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
Pay Attention
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Friday, July 10, 2009
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
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
Thursday, July 9, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Pool's Closed
Check it out.
Here's the gist: Black kids show up to swim a posh country club. Posh Country club members are appalled that the $2,000 they collected allowed nigras to swim. Members revolt, black kids are told to leave, a refund is promised sometime in the future.
The end.
Only it's not the end. It's just a continuation of what black folks have been complaining about for centuries. Things aren't equal, America isn't post racial. There is nothing post-racial about life in America or anywhere in the whole world!
These black kids wanted to swim. They wanted to beat the summer heat. Instead they received a firsthand lesson in what racism looks like in President Obama's America.
It looks like a closed pool. It looks like snide remarks about the potential danger of black children off their leashes. Hell, I'm shocked they didn't drain the pool immediately after the little darkies swam. Josephine Baker style.
I can already predict what's going to happen. There will be a minor uproar about the racism at this club. The members will come out making disparaging remarks about the behavior of the children and their chaperones. They will try to convince the world that they aren't racist, they just want to protect their kids. And some folks will inevitably believe them because that's what they want to believe.
Hopefully, somebody else will step up and pledge to let the children use their pool for free. Everybody will shake their heads at this small group of close minded people, and life will go on.
Only these kids will always remember the day they were told "Pool's closed."
Share
Here's the gist: Black kids show up to swim a posh country club. Posh Country club members are appalled that the $2,000 they collected allowed nigras to swim. Members revolt, black kids are told to leave, a refund is promised sometime in the future.
The end.
Only it's not the end. It's just a continuation of what black folks have been complaining about for centuries. Things aren't equal, America isn't post racial. There is nothing post-racial about life in America or anywhere in the whole world!
These black kids wanted to swim. They wanted to beat the summer heat. Instead they received a firsthand lesson in what racism looks like in President Obama's America.
It looks like a closed pool. It looks like snide remarks about the potential danger of black children off their leashes. Hell, I'm shocked they didn't drain the pool immediately after the little darkies swam. Josephine Baker style.
I can already predict what's going to happen. There will be a minor uproar about the racism at this club. The members will come out making disparaging remarks about the behavior of the children and their chaperones. They will try to convince the world that they aren't racist, they just want to protect their kids. And some folks will inevitably believe them because that's what they want to believe.
Hopefully, somebody else will step up and pledge to let the children use their pool for free. Everybody will shake their heads at this small group of close minded people, and life will go on.
Only these kids will always remember the day they were told "Pool's closed."
Share
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Labels
- Abuse (1)
- angry ish (1)
- character (1)
- comedy ish (1)
- commerce (1)
- connecticut shooting (1)
- crime ish (12)
- Detours (1)
- economic ish (1)
- ethics (1)
- Family ish (27)
- Fiction ish (1)
- Gandhi (7)
- Gender ish (1)
- Gustav (2)
- humanity (1)
- Humor ish (10)
- Justin Hudson (1)
- knowlege (1)
- Little Engine that Could (1)
- Love ish (2)
- mass murder (1)
- Media ish (9)
- mel gibson (1)
- Money ish (2)
- Music ish (3)
- obama ish (10)
- pack of niggers (1)
- pleasure (1)
- Police ish (7)
- Politcal ish (2)
- Political ish (97)
- Race ish (151)
- racism (3)
- Random ish (130)
- relationships (11)
- Religion ish (22)
- Satirical ish (2)
- science (1)
- sin (6)
- Six agents of corruption (7)
- social (7)
- speech (1)
- Sports ish (15)
- Wire ish (3)