future of young black people.
Full circle:
Due to the growing gap in wealth between blacks and whites (race), a higher percentage of whites are receiving a better high school education. While on the other hand the education of the young African-American is limited. Consequently, the direct correlation between education and (poverty), adversely affects African-American communities. "Race and Poverty"
Monday, July 26, 2010
Inequitable Terminology
I read an article today that I found to be a bit disturbing. A Mr. Jerry Gonzales, who happens to be a Latino activist, exclaims that the word "illegal" in reference to immigrants "...serves to dehumanize a person....Similar to the way the n-word was used to dehumanize African-Americans"
Lets start off defining these terms:
Illegal Immigration- Illegal immigration is a movement of people across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. Illegal immigrants are also known as Illegal aliens...
Nigger(n-word)- a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, or ignorant.
Implied meanings:
Illegal Immigration- Illegal immigration is a movement of people across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. Illegal immigrants are also known as illegal aliens...
Nigger(n-word)- used as a disparaging term for a member of 'a' darkskinned race.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm. Whether definitive or implied the definition of illegal immigration (illegal alien) does not change. Clearly this term does not, generally speaking, dehumanize people (though the "feeling" of dehumanization is subjective and may vary from person to person). Even if someone felt that they were being dehumanized, the term itself is inclusive. Any person(s) of any ethnicity can be an illegal immigrant or alien, however to the contrary the nword is implicitly exclusive and derogatory. This word has been used to degrade Africans and African-Americans for over 400 years. It has been used as a to belittle, patronize and incite anger within the black community. But somehow these two terms are equitable? I beg to differ. Calling someone an illegal immigrant is simply a reference in regard to a person's citizenship status, and does defame a person's or a race's character. The perpetual inference of the nword is and should existentially remain separate from statements or terms that refer to an immigration status. Apples and oranges.
Lets start off defining these terms:
Illegal Immigration- Illegal immigration is a movement of people across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. Illegal immigrants are also known as Illegal aliens...
Nigger(n-word)- a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, or ignorant.
Implied meanings:
Illegal Immigration- Illegal immigration is a movement of people across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. Illegal immigrants are also known as illegal aliens...
Nigger(n-word)- used as a disparaging term for a member of 'a' darkskinned race.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm. Whether definitive or implied the definition of illegal immigration (illegal alien) does not change. Clearly this term does not, generally speaking, dehumanize people (though the "feeling" of dehumanization is subjective and may vary from person to person). Even if someone felt that they were being dehumanized, the term itself is inclusive. Any person(s) of any ethnicity can be an illegal immigrant or alien, however to the contrary the nword is implicitly exclusive and derogatory. This word has been used to degrade Africans and African-Americans for over 400 years. It has been used as a to belittle, patronize and incite anger within the black community. But somehow these two terms are equitable? I beg to differ. Calling someone an illegal immigrant is simply a reference in regard to a person's citizenship status, and does defame a person's or a race's character. The perpetual inference of the nword is and should existentially remain separate from statements or terms that refer to an immigration status. Apples and oranges.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Exoneration of Sherrod
Who is Shirley Sherrod? Clearly a mere rhetorical question due to all the news coverage she has received. Shirley Sherrod is now a former USDA official, wrongfully relieved of her duties. Removed from her position of 24+ years. Due diligence? Of course not. When it comes to the subject of racism everyone is so sensitive, and consequently can easily fall victim to any "seemingly" negative or condescending sound bite. Im not talking about just the media, but the United State government from the white house on down. This type of response, to a sound bite from a nut-bag tea party member with a reputation incendiary commentary, is reprehensible.
Andrew Breitbart is the transgressor here. I was watching CNN; John King was interviewing this guy. He defended himself by saying that "this video wasn't about Shirley Sherrod" and "I didn't fire her". Come on now, is he serious? The video was clearly edited in attempt illustrate a racial predisposition in reference to Ms. Sherrod's treatment of a white farmer, which directly led to her untimely dismissal. How does a guy of this faculty have any credibility? I mean really? Is that all it takes to provoke the white house. The media; poor poor media. We are now living in a time where the news is simply a competition of who can be more reckless and who can break the news the fastest. Facts? What are those? As long as I am the quickest and my ratings are the highest, the truth is not a priority. If it just so happens to be fact, that's mere happenstance. We must boycott media outlets that give such unscrupulous individuals platform to propagate such acrimonious falsehoods. This is the only way to salvage truth and to protect our nation from the on-slot of sophism.
Enough about the inequities of the media and leadership, this about the exoneration of Mrs. Sherrod. Since her resignation Mrs. Sherrod's "career" has really taken off. She has made several appearances on both national and international televised networks. This is my post event career prognosis for Mrs. Sherrod: The aforementioned appearances are expected to continue for quite sometime. She will make even more money than the government was willing to pay by keynoting at speaking engagements. Its been speculated that may receive, initially, $10,000 per speech. Then she's going to write book about her life and her experiences. The book is going to be an instant best-seller due to interest in her life taken by many people, due to her austere mistreatment. The irony is thick here.
In closing, Mrs. Sherrod's vindication seems to be of biblical proportion. "ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day,..."(Genesis 50:20) Clearly this was an effort to paint Mrs. Sherrod as a racist that used defamatory speech to incite a crowd at a NAACP function. But to the contrary Mrs. Shirley is and has been an upstanding citizen and consummate professional even in the face of direct racism in the south. She should be commended for her courage and I hope her best days are ahead of her.
Andrew Breitbart is the transgressor here. I was watching CNN; John King was interviewing this guy. He defended himself by saying that "this video wasn't about Shirley Sherrod" and "I didn't fire her". Come on now, is he serious? The video was clearly edited in attempt illustrate a racial predisposition in reference to Ms. Sherrod's treatment of a white farmer, which directly led to her untimely dismissal. How does a guy of this faculty have any credibility? I mean really? Is that all it takes to provoke the white house. The media; poor poor media. We are now living in a time where the news is simply a competition of who can be more reckless and who can break the news the fastest. Facts? What are those? As long as I am the quickest and my ratings are the highest, the truth is not a priority. If it just so happens to be fact, that's mere happenstance. We must boycott media outlets that give such unscrupulous individuals platform to propagate such acrimonious falsehoods. This is the only way to salvage truth and to protect our nation from the on-slot of sophism.
Enough about the inequities of the media and leadership, this about the exoneration of Mrs. Sherrod. Since her resignation Mrs. Sherrod's "career" has really taken off. She has made several appearances on both national and international televised networks. This is my post event career prognosis for Mrs. Sherrod: The aforementioned appearances are expected to continue for quite sometime. She will make even more money than the government was willing to pay by keynoting at speaking engagements. Its been speculated that may receive, initially, $10,000 per speech. Then she's going to write book about her life and her experiences. The book is going to be an instant best-seller due to interest in her life taken by many people, due to her austere mistreatment. The irony is thick here.
In closing, Mrs. Sherrod's vindication seems to be of biblical proportion. "ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day,..."(Genesis 50:20) Clearly this was an effort to paint Mrs. Sherrod as a racist that used defamatory speech to incite a crowd at a NAACP function. But to the contrary Mrs. Shirley is and has been an upstanding citizen and consummate professional even in the face of direct racism in the south. She should be commended for her courage and I hope her best days are ahead of her.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Relevance of the N.A.A.C.P.
If you've been paying attention to the news lately, you have seen/heard about the resolution that the NAACP drafted and passed deeming elements of the Tea Party (affectionately known as tea-baggers) as racist. Immediately following the confirmation of this resolution, there was a severe backlash from the conservative right calling them "the most racist organization in American". Wow, really? Furthermore they (the right wingers) have called for the dissolution of the organization. Citing that the group has run its course and due to the successes of African American individuals it is no longer relevant. I BEG TO DIFFER.
The NAACP, and organizations like it, are the very reason why African Americans are able to enjoy what rations of freedoms and liberties that this American society has allotted us.
For a one second I contemplated this idea. Even the name had me questioning its existence; National Association for the Advancement of "Colored" People. Sounds a bit politically incorrect and a bit outdated, don't you think? We have come along way and we now have a black president, so whats left for this social justice groups to do? Then this anecdote came to me: there was a third grader constantly being bullied by this 5th grader. This 5th grader would pound on the 3rd grader when no one was around. Then when the principal would show up to separate the two, the 5th grader would say "i'm cool, theres no problem, im not going to bother him and more, he's free to do as he pleases" But as soon as the principal would leave the 3rd grader's lunch money would be taken and he would be in the restroom receiving a swirly.
This is exactly what would happen if groups like the NAACP (the principal) would disappear. We must realize that this group is very important to insuring our rights now and into the future. Without the "principal" who would stop the bully from issuing out wedgies at will?
Throughout history the practical nature of the "majority" has been to suppress and oppress the "minority"; the big over the small, the strong over the week. And in America, just like anywhere else, majorities and minorities exist. Who's going to be there to prevent the small in number from falling victim to disparate treatment? Social Justice groups!!! The power they exercise protect the liberties of African Americans.
In closing, it is safe to say that NAACP has been will be very important now and in the foreseeable future, because as long as the principal is present bullying will not be tolerated.
The NAACP, and organizations like it, are the very reason why African Americans are able to enjoy what rations of freedoms and liberties that this American society has allotted us.
For a one second I contemplated this idea. Even the name had me questioning its existence; National Association for the Advancement of "Colored" People. Sounds a bit politically incorrect and a bit outdated, don't you think? We have come along way and we now have a black president, so whats left for this social justice groups to do? Then this anecdote came to me: there was a third grader constantly being bullied by this 5th grader. This 5th grader would pound on the 3rd grader when no one was around. Then when the principal would show up to separate the two, the 5th grader would say "i'm cool, theres no problem, im not going to bother him and more, he's free to do as he pleases" But as soon as the principal would leave the 3rd grader's lunch money would be taken and he would be in the restroom receiving a swirly.
This is exactly what would happen if groups like the NAACP (the principal) would disappear. We must realize that this group is very important to insuring our rights now and into the future. Without the "principal" who would stop the bully from issuing out wedgies at will?
Throughout history the practical nature of the "majority" has been to suppress and oppress the "minority"; the big over the small, the strong over the week. And in America, just like anywhere else, majorities and minorities exist. Who's going to be there to prevent the small in number from falling victim to disparate treatment? Social Justice groups!!! The power they exercise protect the liberties of African Americans.
In closing, it is safe to say that NAACP has been will be very important now and in the foreseeable future, because as long as the principal is present bullying will not be tolerated.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Dichotomy of Racism
I heard a rather interesting statement while watching Larry King the other night. There was this guy named David Webb he is an African American and is the Co-Founder of TeaParty365 (whatever that's about.) Mr. Webb said "Racism is not a function of power." I have to say that I agree with this confused gentleman. Racism is not a function of power, anyone can be a racist. Racist being: a person that believes that race is the primary determinate of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Any person of any race can adhere to this ideology.
Now let me introduce and new term to you that will illustrate the dichotomy of racism. "Relevant Racism". For all intents and purposes lets say Billy Bob out in the middle of west Texas, in a town of 25 people (all whites), hates African Americans. How much power or influence does Billy Bob have. I would like to go out on a limb and say x<0. Billy Bob opinions and subsequent actions in his town of 25 has very little effect on the world. This form of racism can be see as irrelevant, due to Billy Bob's sphere of influence.
Now on the other hand lets say Mr. Stan Carnegie, a CEO of a fortune 100 company in Houston, is a racist. Mr. Carnegie has a lot more influence than Mr. Billy Bob, and has the authority and power to exercise his discriminatory judgement and directly effect many people's lives perpetually. For example; If Mr.Carnegie is your boss and you hate him, what kind of power can you exercise against him to effect his life? Next to none. However on the other hand if Mr. Carnegie hates you, he can directly impact your life via a lack of raises, promotions,or assignments given. He can fire you, you cant fire him. This type of racism is "Relevant Racism".
I've heard many people say that Black people cannot be racists. This is a point that many people have been trying get across, though it has been poorly communicated it, isn't entirely false. Lately the NAACP has come under fire about it's new resolution opposing the Tea Party and deeming them a "racist organization". As a result many pundits on the conservative right have been calling the NAACP the most racist organization in the country (I guess they forgot about the KKK). Again as individuals, like previously stated, anyone can be a racist. However when you look at the numbers. Blacks make up only about 15% of the US population. Sure we have a black president, attorney general, and many successful black entrepreneurs, but if you go by the numbers our racism, if any, is still "Irrelevant Racism" in the big picture. (This is also true for any other race that's a minority)
I would like to leave you with this challenge: do not allow people to convince you that, Pookie from the Southpark hating white people and Mr. Carnegie hating black people, belong in the same category. Yes they're both racists but one has a greater sphere of influence than the other thus more power thus more "RELEVANT". Racism is an umbrella with many different subordinate subcategories; Find the "Dichotomy of Racism".
Now let me introduce and new term to you that will illustrate the dichotomy of racism. "Relevant Racism". For all intents and purposes lets say Billy Bob out in the middle of west Texas, in a town of 25 people (all whites), hates African Americans. How much power or influence does Billy Bob have. I would like to go out on a limb and say x<0. Billy Bob opinions and subsequent actions in his town of 25 has very little effect on the world. This form of racism can be see as irrelevant, due to Billy Bob's sphere of influence.
Now on the other hand lets say Mr. Stan Carnegie, a CEO of a fortune 100 company in Houston, is a racist. Mr. Carnegie has a lot more influence than Mr. Billy Bob, and has the authority and power to exercise his discriminatory judgement and directly effect many people's lives perpetually. For example; If Mr.Carnegie is your boss and you hate him, what kind of power can you exercise against him to effect his life? Next to none. However on the other hand if Mr. Carnegie hates you, he can directly impact your life via a lack of raises, promotions,or assignments given. He can fire you, you cant fire him. This type of racism is "Relevant Racism".
I've heard many people say that Black people cannot be racists. This is a point that many people have been trying get across, though it has been poorly communicated it, isn't entirely false. Lately the NAACP has come under fire about it's new resolution opposing the Tea Party and deeming them a "racist organization". As a result many pundits on the conservative right have been calling the NAACP the most racist organization in the country (I guess they forgot about the KKK). Again as individuals, like previously stated, anyone can be a racist. However when you look at the numbers. Blacks make up only about 15% of the US population. Sure we have a black president, attorney general, and many successful black entrepreneurs, but if you go by the numbers our racism, if any, is still "Irrelevant Racism" in the big picture. (This is also true for any other race that's a minority)
I would like to leave you with this challenge: do not allow people to convince you that, Pookie from the Southpark hating white people and Mr. Carnegie hating black people, belong in the same category. Yes they're both racists but one has a greater sphere of influence than the other thus more power thus more "RELEVANT". Racism is an umbrella with many different subordinate subcategories; Find the "Dichotomy of Racism".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
