racism – alive and well in the U.S.
I have a super-nice uncle who also has some very different views from those I have. There’s certainly nothing wrong with having different views; in fact, I think that’s a good thing (or to quote a bumper sticker from my younger brother’s car, “You are perfectly entitled to your wrong opinion.”). However, my uncle also periodically sends out mass emails that are really disturbing. When they are really, really bad, I respond (not just to him, but to everyone on the email list). As a result, he doesn’t usually send the emails to me anymore (though he occasionally still sends them to Debi, which means they still get forwarded to me).
The email below is one of my uncle’s mass emailings. As a sociologist and a human who tries not to be prejudiced against any groups, I couldn’t help but respond. Here’s the email with my response below:
Proud to be White or Are You????????
“WHITE” Pride”
This is great. I have been wondering about why Whites are racists, and no other race is…..
Proud to be White
Michael Richards makes his point…………… Michael Richards better known as Kramer from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point. This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act. He makes some very interesting points…
Someone finally said it. How many are actually paying attention to this? There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc. And then there are just Americans.
You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me ‘White boy,’ ‘Cracker,’ ‘Honkey,’ ‘Whitey,’ ‘Caveman’… and that’s OK..
But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink .. You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you…. so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day. You have Black History Month.. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma’uled Al-Nabi.You have the NAACP. You have BET….
If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we’d be racists. If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists. If we had White History Month, we’d be racists. If we had any organization for only whites to ‘advance’ OUR lives, we’d be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain
Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that??A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America
pageant.If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships… You know we’d be racists.
There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US . Yet if there were ‘White colleges’, that would be a racist college.
In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for
our race and rights, you would call us racists.You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you’re not afraid to announce it. But when we
announce our white pride, you call us racists.You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.
I am proud… But you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists??
There is nothing improper about this e-mail.. Let’s see which of you are proud enough to send it on. I sadly don’t think many will. That’s why we have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS in this country. We won’t stand up for ourselves!
BE PROUD TO BE WHITE!
It’s not a crime YET…. but getting very close!
My response:
Wow! That is a racist email.
Will anyone mind if I give point by point rebuttals?
“You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you…. so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?”
This statement over-simplifies what is actually a very complex issue. Crime rates vary based on a lot of factors and from year to year. Yes, some predominantly black inner-city ghettos have high violent crime rates (e.g., Detroit). But so do some very rural, all-white areas. For instance, the violent crime rate in Branson, Missouri in 2005 was 2,124 violent crimes per 100,000 people, almost the same as Detroit’s, 2,419 per 100,000 people. Yet Branson is 94.5% white while Detroit is 81.6% black. If blacks are more likely to be violent criminals, which is what this racist email suggests, then aren’t Branson Missouri whites almost as violent? Or is the issue far more complicated?
“You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day. You have Black History Month.. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma’uled Al-Nabi. You have the NAACP. You have BET…. If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we’d be racists. If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.”
This is a telling quote. Based on this, Martin Luther King is only a hero to blacks, not to all minorities (he worked toward civil rights for all minorities, not just blacks). Cesar Chavez was a union organizer. He isn’t celebrated for being Latino but for helping the poor. Apparently the author of this email hates the poor, too, regardless of race. Oh, and eight states celebrate his birthday. The author of this email also hates Jews (who are racially white, but ethnically Jewish). There is some irony here, considering so many Christians (Mormons in particular) like to consider themselves descendants of Abraham, yet they hate Jews. Oh, and Yom Hashoah is “holocaust rememberance day.” The bigot who wrote this email doesn’t feel like the genocide committed against Jews warrants being remembered? It’s an official holiday in Israel, not the US. The author also hates Muslims. He/She misspelled “Mawlid,” which is the day of birth of the Prophet Mohammed. Any Christians out there celebrate the birth of Jesus? The birth of Jesus is enshrined as a national holiday in the US; Mawlid is not. Yet the author of this email has a problem with that? Talk about bigotry!!!
As for BET, go ahead and name as many sitcoms or dramas as you can where the lead character or the primary characters are black. How many can you name? Now think of all the TV shows you watch. How many of the main characters are white? FYI, 12% of the US population is black – that’s over 36 million blacks. Maybe 12% of television shows should feature black actors, but 12% don’t. The author of this email is so bigotted he would prefer to see blacks disappear and have no public presence.
If we had White History Month, we’d be racists.
The author of this email should read a history book. How much of a standard history book in a high school today is black history? It’s not 12%. Most of it is white history. And which part of white history does he want to celebrate: The enslavement of blacks by whites? The genocide of Native Americans (over 95% were killed within a century of the arrival of Europeans) by whites? If that is the white history he wants to celebrate, I think his perspective is a little off. Don’t you?
If we had any organization for only whites to ‘advance’ OUR lives, we’d be racists.
Hmmm… Maybe most of the organizations that exist already favor whites. Like most banks, local, state, and federal government, and most corporations. If blacks had equal representation among CEOs in the US, there would be 72 CEOs of Fortune 500 companies who are black. Guess how many there are… 4! Wow! Those blacks have so much power. What about in government? Of the thousands of state governors in US history, how many have been black? 4! Hmmm… Those blacks have so much power! Things are so stacked against whites! How many black presidents? 1! Come on. The current system favors whites, which is why blacks could use a little help. And yet you complain about it.
A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.
Sure, but how many blacks have won Miss America? 6. How many should there be if the contest doesn’t favor whites? 11. When was the first black winner? 1983, 62 years after it started. That’s 62 years of all white women winning. If black women had a probability of winning equal to their proportions in society, there would be no need for a Miss Black America pageant.
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships… You know we’d be racists. There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US . Yet if there were ‘White colleges’, that would be a racist college.
If whites had a couple hundred year disadvantage because they had been slaves to blacks, white college scholarships would make sense. Oh, and there are all-white universities in the US – Bob Jones University. It is a racist university. And there are no “all-black” universities anymore, just “traditionally black” universities. I was accepted to Howard University in DC, which is a traditionally black university.
In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.
At what point in US history have white men not had some rights that others have had? Why would whites need to march for rights? Are there any they lack? If whites march for rights for whites, it can only be to take away the rights of others, not to give whites more, as they have all there are.
You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you’re not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.
There is nothing wrong with being proud of your ancestry. But being proud of the immoral things your ancestors did is wrong. No one is saying you can’t be proud to be white. But being “proud to be white” shouldn’t also mean “blacks shouldn’t be treated as well as whites.” That’s racist!
You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.
Name a black terrorist. Just one. Go ahead. I’m waiting. Now name a white one. Timothy McVeigh (white Christian); blew up the Oklahoma City Building, killing hundreds, including kids; he was a white supremacist. Scott Roeder (white Christian); killed a doctor last month in Kansas over abortion. Eric Robert Rudolph (white Christian); detonated a bomb at the Atlanta Olympic Games for religious reasons and because he’s a white supremacist. Osama bin Laden (he’s white, but he’s also a Muslim, so I’m sure the author of this email would discount him). White supremacists are far more likely to be terrorists than are blacks. I wonder why that is. Oh, and white people rob others, carjack people, and shoot people all the time, why aren’t they mentioned?
This is racism. Why not be proud of all ancestry? Why not be proud to be human? It’s bigotry like this that leads to lynchings, hate crimes, and discrimination. Make the moral choice and don’t pass this on.
(Note: I wouldn’t normally pass this drivel on, but I figure if someone out there reads this racist rant then google’s the text and comes across my response, I will have done the world a favor. Also, Michael Richards had no part in the above racist screed, per Snopes.)
I like most of your rebuttals as they are well thought out, though I don’t agree with you 100%. By very definition of racism, if it is something we are trying to get rid of, then why are we promoting things like BET? I’ve used this example before, but a few years ago, on Halloween someone used a noose and hung a dummy outside for decoration. A neighbor raised a huge stink about the noose being a symbol for black enslavement and the guy was eventually forced to take it down. Now i’m all for equal rights, but this is an example where things have been taken way too far. I never BEFORE associated a noose with hanging a black man. But I certainly do now. So by pushing things too far they imprinted an automatic racist response into my brain.
I bring that up because I think the intent of the author of the e-mail wasn’t promoting “White Power”. I think it was a misguided attempt at promoting equality, and if you try for one minute to claim that there is no racism against white people (often called reverse racism) than you are sorely mistaken. I read an article about medical students the other day, where many White students with excellent grades were passed over so ethnic students with worse grades could be accepted. (keep in mind these are people that will be operating on you someday…) Again, I’m all for equality, but that just doesn’t make sense, and it will, in fact, breed inequality. (those white students are going to be pissed!)
To give another example, I know several people that were given free college educations, solely because they had some sort of ethnicity in their heritage. Now why are they more qualified than me? Because down the road someone will turn them down for a job because they are 1/16 Cherokee Indian? Puh-lease! While I don’t disagree that there are racists out there, I have to make the point that this sort of “reverse racism” will ultimately engender more racism, which is rather self-defeating.
Just thought I’d throw that in to think about, as it is not a clearly defined black and white issue. (Ha! get it? That was a brilliant pun!)
Reverse discrimination, can, of course, happen, but that’s not really what you’re describing. You’re describing affirmative action, which is when disadvantaged minorities are given slight advantages to make up for their disadvantages. Yes, whites tend to be offended by such actions, but that’s because whites are generally ignorant of the disadvantages that still exist in the U.S.
Let me see if I can explain this succinctly using a hypothetical example. Let’s say Slosh Dragun is born into a middle-class white family in rural Utah. Both his parents have bachelor’s degrees and, while his mother stays home, his father works and makes enough money to provide a comfortable living for the whole family. The fact that his parents have money, not exorbitant amounts, but some, allows him to go to school full-time and have plenty of time to study. He also doesn’t have to worry about not having enough food as he has plenty to eat. As a result, he doesn’t have the problems that come with malnutrition. Additionally, because his parents live in a fairly affluent area, the schools are well-funded, which means they have plenty of equipment for teaching, including books, labs, computers, etc. Also, the teachers are good as they are well-paid.
Now compare Slosh to Shawn Stevens, a kid born to a single-mother who lives in the inner city ghetto of Cincinnati because of her poverty. She works as a waitress, which requires long hours, meaning she doesn’t have time to spend with Shawn except on holidays. They also don’t always have enough money for food, and definitely don’t have very nutritional food, but usually have enough food. This means Shawn will often be distracted in school because he is thinking about food, not about studying. That Shawn’s mother works long hours also means she doesn’t have time to supervise him, making sure he does his homework. Shawn’s mother has a high school diploma. Shawn’s father dropped out of school, got his mother pregnant, moved in with her, but then was arrested for selling drugs, and is now in prison. Thus, Shawn’s role models consist of a mother who is working a low-paying, taxing job and a father who is a convict. Because of where they live, property taxes are low, meaning the schools are poorly-funded – there are rarely enough books, and those they have are secondhand books from other schools that are now outdated. The teachers are underpaid and not very motivated. The school facilities themselves are poor, with drooping ceilings and not very good equipment.
Let’s assume for this hypothetical that both Slosh and Shawn have the same IQ and are physically near exact specimens. Thus, biologically they are basically equivalent and have the same potential. Tell, me, Josh, who has the advantage here, Slosh or Shawn?
Assuming you are rational, you’ll admit that Shawn is “disadvantaged”. All that means is that, through no fault of his own, he was born to parents who cannot give him everything that other kids’ parents can. When colleges look at applicants for admission, should they evaluate Slosh and Shawn exactly the same way? Or should Shawn be given a slight a bonus point or two for the disadvantage that he has – having grown up poor? Let me use an actual example to illustrate how this works:
We are currently hiring a new faculty member in my department and I am on the search committee. As we discussed our hiring criteria, one of the committee members raised the issue of minorities and affirmative action. As we discussed the issue, the conclusion that was reached is this: We will not hire someone who is unqualified for the job because they are a minority. What we will do is look through the list of candidates and find all those who are qualified. If, in the end, we find two top candidates who equally impress us and are basically equally qualified, our preference would be to hire the minority. How is this reverse discrimination? We are using the same criteria to evaluate them until the final decision. Both candidates are qualified. But in the end, we could choose to give a slight advantage to the candidate who, based on current social trends, is likely to have been disadvantaged through his or her life course. (Admittedly, this may not always be true as there are plenty of wealthy minority families, but minorities are still disadvantaged in the U.S. based on things like average incomes and average levels of education.)
Let me reiterate my point: We are not planning on dismissing a bunch of highly qualified candidates because they are white men (FYI, the last two hires in my field at my university are, shocker, white men!). We are, however, going to evaluate all the candidates equivalently until the end, when minority status may give one candidate a slight edge, all else being equal.
Returning to Slosh and Shawn… If Shawn, against all the odds, ends up having the same credentials as Slosh when he graduates from high school. And if they both apply for the same college and they are vying for the same position, would it be unfair to award the position to Shawn given his disadvantaged upbringing? Or would that be fair?
Before you say that I am overlooking all the cases where clearly unqualified minorities were promoted over qualified majorities… Let me ask you for empirical evidence that such promotions take place. Seriously, find me a couple of cases. In such instances, I will agree with you that it shouldn’t happen. But if the situation is like the one’s I’ve outlined above, and that is far more common in affirmative action, then I think you need to give up your belief in the pervasiveness of “reverse discrimination.” (FYI, I could actually give a much better example of reverse discrimination, but for the sake of this discussion, I want you to defend your arguments.)
Oh, and do note that I never said Shawn was black. He could be white as well, the example still works.
“…slight advantage…?” Do you have any idea how much money it costs to go to school? I wouldn’t call free tuition a “slight advantage.” And while I do agree you could find a better example than the one you used, let me address why the one you used is bad. “Slosh” basically had a place to stay, and free dinners. “Shawn” also had a place to stay and free food, albeit his food was perhaps slightly less nutritous. Other than that (and PERHAPS a difference in the quality of the college they attended), there was absolutely no difference between the two of them. Unless Slosh’s parents paid for his schooling (which they didn’t) he either had to get a loan, or work a full time job to pay for school. Shawn, the minority, got free tuition, so he didn’t have to pay for school. So who is really at the disavantage? The guy that has to have the full time job to pay for school, or the guy that gets to go to school for free, but eats twinkies and McDonalds? Who has less time to study? The full time student eating junk food, or the guy with the full time job trying to pay his bills? Not to mention the poor guys name was “Slosh Dragun”. He probably had all sorts of problems stemming from a lack of self-identity because of that name.
So, putting your poor example aside, i think you missed the crux of what I was trying to say, i.e. reverse racism, or maybe even affirmitive action may lead to MORE racism, and I stand by that claim.
While I don’t disagree that it is advantageous to society to help people from disadvantaged backgrounds, I don’t see how that has anything, and I mean ANYTHING to do with race. If scholarship fund managers want to take into account a prospective student’s parent’s income, I have no problem with that. Helping people break out of the poverty line is a great thing, and if they truly want to do it (i.e. they aren’t looking for a handout) then I think that’s great. If a boss looking to hire someone wants to help out someone because they don’t have any family to fall back on, and he hires them over an equally qualified applicant who perhaps does have help and a place to sleep at night, I have no problem with that either. But again, where does race play into that?
I fervently believe that by bringing race into these equations, we will never reach true parity as a society. We will, in fact, create new racists.
On top of that, i think you are actually doing a black people a huge disservice by leading them to think they are entitled to certain things because of their heritage. They are ENTITLED to free schooling and other “perks” because their great great great grandfather was a slave. Or maybe their entitled to it because their great great grandad was a free man, but he had a barber that had a nephew that once met a slave… So if we are going to give black dudes free education based on this… that has nothing to do with coming from a disadvantageous situation. A rich black guy would qualify for tuition on the same grounds as a poor black guy.
Do you at least see the point i am trying to make here? Leading people to believe that they are entitled to something BECAUSE of their skin color is hugely detrimental to society, and can only CAUSE more divisiveness. Dividing people in any way by race can only be detrimental to society. If you want to make distinctions by familial status, financial status, or other similiar qualifications then by all means, go for it. But race…? It has nothing to do with anything. It’s only skin deep.
First, nowhere in my post did I say “free tuition.” Not sure where you got that. I’d like to know which schools give people free tuition based on their race. I don’t think any do. Again, give me a reference. Do you have any?
As for my example, you completely missed the point – Slosh and Shawn were raised in completely different home environments. One was raised very poor; the other was not. THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE! Do you really not think that home environment matters? If not, get a dog to watch Addyson. Oh, and discourage her from reading, encourage her to do drugs, make sure she gets pregnant at 12, and don’t provide any parental supervision – let her do whatever she wants! Oh, and don’t provide her sufficient nutritiona and discourage her from doing homework. Come on, Josh! How people are raised is extremely important – in fact, there is evidence that home environment is more important than the schools people attend when it comes to educational outcome (though both matter a great deal). My point from the story is that Slosh (i.e., Josh Cragun) is advantaged; Shawn is disadvantaged. And those differences matter.
As for reverse racism leading to more racism… Really? First – give me one legitimate example of racial minorities getting something for which they are completely unqualified. Seriously! You’re ranting about this as though it is incredibly pervasive, yet you have no examples and have not provided any evidence to suggest that it is pervasive.
Second, do you realize how much disparity there is between blacks and whites? Blacks have twice the infant mortality rate of whites in the U.S. and their average life expectancies are almost 10 years lower than those of whites. Blacks are half as likely to be approved for a mortgage loan as are whites even when they have the same income. The median family income of blacks is almost $20,000 lower than for whites and they are twice as likely to be in poverty. Only 17% of blacks have college degrees as compared to 27% of whites. The average net worth of whites in 2002 was $88,000; for blacks, just under $6,000.
I absolutely agree that income is the key here, as it is primarily income that makes a difference (and there are sociologists who would agree with this position who are much more qualified to comment on this than I am). But blacks are, as I’ve just illustrated, more likely to be poor than are whites and some of the disparities above are not fully explained by income differentials, meaning discrimination against skin color still occurs. Why is that, Josh?
And since you’re answer is going to be: “Because they think they should just be given stuff because they were enslaved,” let’s turn to your claims of entitlement. I’m not going to argue that you’re absolutely wrong. Given people something for nothing can, for a very small percentage of people, make them feel like they are entitled to it. However, the average time on welfare for people in the U.S. is less than 12 months. People don’t typically abuse the welfare system and, in fact, it is very difficult to do so given the reforms from the 1990s (which didn’t reduce poverty, it just reduced government handouts). So, yeah, it may entitle some, but the preponderance of scientific evidence suggests that it doesn’t entitle most.
So, your points: Giving black people handouts (1) pisses off white people, leading them to be more racist, and (2) makes blacks feel entitled. First, you haven’t given a single actual example of blacks simply being given something for which they are not qualified. Second, why would you become more racist over something like this? That sounds like a copout/justification for being a bigot, not a real reason for being a bigot (as if one exists). Third, I have empirical evidence that, for the most part, welfare doesn’t engender entitlement (all references available upon request). Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Bleh. Your post left me thinking… bleh. And i’m now a bigot…?
“I’d like to know which schools give people free tuition based on their race. I don’t think any do. Again, give me a reference. Do you have any?”
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/07/us/court-rules-for-scholarships-based-on-race.html?pagewanted=1
That was the very first google reference that popped up, since you so earnestly wanted a reference. “Tax-supported colleges may continue to offer minority students scholarships based on race, a Federal court has decided.” BASED ON RACE! That reference took me all of 4 seconds to find…
Twice i’ve tried to make the point that basing any of this on race is not only detrimental, it’s stupid, and twice you’ve ignored my point and just said white people are living it up while everyone else suffers, EVENTHOUGH you agree with me that we should make these decisions based on finances, not race.
“As for reverse racism leading to more racism… Really?”
It’s not just reverse racism, it’s the very fact that people on your side of the fence are promoting divisiveness among the different races. Instead of complaining that there should be more black actors on tv, wouldn’t it be more helpful to just promote an attitude of… who cares? We’re all the same anyway? (of course you can play the race card and say I’m only saying that because i’m white, but honestly thats just stupid. STUPID!) I think Will Smith is the best freaking actor in Hollywood. Every movie he is in is good. But maybe I should quit paying to watch his movies because he is black? Or maybe I should quit watching Brad Pitt, another good actor, because there is a disproportianate number of white actors? How ridiculous. How about we just watch the best actors?
Additionally, why don’t we judge people on their motivations, goals, financial capabilities, etc…? No, we HAVE to judge them by their race! Now that is racist! Disgustingly so, even. It sickens me that you can infer that i’m a biggot when I’m vehemently trying to say: “Why make a race distinction at all? Judge each person for their personal merits.” That’s not biggotted. That’s as fair and equal as one can possible be. But you keep insisting that we must make special considerations for individual races… I’m sorry. That’s racist.
Anywho, I enjoyed the discussion. Thanks for humoring me, but I feel i’m beating my head against the wall so i’ll wrap things up.
Okay, you found a link saying some schools offer scholarships (not free tuition, just scholarships). However, the court specifically states in that case that schools can only offer scholarships if a third-party donor gave them the money and it has to go to specific students. It cannot come from the school’s money. It also doesn’t say whether it is full-tuition or not. Finally, it’s from 1993. There have been a lot of changes since then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#The_Americas
So, when you rail against schools that do this, aren’t you saying, “Hey, schools, you don’t have the right to give people money based on whatever criteria you want to use?” Would you same the same about the scholarships given to Mormons at BYU? Isn’t that discriminatory? And aren’t you curtailing people’s rights? Hmmm… Odd stance to take my anti-libertarian brother…
Second, reverse discrimination. In an ideal world, Josh, you’re right. We would all be judged based on merit. Poor students may be given some advantages, but everyone would have an equal chance to earn everything based on merit. I absolutely agree with you 100%. That would be an ideal world.
However, WE DON’T LIVE IN AN IDEAL WORLD!!!! If everyone was starting from the same starting line, then no one should be shown any favoritism at all. The point about affirmative action is that we are not starting from the same places. Whites, as I clearly pointed out in my last response, are much wealthier, healthier, and educated to begin with. Because that is transmitted from generation to generation, that means whites are going to have advantages and other minorities will have disadvantages. Ergo, to help account for the disadvantages of certain races so that we all will be starting from the same playing field, people (like me) have suggested that one way may be to show them a small amount of favoritism. Several scholars calculated in one publication I read that at the current rate of “favoritism” shown to blacks, it will still take them close to 200 years to catch up to whites in terms of education and income.
I’m not calling you a bigot. However, what I am saying is that your idea of a meritocracy isn’t a realistic position to take at this point. If all of the statistics I presented in the last response were equivalent for blacks and whites – same infant mortality rate, same income, same net worth, etc. – then I would say let’s end affirmative action. But how this comes across from you is bigotted. Why? Because you’re white and from a middle class family. You may not be a true “child of privilege” in the sense that you were super wealthy, but you have some of the advantages outlined above (decent schooling, good health, etc.). This doesn’t mean you haven’t had to work, it just means your life has been easier than the lives of a lot of people. So when you then turn around and say, “Hey, all those disadvantaged people, they don’t deserve any help” guess how that sounds? That sounds like you got yours and now you don’t want to share.
Finally, I agree that we should focus more on poverty than race (not all sociologists agree on that point). But race remains an issue in the U.S., Josh. I’d love to say that we should just ignore it, but our current President receives threats on his life over his race, among many other clearly discriminatory actions. If everyone ignored it, then maybe the problem would be solved. But does ignoring it also mean that blacks can’t celebrate their cultural heritage? Hmmm… Now we have another problem. Would that mean that blacks are discriminatory for celebrating being black? Would that mean that Mormons are discriminatory for celebrating their pioneer heritage? If we simply ignore cultural differences, do we lose diversity? In all honesty, I don’t have an answer to this last question. Finding a balance between ignoring ethnic/cultural/racial heritage for the sake of equality and celebrating it for the sake of tradition and diversity seems like a very fine line to walk. How do you balance that?
FYI, two relevant articles in the NYTimes today:
Fewer blacks and Mexican Americans are gaining access to law schools now than in 1993. Not necessarily over discrimination, but the effect seems to be the same. Also, note that blacks only make up 7% of law school students, but make up 12% of the U.S. population. Given the higher salaries of lawyers, what does that mean for equality among blacks and whites?
Mary Daly, a radical feminist, recently died. She quit her job as a professor rather than admit men into some of her upper-level courses. Is that reverse discrimination when her justification is that men in the classes would prevent frank discussion among the women?
*sigh* Oh, this e-mail makes me so sad. Thank you, Ryan, for responding to it and the ensuing comments. And, some links (if you haven’t seen them before), about the types of responses you get when you dare to discuss racism.
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/
http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/607897.html
Your links are great! So true! (though I’m sure Josh won’t believe that he is following the guides; he does skip to #6 in the second link from the get go, pretty good!)
I was hesitant to post this, but I figured some people would appreciate it and maybe it will raise a little awareness.
“And, some links (if you haven’t seen them before), about the types of responses you get when you dare to discuss racism.”
That second link starts out: “How to Suppress Discussions of Racism”
I’m “suppressing” a discussion about racism by… starting the discussion and participating in it? Wow… your comments were incredibly unhelpful. I would much prefer you joined the conversation, Sharon, rather than hurl thinly veiled insults at anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
Anywho, back to the useful discussion at hand…
“Would you same the same about the scholarships given to Mormons at BYU?”
I’ve been under the impression that BYU scholarships are given out to anyone that agrees to live by the crazy BYU rules. There are plenty of non-mormons there on scholarship, and I don’t think they give out scholarships solely based on religious status. Not really applicable, is it? (Of course I could be wrong, I would never agree to live by the BYU rules)
Apart from that statement, your last post was very good. We found some common ground as you conceded my point of getting rid of all race distinctions entirely would be great, with the simple caveat that we don’t live in a perfect world so it’s impossible. Whilst I don’t completely agree with your “caveat”, it’s certainly common ground to build upon.
“But how this comes across from you is bigotted. Why? Because you’re white and from a middle class family.”
Now this is a very very interesting statement. As I said in my previous post, you could play the race card on me and call me a bigot for saying what I did, BECAUSE I don’t come from disadvantaged circumstances. So how, praytell, does a person in my shoes discuss race without being called a bigot? I think this is actually very telling, especially when you consider Sharon’s post. Unless I take up with your side of the argument, i’m automatically a bigot. How on Earth can we discuss this rationally if I’m already labeled before the discussion begins? This kind of leads back to the original email, and is likely part of the frustration the original author was feeling when he wrote it. How does a middle class white guy discuss race without being labeled a racist? I’m not a racist. I know racists. I’m related to some racists. I’m certainly not a racist, and I think Ryan would even vouch for me on that one. But i’m automatically labeled a bigot… that is very very frustrating. I guess, Sharon, that may be why some people “suppress” talking about race.
“The point about affirmative action is that we are not starting from the same places. Whites, as I clearly pointed out in my last response, are much wealthier, healthier, and educated to begin with…. Ergo, to help account for the disadvantages of certain races so that we all will be starting from the same playing field, people (like me) have suggested that one way may be to show them a small amount of favoritism.”
Again, not all black people, for example, come from disadvantageous circumstances, so why are we showing ALL black people that “favoritism?” I guess this is where I don’t understand your reasoning. You claim only in a perfect world we could get rid of race distinction, but it seems a fairly simple matter to me to ascertain where an individual comes from. It’s easy, you just ask: “hey, what’s your family like? Where do your parents work? Where do your parents live?” Done! Black, White, Red, or Purple, I don’t need to know your skin color. I just found out what kind of background you came from. Why do we need to live in a perfect world to do that?
Dinner’s ready so I ran out of time to further address your post.
Wowwww. Just to clarify, Josh, I’m not “hurling thinly veiled insults.” Ryan and I fairly frequently share links that might be of interest to each other and that is what I was doing — little did I realize that you would take that as a personal affront. I have zero comment on whether or not you are a bigot, as I have no personal experience with you. Neither do I have any interest in debating this with you online. I was, however, interested in thanking Ryan for addressing a very racist e-mail and sharing with him some links on derailing discussions of racism. If you are looking for more information on race and racism, I’d refer you to the blogs Racialicious and Love Isn’t Enough.
I think you just made my point for me. First, “there are plenty of non-Mormons there on scholarship”? Really? Check the numbers: 1% of BYU students are non-Mormon (352 out of 32.419). There is no indication of what percentage of those have scholarships, but undoubtedly some of them are athletes who do.
Second, the implication of your comment is that even BYU doesn’t just give scholarships to Mormons. Ergo, the obvious question is: Name a school that only gives out scholarships to people because of their race? I don’t know the numbers, but my guess would be that scholarships based on race make up less than 10% of total scholarships offered at schools today (probably less than 5%). If I’m right, why are you complaining about this? This is a very small percentage of scholarships!!!
Here’s how: Accept the possibility that race still affects life in the U.S. That’s all you have to do. You have to start a discussion: (1) admitting that you are “privileged” because of your skin color; (2) admitting that you have not experienced a substantial amount of discrimination because of your skin color; and (3) recognizing that blacks (but also most other minorities) experience different – typically worse treatment – because of their skin color (though the frequency of this treatment is open for discussion). Do that and you won’t start out the discussion sounding like a bigot.
Here’s why: You’re not saying that race doesn’t matter. There is a mountain of evidence that suggests it does. You’re also admitting that you only know enough about racial issues to know that it is a problem, but you don’t know how big (honestly, Josh, have you really studied race issues in the U.S. like you’ve studied, say, guns?). What this does is sets the stage for you to basically say, “Race, unfortunately, remains a source of discrimination. I don’t know how pervasive discrimination against racial minorities is, but it exists. I wish it didn’t, but it does. So, now let’s discuss it.”
The reason why you have to admit that race is an issue is because empirical evidence continues to suggest that it is! Denying that it is makes you out to be a denier of reality. And because we are dealing with race, denying the reality of discrimination makes you out to be a bigot.
You’re right that I don’t think you are a bigot. And, yes, we are related to some people who are clearly bigoted. But it is possible to discuss race without coming across as a bigot, even if you are white, by following the suggestions above. I probably know more about race than most, but I still enter every discussion about race issues from the perspective, “I don’t REALLY know about race because I have never REALLY experienced discrimination based upon it.” (FYI, that’s not 100% true; I have, but it was a combination of nationality and race that led to the discrimination; another story for another time.)
Another good point. Having never served on an admissions committee for college, I can’t say that the following is how things happen, but here’s my sense of how this is done. You receive applications, evaluate them based on standard criteria of merit (test scores, grades, essays, etc.). Often included in those applications is parental income because there are scholarships based on need. Thus, if you are black and your parents are millionaires, you’re going to be screened out of the “candidates for race-based scholarships” pool. Then, once you’ve found the candidates for need-based scholarships, you look through them and find those who meet the qualifications for various scholarships. It is at this point that race becomes a factor.
I could be wrong in my understanding of how this works, but I don’t think I am. If I’m right (and I could check with admissions at my university to see if I am), then the current process actually addresses your concern: rich blacks don’t just get handouts because they are black. Problem solved!
Sheesh, just because I haven’t written a thesis on “Racial Disparity in America” i’m completely unqualified to discuss it? I thought the purpose of these discussions was an attempt at establishing a dialogue of mutual understanding so as to establish common ground in an effort to eventually eliminate the race problem. Can you say: Elitist Mentality? Say it with me… E-leet-ist Men-tal-ity!
“Here’s how: Accept the possibility that race still affects life in the U.S. That’s all you have to do. You have to start a discussion: (1) admitting that you are “privileged” because of your skin color; (2) admitting that you have not experienced a substantial amount of discrimination because of your skin color; and (3) recognizing that blacks (but also most other minorities) experience different – typically worse treatment – because of their skin color (though the frequency of this treatment is open for discussion). Do that and you won’t start out the discussion sounding like a bigot.”
Ryan, that is ridiculous! I HAVE to start every discussion about race with THREE (3) disclaimers before i’m even remotely qualified to open my mouth? Utterly ridiculous I say. Especially if it’s a conversation with my own BROTHER! Furthermore, when did I ever say I was NOT from a priveleged background, that I had experienced alot of discrimination because of my skin (i have experienced some) or that I don’t think blacks do indeed experience discrimination. I completely and wholly accept all three of those premises, but to contend that I MUST use them as disclaimers every time I open my mouth is preposterous, and an indication of how badly the plague of “public correctness” has infected every aspect of our society, if you truly believe that.
As for your final points, I think we are in agreement. If the admissions committee of your school is reviewing familial status and income and all that stuff and not handing out scholarship based on race, fantastic. So why do you keep insisting that we make distinctions by race? If the schools are NOT doing it, then apparently we don’t need a “perfect world” after all, as you earlier contended. There is absolutely no need to make distinction by race.
I do truly understand that racial problems still exist, and discrimination is unfortunately alive and well and it is a horrible, horrible thing, but I mainatain my stance that to continue to make racial distinctions only furthers the problem. Kind of like in Harry Potter where they say “Fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself.” (I can’t believe I just used a Harry Potsmoker quote…)
Not an impressive response, brother of mine. I didn’t claim that you couldn’t talk about race issues without having a PhD. What I said is that you are likely not deeply educated about them. To then call that elitist is a total cop-out. I have a PhD in sociology, one of the primary disciplines that studies race issues and I don’t consider myself an expert on the topic. All I was saying is that you’re not an expert, not that you can’t discuss it. Accusing someone of an “elitist mentality” is straight out of the Fox News playbook. Pathetic!
I can see where you would get the impression that I was saying you have to verbally (or in writing) state the three things I outlined above, but I wasn’t really trying to say that you have to say them, only that you have to clearly accept those premises. To then accuse me of just being politically correct as a way to dismiss the idea is another Fox News move. The point about this wasn’t to be politically correct but to put us on common ground. If you don’t accept the above three premises, discussing race with you would be the equivalent of banging my head against the wall.
However, starting a conversation off with those three disclaimers really wouldn’t be a bad idea anyway. It let’s everyone involved know your position so you don’t then have to clarify it in comment #14 in the thread.
And, finally, it seems as though you missed my final point. I didn’t say my school doesn’t take it into consideration, only that they do so once the students have already shown that they qualify to attend. Also, so you are aware, most of the motivation for the slight favoritism shown towards minorities in colleges today is not affirmative action but rather diversity. Universities want diverse student bodies because that is attractive to many prospective students and there is empirical evidence that it actually reduces prejudice and discrimination and allows students to get to know people who are not like them. Ergo, diversity, in itself, is a good thing on college campuses and is thus pursued by slightly favoring minority applicants.
Yeah, not your best responses ever, Josh…
Hahaha… I wish you knew what you sounded like right now…
Again, thanks for humoring me with the discussion, even it appears it was a colossal waste of time.
You mean to someone who thinks like you, I presume?
;)
I’m sure I could say the same thing, but that would be slumming (yep, just me, the elitist, saying your taking the slum road on this one…).