Welcome To My World

When I wrote my recent post about HBCUs and white people's perception of the black folks who attend them, I didn't get a chance to touch on a lot of stuff because of space constraints.

On a certain level, I understand completely why white folks treat HBCUs the same way Michael Jackson treated black noses. (Is it too soon for that joke?) Hell, if I was white, I would avoid HBCUs like the plague as well. If I have choice between going to school with a whole bunch of folks who look, think and act similar to the way I do, or going to some place where I'm the only person of my race in my class, well that's an easy choice.

The thing is, I've heard many white people give that explanation for why they never considered attending an HBCU, yet I've rarely, RARELY seen one of them make the next, simple logical leap. I've rarely heard them ask:

"I wonder what it feels like for black folks who have to deal with that situation everyday?"

Black folks, particularly those of us who have achieved some success in the corporate world or who have eclectic interests, know what it's like to be an "only." I've lost count of the times I've gone to an event for work, or sat in a classroom and either been the only black man, or the only black person period. By now, it's just a part of my life.

That doesn't mean I don't notice it and that it doesn't force me to deal with things I'd rather avoid. It's just that by now I've decided it's something that goes with the territory. I can't pretend that it surprises or shocks me anymore.

I think it's fair to say that most white people don't have this problem. For them, much of their time at work or at play is spent around people who look like them. Sure, there are white folks whose interests and jobs take them into minority dominated realms, but they do no constitute a large segment of the white population. And, ironically enough, most of the white folks who do interact with minorities regularly echo many of the complaints that black folks have everyday.

Mainly, it's rough being an only.

Unfortunately, most white folks still don't get that. Many of them would not attend an HBCU because they would feel like fish out of water in a minority dominated environment, regardless of the quality of the education. I remember when I attended college there was this one fun-loving white guy I talked to occasionally who disappeared one semester from campus. I later encountered him at a nearby white institution, and asked him what happened to him. He said he just couldn't take it anymore, that he fit in better at the PWI. That guy gave up a full scholarship to my HBCU just to be comfortable.

The thing that many white people don't realize is that black folks are very familiar with that queasy feeling white folks get when they think about attending an HBCU. The only difference is that many, MANY of us get that feeling everyday of our lives when we try to take full advantage of the educational, social and business opportunities America offers.

We get it when we're getting ready for class, we get it when we're getting ready for work. When we go to Whole Foods and Trader Joe's, the feeling is there. When we're out at that new trendy coffeehouse, the feeling is riding shotgun. It's part of our life in America, it's part of what goes into being a Black American.

I'm not asking white folks to lose their queasy feeling about HBCUs, I actually think it's a normal thing. What I want is for them to recognize that this is happening to other groups everyday and then take some to consider what that means.

Consider our world.


Share

Girl, Shut Your Mouth

Y'all heard of this woman named Shanel Cooper Sykes?

I guess I'm late to the party, (I be on CP Time when it comes to cool stuff), but apparently she's sweeping the internet with her You Tube videos telling women to get it right and keep it there. The lovely Lisa Raye doppelganger seems to be delighting men across the country and comment sections devoted to her are littered with wedding proposals.

But, Mrs. Cooper-Sykes isn't beloved by everyone. She's not popular with some ladies who have accused her of pandering to male audiences with her comments about staying in the kitchen and staying fly. I had a close friend of my mine have a very visceral negative reaction when she was introduced to Mrs. Cooper-Sykes through various Facebook comments devoted to worshipping at her domestic altar. When I pressed my friend on the reason for her response, she said she couldn't put her finger on it exactly, but she knew the woman bothered her.

That, of course, piqued my interest.

My friend, she's one of my best friends actually, is what I would call a "New Age woman." She's not a fan of cooking or cleaning, is ambivalent about child rearing, and thinks that any man she marries is going to have to get in where he fits in. She says the only duties she assigns to her man are showering her with adoration, friendship and love, nothing more. Oh wait, and he has to lay good pipe.

Okay.

My friend eventually admitted that she was pissed with Cooper-Sykes because it seemed like the life coach was telling women that if they wanted to snare a decent man, they'd better embrace all of the traditional duties of womanhood. My friend, bless her soul, has decided that if that's what it takes to get a man, she's better off with her dog and her HBO.

Personally, I wasn't a fan of Cooper-Sykes' videos. Not because I disagreed with what she said, but because she was obviously pandering to men who think that the reason why they can't find a good woman is because none are left, when the real problem is that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. What I mean is that a lot of the cats complaining that women don't have their stuff together have the same problem themselves, but they are so busy lamenting their woes they haven't done any self-evaluation.

So, while Cooper-Sykes was right about what many men would consider assets in a woman, the peanut gallery cheering her on is bothersome. From my experience, the cats who are looking for a good woman, and who have their stuff together, have absolutely NO problem locating a decent catch. It is a buyer's market out there.

But, back to my friend.

Her comment about just seeking friendship, adoration and love sounded good, but it's been my experience that all that glitters ain't gold. She says she doesn't want a man to "provide" for her, but I wonder whether she would be cool with a dude who wanted to be Mr. Mom. I also thought her qualifications left a lot of room for interpretation. What men consider loving, adoring and friendly is often quite different from what women see that way.

I suggested to her that a good exercise for her would be to truly think about what duties go into making a life with another person, the day-to-day minutiae, and then be honest about what duties she would be willing to do for a man, and what she wouldn't. After all, whatever she wouldn't do would then either be her man's job, the job of a paid staffer, or it would never get down. From personal experience, I've found that many of us have become unconsciously set in our ways and we don't even realize this has happened until we try to build a new life with someone else.

I think it's a good exercise for all couples to have a concrete understanding of what each partner does in a relationship so that we can truly appreciate our mates. I also think we need to understand each partner's roles and responsibilities. Too often, I've seen men and women (but typically women) have long lists of things that their partner should do, but struggle to figure out what their own roles are. Or, I've seen couples where people blindly accept the largess of their mate without seeing any responsibility to reciprocate.

I figure that once people, like my friend, truly understand everything they require from the other person in a relationship it will be easier for them to accept the requirements their mates place on them.

And they won't be so eager to shut up people like Mrs. Cooper-Sykes.





Share

Save It

I didn't write anything about this when it first broke, but after watching some of the confirmation hearing for Sonia Sotomayor, I decided to make a little comment.

All those politicians jumping all over the lady for her comment about how a wise Latina woman can make better decisions than a random white man can do one thing for me.

Save that noise.

I don't want to hear about it. I don't want to hear your pontificating about how unfair it was, or what bad judgement she showed. I don't want to hear your idiotic questions where you ask her how she would have felt if the situation was reversed. I definitely don't want to hear your sad spiel about how this proves that racism affects everyone.

Save it for somebody with a lobotomy.

Some of my contrary white readers (looking at you Darth) might be shaking their heads right now. They probably feel like those types of comments are justified, that they make sense. Y'all might even be wondering why Sotomayor's comments didn't disqualify her completely because they clearly show some sort of "racial bias."

Guess what? Y'all tripping like a blind man at a gopher farm.

Eugene Robinson already ate up this whole premise in a recent column where he pointed out that all these angry white dude's are upset that Sotomayor believes her identity gives her an advantage when it comes to making decisions, but they don't even acknowledge that they feel the same way about being white and male. You know, basically they think white and male equals objective and fair.

(Sidenote: Robinson noted in his column that one politician had the nerve to say that if he had said something similar to what Sotomayor said, his career would be over. That's the type of BS that pisses me off. White folks have been saying stuff like that for CENTURIES and have had careers go along just fine. Remember Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond? How about Senator Klansman from West Virginia? Don Imus anyone? I hate when these bastards rewrite history to make their points better.)


Like you, I find it amazing that any white person could arrive at that conclusion given all of the historical evidence to the contrary, but that's the basic premise that Robinson skillfully attacked.

Anyway, I don't even want to talk about that here. I want to talk about something I've been touching on a lot lately. Basically, I'm tired of all this outrage from certain white folks when they feel slighted and their comparative silence when they or their friends are the ones doing the slighting. It's not that this isn't a normal and understandable reaction, after all I do it, it's that these white folks don't even want to acknowledge that their reactions differ based on who is making the accusations.

I run into this so much that it sickens me. White folks who can make complex (but stupid) racial arguments explaining how they are being discriminated against, but are still blind to the discrimination other groups face. It's like they have these colossal race blinders that prevent them from seeing anything that challenges their worldview.

So, as long as these cats insist on this course of action they can miss me with their complaints about hurt feelings. I couldn't care less if they were Klansmen on fire and I had a full bladder. I'm not trying to hear their noise, and I really don't care about their feelings.

Save it for somebody stupid.



Share

Frame It

I read something recently that made me think and I wanted to talk to y'all about it.

First, some background information on me. I attended an HBCU, that's a historically black college or university for those of you unfamiliar with the acronym. Like most HBCUs there were very, very few white people who attended the school seeking undergraduate degrees. Yet, my college produced Rhodes Scholars, Fulbright Scholars and was rated one of the top 100 schools in the nations by U.S. News and World Report at one time. I found that interesting.

I think I've said before that I attended a high school that was pretty much 100 percent black. It was a decent high school in a city where decent high schools are in short supply. Yet, despite the fact that it was free and its graduates attended Ivy League universities, no white children attended the school. I always found that interesting as well.

I bring up these two things because I read something recently that made me think about why I chose to attend both of those schools and what that choice meant to me, and what it means to others. What I read was a comment on a blog by a pastor who was looking for assistance in increasing diversity at his church. You can check out the actual blog here but I'll post the comment below:

Our congregations reflect who we are. You and your wife went to colleges with people who choose to segregate by sex and race. You did your elementary school outreach in a school that was not diverse. Not casting stones at any of these things but they are what they are and none of these landmark events speak of diversity. On top of that you do blog posts criticizing Christian events that are too white. Not exactly rolling out the welcome mat.

My church is diverse because that is who I am, not a goal I am trying to get others to adopt.

Couple these things with the reluctance many white people have to submitting to black leaders, and the fact that you are leading a plant in the south, the lack of diversity seems pretty understandable, if not expected.

See, this comment made me think.

When I chose a black school, it wasn't so much to segregate myself, but to avoid the rigors of integration as a minority. My problem wasn't with white people, it was with the things some of them do when they are in a majority. I'd done that dance in middle school, and I'd learned that it wasn't something I would deal with if I could avoid it.

However, this poster obviously doesn't see things that way. Like many others, this person sees attending an HBCU as an act of willful segregation, and uses it to question the pastor's commitment to diversity.

I find that interesting.

I won't be overly long in discussing the history of HBCUs, but it's safe to say they were created to combat discrimination not to advance it. Black folks didn't create black colleges because we wanted to get away from it all, we created them (or rather took white folks' money to create them) because most white folks didn't want us going to school with them.

Today, many of us attend those school because they offer easier access to a higher education, and because they offer a respite from the pressures of being an "other." Yet, for some reason, many white people persist in seeing these institutions as bastions of inequality.

The truth is, nobody prevents white people from attending HBCUs. Hell, if you check out the dental, medical and law schools at some HBCUs you'll find LOTS of white folks.

With this in mind, I found it interesting that someone could see HBCUs as places where white folks weren't allowed. After all, there are not rules, written or unwritten, forbidding white folks from attending. In fact, many HBCUs have begun actively recruiting white folks in recent years.

Moreover, I found it fascinating that this person would use the attendance of an HBCU to question someone's commitment to diversity. After all, most predominantly white institutions have minority populations well below what they are in the real world. For example, most white schools, have black populations around 5 to 7 percent.

I find it difficult to believe that going to school where your race makes up roughly 80 percent of the total population is a sign that you love diversity. Yet, this person didn't think going to a white school meant you didn't value diversity, only going to a black one. The way that person framed the issue, it was obviously black people who had the problem and were in the wrong.

Life is so often about framing. The media frames the news, the politicians frame the laws, and the regular folk frame their interactions with everybody else. We all decide how we're going to view the world, and then we start making decisions based on that world view. Only, many of our frames are so warped and crooked, it's impossible for us to ever get a clear view of life.

It's not only important for us to constantly evaluate our individual frame of reference, but it's important to force those around us to evaluate their frames as well. Sometimes that can be painful and tedious, but I'm beginning to realize that so many people have such a limited way of viewing the world that without some extra work on my part, and yours, we are all doomed.



Share

Why You Care?

Unlike many Americans, I wasn't glued to my tube watching the Michael Jackson memorial.

Sure, I caught snippets, but it was mainly background noise in my day. It's not that I didn't appreciate Jackson's impact, I did. But, I've moved on, and given my mixed feelings about the singer, it's hard to generate the true sadness I would feel if a loved one died.

Yet, Jackson's death has provided me with another opportunity to examine the curious way many conservative white folks approach racial issues.

I've noticed that throughout the conservative underworld and overworld, several commentators have taken it upon themselves to question Jackson's "blackness." The most recent being Bill O'Reilly who made a point of blasting black folks for celebrating Jackson as a black icon despite all the signs that he was engulfed by a form of self hate. He actually said that Jackson couldn't really be black because of his skin changes and the fact that he had a bunch of white kids. (Real quick, when was the last time y'all heard of a white person losing their "whiteness" for adopting children of another race? I'll be waiting.)

These commentators reminded me of stuff I heard during President Obama's campaign when black folks were chastised for considering the president "black" despite the fact that he had a white momma. They also echoed some of the discussions about Tiger Woods and his ethnicity. It all leads me to one question.

Why do they care so much?

I could see if all these cats were trying to pass as white and these conservative white folks were in the vanguard of those looking to protect the sanctity of whiteness. That would align with past history. But, it's a little confusing that these white folks would be fighting so hard to tell black people NOT to claim these folks as their own. It's almost like these cats are saying "We don't want y'all to have nothing!"

Granted, the "blackness" of people like Tiger Woods and Michael Jackson is difficult to discuss. Tiger has made it clear that he doesn't consider himself "black." He even took it upon himself to create his own race, and honestly, while I used to have a problem with that, I'm over it. He's entitled to live his own life.

While Jackson never publicly disavowed his blackness, and in fact repeatedly made comments that aligned himself with black folks, it also appears that he had some problems with being black. From the myriad of surgeries, to the hair pieces and the children who aren't black at all, well a reasonable person might infer that MJ wasn't a fan of the Negro aesthetic.

But, Jackson, Woods and Obama have fanatical followings among black people. I'll admit that I was surprised at how beloved Jackson was by black people. The outpouring of support and praise for him shocked me because I didn't see much of that when he was alive. It was almost as if his death allowed people to sweep aside all the ugly issues of his life and focus on what they considered truly important.

Basically, he was black and special.

I guess that must be what grates on certain white folks. Maybe it bothers them that black folks seem willing to forgive and forget all manner of transgressions depending on a person's level of fame. Maybe they are upset because they believe that since so many white folks turned their backs on Jackson, black people should have just fallen in line as well. Or maybe they just can't stand to see a black person held in such high esteem. I really don't know for sure.

All I know is that I find it strange that so many white folks who really don't care about black people, who don't associate with many black people and who haven't bothered to learn much about black people think that they have the authority to tell black people who they should celebrate. It's more than a little arrogant, and it's completely asinine.

White folks have dictated for years who was and was not "white." They've denied entry to certain groups as a means to justify unfair laws and consolidate power. They assume this power is part of their birthright, and it says something about them that they deny this same birthright to other groups.

It says something profound.



Share

Judge Not... But Don't Bite Your Tongue, Either

I hadn't written anything about the recent death of former NFL player Steve McNair because I didn't feel like there was anything for me to say.

McNair, one of the most successful black quarterbacks in league history, was killed recently by his mistress, according to police reports. She apparently shot McNair and then shot herself after learning that he was not leaving his wife and was probably planning to leave her.

Not much more you can say about that really.

However, McNair's death, and the circumstances around it, have sparked a plethora of discussions about fidelity, vengance and, of course, Christianity. Some folks have taken this opportunity to condemn McNair as a philanderer who got his just desserts. Others have fired back that you can't be a true believer and go around judging folks for stuff. Scripture has been twisted by both sides to make a point.

Let me say my piece.

I'm a Christian. Consequently, I think adultery is wrong. My entire belief system is based on my interpretation of the Bible, and I think the good book is pretty clear on where God stands on infidelity. Moreover, I just think it's wrong on a human basis, even if you don't believe in God.

However, I do not believe that adultery justifies murder. Yet, I understand the logic that if McNair hadn't been cheating, he'd probably be alive. Unfortunately, that seems a lot like telling a young black man that if he hadn't had dreadlocks and baggy pants, he probably wouldn't have gotten stopped and beaten by the police. It's a pretty stupid argument to make given the circumstances.

I think those Christians who so easily spouted lines like "the wages of sin are death" when they heard about McNair were immature and insensitive. Yet, I think those people who replied, "Judge not..." are just as ill-informed.

It's not judging to tell somebody their behavior is wrong. True, we all have different standards of right and wrong, but there is nothing in the Bible that says that Christians should refuse to call out wrongdoing. A quick study of the Bible will show that Jesus had no problem whatsoever dealing with wrongdoing and regularly chastised groups like the Pharisees and Sadducees for their sins.

The scripture "Judge not lest you be judged..." is part of grouping of verses warning Christians that the same standard they use for other people is the standard God will use for them. It's a passage speaking against hypocrisy and arrogance, not a passage telling believers or anybody to shut up about what's right and wrong.

On a certain level, we all understand this. Nobody says "Judge not..." when folks condemn pedophiles. We all understand that there is a right and wrong when it comes to dealing with children.

The simple truth is that while each individual has his or her own set of standards for acceptable behavior, there is also a general standard that most people in society adhere to. This standard has always been malleable, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. To pretend that we as Americans have not agreed that there are some things that are right and wrong is just asinine. Yet, to pretend that as sin-filled wretches any of us have room to shrug off the murder of a man because he was an adulterer is also asinine.

There is a balance in everything in life. Finding that balance on difficult issues requires patience and dedication, but I believe it's much better than rushing towards two opposing viewpoints and then grumbling about the stupidity of the other side.

It doesn't require judging, it requires thinking.

Steve McNair was more than an adulterer. He was a father, a husband, a man who did good works in several communities. His death was tragic for those who knew him and were touched by his life. Yet, his death also was tied to his unwillingness to remain faithful to his wife.

We can discuss both things without resorting to attacks and erroneously quoting scripture. We can examine the entirety of this issue because all of us should be able to see how it relates to us. There is no need to make McNair into a martyr, or to make him into a cad. He was a man, a combination of good and bad like most men.

Think about it.


Share