I haven't read all of Matsu's points and I honestly don't care to defend them all, but I have seen a theme through some of the rebuttals that is troubling to me.
Is the expectation that when you are not the majority or the norm that you will likely be more highly scrutinized really racism?
I say this because I keep seeing these job interview scenarios presented and people complaining about whether or this factor or that might be "racist" or keep the person from being hired.
But this higher scrutiny would, in my opinion come anytime you are outside the mainstream definition for that job type.
Is the fact that you would face more scrutiny about your skillz as a white rapper really racism?
I'm an elementary school teacher and 95% of them are female. When I interview for a job, I know this fact and insure that I compensate in ways to insure I am hired. I can tell you regardless of this no principal would ever hire me as a kindergarten teacher. (They just can't picture me singing songs about red in their brain)
What I am saying is that anytime you are the minority entering a field you are going to encounter resistance, but is that resistance racism?
If I were a non-gay man and a wedding planning consultant. Do you think women would as readily accept me as easily as a woman? Is it sexist if they don't. If I don't take steps to combat against their likely concerns does that mean I am enduring sexism on a continual basis?
A second point are these attacks about people who complain about the "characterization" of "acting black"
However there is a split about this even within the black community as well. To take one side of it is certainly not racist. Many folks understand that many blacks are coming from a historical background of socitially imposed ignorance.
However many people nowadays question whether this is continuing because some elements within the community choose to remain ignorant despite opportunities to end this or whether it is actually cultural. Likewise many have criticized even progressive elements for tolerating and even promoting these caricaturess of ignorance in rap, comedy shows, and supporting roles in movies and television.
Rev. Martin Luther King would have criticized a teacher tolerating or promoting "You is" or "You be" and so would Bill Cosby, Spike Lee and others.
How do you make the distiction and since you don't like how Matsu draws his line in the sand, where do you draw yours?
I really do appreciate your Booker T. Washington approach to race relations, but it turns out W.E.B. DuBois was much closer to the right idea.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now that was worth all my goading! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
But onto more serious business,
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
So your contention is that blacks are stupid because a select group of blacks do not conform to white standards of success, progress and educatedness?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
NO my contention is that those select blacks themselves are very unwise, foolish, yes, stupid. The topic itself seemed to take the departure that minority kids fail, I do not, I merely give a posible explanation of those who do fail, though it seems the topic may have taken me along with it's gross generalization. I do enough of my own generalizing for the sake efficiency, I don't need you to do any for me. And you'll find that successful blacks think pretty much the same thing as I do.
You are an entertaining species, grover, I must say. I can practically feel you practising for those days when the op-ed piece just won't drop out from under your mullet, or maybe, for politics? It's a good mix -- disguised as libertarian, incisive, and clear -- yet with a natural talent for bending that appearance to the little more than popular lip service. You do have a long career before you! I will enjoy saying I knew him once.
NO my contention is that those select blacks themselves are very unwise, foolish, yes, stupid. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't have to be so explicit as to say "I hate black people" (or for those of you with strong stomachs "I hate niggers") for you to be racist. You don't have to hate all black people to be racist.
You're saying if someone doesn't fit into your white world, they don't belong. That's racism.
It's this mentality that makes people say that Bush CAN'T be racist because he has two black people in his cabinet. That's just absolutely not true. YOU can have black friends (or colleagues you "get along with") and still be racist.
If you "force" someone to fit into your view of the world in order to be acceptable, that's discrimination. Hide behind as much pseudo-intellectual B.S. as you like, but it's discrimination. The same type of discrimination that hold back minority achievement in both academics and elsewhere.
I don't see why I'm not allowed to like certain black people, do I have to like everybody? There are lots of people from all over that I don't like and I discriminate against them -- black, white, yellow, red, brown -- I don't care. Discrimination itself is not a crime unless it's specifically racial. You seem to want to pull everything into a racial category when it doesn't belong there. People discriminate based on qualifications, presentation, appearance... they do it as a matter of good sense. You think I'm free to do act as I would? No, I have to conform to certain standards if I want to get a job, a grade, a pay check. And it doesn't just fall naturally if you're white, that's such a giant crock of shit. The standards of academic achievement, competence, professionalism, and knowledge are not as "white" as you are trying to paint them, they merely are standards that we demand of white people and black people alike.
If you read carefully, you find that I have the least specifically racial outlook of anyone posting here in this thread. I'm talking about behavior, not color, and the propogation of behaviors through particular communal reward systems.
You don't have to be so explicit as to say "I hate black people" (or for those of you with strong stomachs "I hate niggers") for you to be racist. You don't have to hate all black people to be racist.
You're saying if someone doesn't fit into your white world, they don't belong. That's racism.
It's this mentality that makes people say that Bush CAN'T be racist because he has two black people in his cabinet. That's just absolutely not true. YOU can have black friends (or colleagues you "get along with") and still be racist.
If you "force" someone to fit into your view of the world in order to be acceptable, that's discrimination. Hide behind as much pseudo-intellectual B.S. as you like, but it's discrimination. The same type of discrimination that hold back minority achievement in both academics and elsewhere.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your analogy is false. The fact that he dislikes traits or behaviors of a person does not mean he dislikes the color of that person. You could take your same statement and change the color to white and he would not be seen as racist by you.
Your definition of racist means literally that he has to like all attributes about all people of that color. If that is your definition of racist, then all people will be racist forever because it is simply too broad.
We all practice forms of discrimination in the general sense of the word. I might not like people who are not punctual. The fact is that black people and white people can both not be punctual. The fact that I would discriminate and choose not to hire or associate with non-punctual people in both cases does not mean I am racist. The fact that I would not "like" a person who is both black and non-punctual does not mean I am racist.
This is the mistake that you and many others make. It is what Matsu is speaking about when he and others say that there are instances where people are choosing to keep themselves down.
Punctuality for example is not a racial trait. It could be cultural however the outcomes related to it are not racist. If I were to hire someone and they declared the could not come to work in a timely manner because that would be "acting white" the fact that you would fire them is not racist because you would do this to a white person as well.
Discriminate is a dirty word to some, but only if it is used for a negative purpose. When you say that you like Root Beer instead of Pepsi, that is discrimination. You likely discriminate a bit when you choose who to date or marry. If you choose to do it solely for racial reasons, that is wrong. (All black people cannot eat at this restaurant)
However when you do it for traits that are not associated with race but could disportionately affect one race, that is still not wrong. (All people that apply for this job must have a high school diploma)(Since the drop out rate is 45% for the latino community you would likely end up discriminating against them if you imposed this criteria)
You should do a little discriminating yourself with regard to your definitions, because when you draw them too broad and paint everyone with your brush, people are less apt to fight the actual cases where this does occur.
What makes you think that I like whitey? Fvck whitey, that's more racist than anything yet posted in here -- this assumption that these traits are specifically white. They aren't.
[quote]<strong>Is the fact that you would face more scrutiny about your skillz as a white rapper really racism?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well yes. Why wouldn't it be?
[quote]<strong>I can tell you regardless of this no principal would ever hire me as a kindergarten teacher. (They just can't picture me singing songs about red in their brain)</strong><hr></blockquote>
And this, to you, seems valid in some way?
[quote]<strong>What I am saying is that anytime you are the minority entering a field you are going to encounter resistance, but is that resistance racism?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If all other things are equal, then yes. How wouldn't it be?
White man #1 (same skill sets, friendly and cooperative) doesn't get flack.
Black man #1 (same skill sets, friendly and cooperative) does get flack.
Hmmm... don't think too hard about it.
Re: "Ebonics"
There is an ocean difference between not wanting a person who speaks ebonics to interact with customers because of communication difficulties and associating "Ebonics" with "stupid". That is a world of difference and I never even broached the first part of that.
I'm not going to hire a guy who only speaks "Ebonics" to be my customer service guy in Duluth.
Will I think he's stupid because he speaks "Ebonics"? I'd say no, Matsu has a different answer. THAT is the issue.
Matsu:
[quote]<strong>And you'll find that successful blacks think pretty much the same thing as I do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because most successful blacks are "converted" to a white with black skin. Through no fault of anyone in particular, I think "Uncle Tom" is (for the most part) an anachronism, but that's the system. We've got a vast majority of whites so if you want to be successful as a black man/woman you'd better act white (unless you can catch a football or sing a song, and even then don't act up too much (*ahem* Terrell Owens *ahem*) because if you start strutting well then, boy, yer outta line and gettin' all uppity).
This all works with the assertion that if blacks weren't held down they'd be just like us, speech patterns and all. And anyone who doesn't fit those white parameters just isn't getting with the program.
If all other things are equal, then yes. How wouldn't it be?
White man #1 (same skill sets, friendly and cooperative) doesn't get flack.
Black man #1 (same skill sets, friendly and cooperative) does get flack.
Hmmm... don't think too hard about it.
Re: "Ebonics"
There is an ocean difference between not wanting a person who speaks ebonics to interact with customers because of communication difficulties and associating "Ebonics" with "stupid". That is a world of difference and I never even broached the first part of that.
I'm not going to hire a guy who only speaks "Ebonics" to be my customer service guy in Duluth.
Will I think he's stupid because he speaks "Ebonics"? I'd say no, Matsu has a different answer. THAT is the issue.
Because most successful blacks are "converted" to a white with black skin. Through no fault of anyone in particular, I think "Uncle Tom" is (for the most part) an anachronism, but that's the system. We've got a vast majority of whites so if you want to be successful as a black man/woman you'd better act white (unless you can catch a football or sing a song, and even then don't act up too much (*ahem* Terrell Owens *ahem*) because if you start strutting well then, boy, yer outta line and gettin' all uppity).
This all works with the assertion that if blacks weren't held down they'd be just like us, speech patterns and all. And anyone who doesn't fit those white parameters just isn't getting with the program.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Except you show where your own reasoning starts to fall apart. In the example you cited above you list all applicants as skilled, friendly, and cooperative. However you go on to mention that you would not hire someone who would speak in a manner associated with "ebonics" to do certain jobs for you. In otherwords part of being "friendly and cooperative" is being willing to learn and speak in standard, formal English.
You then go on and say that being willing to act in this manner is "acting white." However most people (like Matsu is mentioning) just call it acting smart.
We all carry this baggage cultural baggage with us and when we discard it for a better, more successful system, it is called wanting to be successful and smart, not acting white.
I've had issues with my own mom because we are Italian. If you look into Italian stereotypes (aside from the mobster ones) the southern Italians especially tend to be so closeknit and clannish, that they will keep to the family no matter what. They will do this even at the expense of business or education.
I refuse to subscribe to that ideology. This is not because I am acting "white" it is because I am acting smart and successful. When others don't they aren't "keeping it real" or whatever term you want to call it. They are acting unsuccessful and as Matsu would characterize it "stupid."
You may declare that you wouldn't call him stupid, but you wouldn't give him the job either. The thread speaks about achievement. So in otherwords you could love, marry and have children with someone who speaks non-standard English, but because you wouldn't give them certain jobs by some definitions you are racist.
There are definitions of success associated with jobs including entertainment and athletics. The fact that when you are outside the norm you encounter skepticism is human nature, not racism.
I encounter it as a teacher and you asked if I thought that valid. Of course I do because most of us make decisions based off of information and experience. If we don't have any experience with something than we have less information and are less sure of our outcome with regard to decisions. There don't have to be any racist or wrong motivations there. It is pure numbers. A principal will encounter 19 women to every 1 man she/(or he) deals with as teachers.
The fact that I assume some traits that help her see that I am more like the other 19 candidates she encounters allows her to bring in more of her experience and be more sure about her outcome.
It isn't acting "woman" any more than it is acting "white."
When people define success as only coming, acting or only associating with one group. That really saddens me because it makes it so much harder for others to think they can be successful.
For example successfully managing money is not in my background. My parents have spent most of their lives living paycheck to paycheck. I am becoming successful here but at times I still doubt myself because others learned it from a young age and I didn't start doing it until I was about 27.
The last thing I would need in a scenario like this is to have someone associate success in that area with something I can never be. If someone told me "oh you're just trying to be Chinese," or "Jewish," then that would make a hard, self-doubting task practically impossible.
That is the last thing someone who is trying to climb up needs and that goes for academics and minority achievement as well.
Your analogy is false. The fact that he dislikes traits or behaviors of a person does not mean he dislikes the color of that person. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I'm contesting that racism is more than just disliking someone because of the color of their skin and this seems to be where the two sides of the argument differ. Racism is also believeing that white people and "white" culture are superior.
That's a much more difficult target to hit though. Traditional racism (you're black so I hate you) is so easy to spot, but that's just one manifestation of true individual and cultural racism.
I think I'm contesting that racism is more than just disliking someone because of the color of their skin and this seems to be where the two sides of the argument differ. Racism is also believeing that white people and "white" culture are superior.
That's a much more difficult target to hit though. Traditional racism (you're black so I hate you) is so easy to spot, but that's just one manifestation of true individual and cultural racism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think if you check, the assumption that the traits and culture you speak about are only assigned ownership to "whites" is made by you and Groverat.
Now perhaps your contention is that all cultural attributes are equal and that a belief that the superiority of certain attributes over others is racist. Again that definition is so broad as to label all of us racist in one way or another because whenever someone is pressed on this, they will concede ways in which they discriminate and make preferences known in their own lives. That could be time management, belief in formal education (or mistrust in it), etc.
However I don't see people taking these traits and assigning them ownership or exclusivity to certain groups or colors.
Only the people calling others around here racists seem to be doing that...
You don't get much more clear than this...
[quote]What makes you think that I like whitey? Fvck whitey, that's more racist than anything yet posted in here -- this assumption that these traits are specifically white. They aren't. <hr></blockquote>
Groverat..you really understand the gist of things.
For Black Men/Women if you want success you'd better forgo on the Braids and "Urban Talk". Blacks of course are not the only ones affected. Actually Whites are affected just as much which is why there is always a counter culture in every community.
I'm amazed watching even College Football how quick Referee's are quick to throw flags for "Celebration". Of course Blacks will be flagged disporportionally because they tend to be more demonstrative but to me it smacks of subtle racism.
Urban Radio is more likely to censor more words in Rap song than a Rock song. Recently I was amazed that a local Seattle Radio station censored "DUI" Ludacris' "Move Bytch" song. Now that's scary(sorry a little off topic).
I say 'aye' when I mean 'yes' and use many words, phrases and grammatical forms that simply don't exist in 'proper English'.
I've had trouble being understood by a Liverpudlian who lives a hundred miles over the border and to him, in a work environment where we were both wearing suits, so I was on my best behaviour, I sounded just like Groundskeeper Wullie from the Simpsons.
Funnily enough, my local accent tops the table of regional accents that are desirable for call centre work in the UK, as it is repeatedly ranked by people as the most pleasant and intelligible accent.
The cruel irony is that, until fairly recently, my local culture was suffering because people like me had to be adept at standard english to be accepted in academia or business. Even today it is hard to find childrens' books or school textbooks that use scots vocabulary to the point where the poems we study by Burns and others seem to be in a different tongue and it is a rare treat to read a serious novel where the writing reflects the language I speak and hear every day.
parting thought: I recently attended a lecture by Ted Nelson (a crazed academic who invented hypertext) where he commented that: a language is an accent with an army.
So don't look down your nose at others because you think your accent is 'better' than others, it seems shocking to me that people can disparage minorities for using 'slang' as if a) it was a bad thing and b) they are the only ones doing it.
If it will really hold them back then why is it that the President of the United States has trouble constructing a coherent sentence.
<strong>In otherwords part of being "friendly and cooperative" is being willing to learn and speak in standard, formal English.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is? One can't be friendly and cooperative and not speak exactly like everyone else?
Keep in mind that "Ebonics" isn't some entirely different language, it's simply a few different words and different ways of pronunciating.
I've dealt with plenty of people who have said "acks" instead of "ask" and I wouldn't characterize them as unfriendly or uncooperative.
[quote]<strong>You then go on and say that being willing to act in this manner is "acting white." However most people (like Matsu is mentioning) just call it acting smart.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And it's that harmless, eh, that "white" and "smart" are synonymous?
[quote]<strong>We all carry this baggage cultural baggage with us and when we discard it for a better, more successful system, it is called wanting to be successful and smart, not acting white.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, to survive in the racist system one must adapt. That's obvious.
I get the argument, it's not a difficult one to understand, but what you're failing to notice is that, at its very core, the entire setup is racially-biased.
"White" = "Smart"
"Black" = "Stupid"
Just like a simple, even baseless accusation of racism can ruin a politician's career, a simple, even baseless accusation of "acting black" can get a black person under harsh scrutiny.
[quote]<strong>You may declare that you wouldn't call him stupid, but you wouldn't give him the job either. The thread speaks about achievement. So in otherwords you could love, marry and have children with someone who speaks non-standard English, but because you wouldn't give them certain jobs by some definitions you are racist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To deal with whites (like Matsu) who are so repulsed by "acting black", no, there is no reason to hire someone who offends them. I wouldn't hire a quadrapalegic to be my kicker on a football team. No offense to him, but he can't do the job.
Do I think he's "stupid" because he can't? Of course not. Do I think of him as flawed or inherenly less? Of course not.
[quote]<strong>There are definitions of success associated with jobs including entertainment and athletics. The fact that when you are outside the norm you encounter skepticism is human nature, not racism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's really an either/or issue?
It's "human nature" to be racist. It's not like racism is a concept alien to the living creatures of the world.
[quote]<strong>A principal will encounter 19 women to every 1 man she/(or he) deals with as teachers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You put absolutely no value judgement on there, only numbers. They see more, but why would that even matter?
What's the problem with male teachers? Are they rapists? Abusers?
[quote]I get the argument, it's not a difficult one to understand, but what you're failing to notice is that, at its very core, the entire setup is racially-biased.
"White" = "Smart"
"Black" = "Stupid" <hr></blockquote>
The only people assigning race to these values is you and Bunge.
Example:
(Hypothetical Matsu statement)
Man if someone were to walk into a job wearing cornrows, talking slang, and wearing gang attire, they wouldn't get hired. They are stupid if they do that because it holds them back.
(Hypothetical retort)
That's racist. You are saying that if black people act black, they are stupid. That's racist.
(Hypothetical Matsu reply)
Who said anything about them being black?
Sorry to get into those, but that is what has been argued across quite a few posts here and I am making it even more extreme and obvious than he did in an effort to get the point across.
The race in Matsu's statement is assumed by you. Some might argue that in and of itself means you are racist because you believe that only black people could act in such a manner.
Likewise there is nothing inherently "black" about being that way. The point is that if anything it is a caricature created by a racist white media who would prefer to see blacks claim that mantle and take ownership of it in order to keep them down.
For the clearest example of what I am speaking about, I would suggest a viewing of Bamboozled by Spike Lee. It is pretty eye opening and would likely clarify what I am speaking about.
It isn't white = smart, black = stupid. It is believe a self-defeating stereotype = stupid, believe in self-improving characteristics = smart.
My friend is male and loves having long hair. There were several jobs he had to turn down because they would not let him keep his hair that way. They wanted him to have what is considered a male professional appearance. (Wear a suit as well) When I worked at Disneyland they wouldn't allow me to have any facial hair. Sometimes they would even question me late into my shift because, well darn it, I'm pretty hairy and it grows back fast.
The thing is that since the media does put out stereotypes and because a certain percentage does buy into them, it makes it even more important not to play into to it.
I'll give you a personal example since you asked about male school teachers.
Male school teachers use to be about 10% of the teaching population instead of 5%. You stumbled into the answer a bit yourself. A popular tactic of feminists is to portray as sexually destructive. You walk across college campuses and here phrases like "potential rapist."
In otherwords they portray all men as predatory sexual attackers. They create crimes like date rape (consensual that night, but changed mind in morning) sexual harassment, etc.
Well simply put, would you want to risk your entire career on this sort of thing? Think about how easy it is to throw malicious intent into something like..... a hug from an eight year old freckle faced girl... who has a little girl crush on you. How patient and even handed do you think parents handle an accusation involving their innocent child?
How do you disprove somethink like you didn't oogle someone? Meanwhile your job, and reputation are gone.
So that is the deal with male school teachers. I guard against it by not ever being alone with a student. I won't initiate physical contact with a student or even co-worker.(meanwhile the grandmotherly 45+ year old women can hug everyone all day) I don't do any innuendo of any sort nor tell dirty jokes.
"For the clearest example of what I am speaking about, I would suggest a viewing of Bamboozled by Spike Lee. It is pretty eye opening and would likely clarify what I am speaking about."
The only people assigning race to these values is you and Bunge.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Reverse this thinking if possible. Some people are trying to contest that because blacks are now allowed in the same schools as whites there is no more racism. That because Lott didn't use the word "nigger" he's not racist. Because Bush has two blacks in his cabinet he's not racist.
Racism doesn't center around the color of someone's skin.
No need for hypotheticals, let's reread the first paragraph of the racist post that I went off on, shall we?
"They're stupid. Simple. Why? Because they're victimized by a culture and politics heavily invested in making and keeping them stupid -- their own. Show me an ebonics talking corn row wearing rap wannabe and I'll show you a kid with next to no future. Same thing with a greasy carnale (sp?) cruising the boulevard in his low-rider, or perhaps "chiquita" flashing her thong at the boys during recess. They do badly for fairly obvious reasons that now have almost nothing to do with the system."
"Almost nothing to do with the system." He wasn't saying they were stupid for not conforming, he was simply saying they were stupid.
Pick who you stand up for more carefully next time.
[quote]<strong>The race in Matsu's statement is assumed by you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
heh heh
Did you even read his posts?
--
It sucks you have to handcuff yourself so much and it sounds like an extremely sexist arena. Mary Kay Latourneau (sp?) wasn't a man.
Reverse this thinking if possible. Some people are trying to contest that because blacks are now allowed in the same schools as whites there is no more racism. That because Lott didn't use the word "nigger" he's not racist. Because Bush has two blacks in his cabinet he's not racist.
Racism doesn't center around the color of someone's skin.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did reverse the thinking. I stated emphatically that there are other factors that can cause people to scrutinize someone. However to just assume racism in the absence of proof and also with the posibility of other factors is just as wrong.
You ask someone to prove a negative. How would you prove you aren't a potential rapist?
If you believe it doesn't only center on skin, then what else do you propose it include? I will state upfront that I do not believe all cultures and cultural attributes to be equal. That doesn't mean I or others with that belief are racist.
If my culture didn't value education, I would declare the culture that did to be better than mine. (and I did when I said I would advocate education over clannish family beliefs)
Comments
Is the expectation that when you are not the majority or the norm that you will likely be more highly scrutinized really racism?
I say this because I keep seeing these job interview scenarios presented and people complaining about whether or this factor or that might be "racist" or keep the person from being hired.
But this higher scrutiny would, in my opinion come anytime you are outside the mainstream definition for that job type.
Is the fact that you would face more scrutiny about your skillz as a white rapper really racism?
I'm an elementary school teacher and 95% of them are female. When I interview for a job, I know this fact and insure that I compensate in ways to insure I am hired. I can tell you regardless of this no principal would ever hire me as a kindergarten teacher. (They just can't picture me singing songs about red in their brain)
What I am saying is that anytime you are the minority entering a field you are going to encounter resistance, but is that resistance racism?
If I were a non-gay man and a wedding planning consultant. Do you think women would as readily accept me as easily as a woman? Is it sexist if they don't. If I don't take steps to combat against their likely concerns does that mean I am enduring sexism on a continual basis?
A second point are these attacks about people who complain about the "characterization" of "acting black"
However there is a split about this even within the black community as well. To take one side of it is certainly not racist. Many folks understand that many blacks are coming from a historical background of socitially imposed ignorance.
However many people nowadays question whether this is continuing because some elements within the community choose to remain ignorant despite opportunities to end this or whether it is actually cultural. Likewise many have criticized even progressive elements for tolerating and even promoting these caricaturess of ignorance in rap, comedy shows, and supporting roles in movies and television.
Rev. Martin Luther King would have criticized a teacher tolerating or promoting "You is" or "You be" and so would Bill Cosby, Spike Lee and others.
How do you make the distiction and since you don't like how Matsu draws his line in the sand, where do you draw yours?
Nick
[ 01-05-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
<strong>
I really do appreciate your Booker T. Washington approach to race relations, but it turns out W.E.B. DuBois was much closer to the right idea.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now that was worth all my goading! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
But onto more serious business,
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
So your contention is that blacks are stupid because a select group of blacks do not conform to white standards of success, progress and educatedness?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
NO my contention is that those select blacks themselves are very unwise, foolish, yes, stupid. The topic itself seemed to take the departure that minority kids fail, I do not, I merely give a posible explanation of those who do fail, though it seems the topic may have taken me along with it's gross generalization. I do enough of my own generalizing for the sake efficiency, I don't need you to do any for me. And you'll find that successful blacks think pretty much the same thing as I do.
You are an entertaining species, grover, I must say. I can practically feel you practising for those days when the op-ed piece just won't drop out from under your mullet, or maybe, for politics? It's a good mix -- disguised as libertarian, incisive, and clear -- yet with a natural talent for bending that appearance to the little more than popular lip service. You do have a long career before you! I will enjoy saying I knew him once.
[ 01-05-2003: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
<strong>
NO my contention is that those select blacks themselves are very unwise, foolish, yes, stupid. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't have to be so explicit as to say "I hate black people" (or for those of you with strong stomachs "I hate niggers") for you to be racist. You don't have to hate all black people to be racist.
You're saying if someone doesn't fit into your white world, they don't belong. That's racism.
It's this mentality that makes people say that Bush CAN'T be racist because he has two black people in his cabinet. That's just absolutely not true. YOU can have black friends (or colleagues you "get along with") and still be racist.
If you "force" someone to fit into your view of the world in order to be acceptable, that's discrimination. Hide behind as much pseudo-intellectual B.S. as you like, but it's discrimination. The same type of discrimination that hold back minority achievement in both academics and elsewhere.
I don't see why I'm not allowed to like certain black people, do I have to like everybody? There are lots of people from all over that I don't like and I discriminate against them -- black, white, yellow, red, brown -- I don't care. Discrimination itself is not a crime unless it's specifically racial. You seem to want to pull everything into a racial category when it doesn't belong there. People discriminate based on qualifications, presentation, appearance... they do it as a matter of good sense. You think I'm free to do act as I would? No, I have to conform to certain standards if I want to get a job, a grade, a pay check. And it doesn't just fall naturally if you're white, that's such a giant crock of shit. The standards of academic achievement, competence, professionalism, and knowledge are not as "white" as you are trying to paint them, they merely are standards that we demand of white people and black people alike.
If you read carefully, you find that I have the least specifically racial outlook of anyone posting here in this thread. I'm talking about behavior, not color, and the propogation of behaviors through particular communal reward systems.
[ 01-05-2003: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
<strong>
You don't have to be so explicit as to say "I hate black people" (or for those of you with strong stomachs "I hate niggers") for you to be racist. You don't have to hate all black people to be racist.
You're saying if someone doesn't fit into your white world, they don't belong. That's racism.
It's this mentality that makes people say that Bush CAN'T be racist because he has two black people in his cabinet. That's just absolutely not true. YOU can have black friends (or colleagues you "get along with") and still be racist.
If you "force" someone to fit into your view of the world in order to be acceptable, that's discrimination. Hide behind as much pseudo-intellectual B.S. as you like, but it's discrimination. The same type of discrimination that hold back minority achievement in both academics and elsewhere.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your analogy is false. The fact that he dislikes traits or behaviors of a person does not mean he dislikes the color of that person. You could take your same statement and change the color to white and he would not be seen as racist by you.
Your definition of racist means literally that he has to like all attributes about all people of that color. If that is your definition of racist, then all people will be racist forever because it is simply too broad.
We all practice forms of discrimination in the general sense of the word. I might not like people who are not punctual. The fact is that black people and white people can both not be punctual. The fact that I would discriminate and choose not to hire or associate with non-punctual people in both cases does not mean I am racist. The fact that I would not "like" a person who is both black and non-punctual does not mean I am racist.
This is the mistake that you and many others make. It is what Matsu is speaking about when he and others say that there are instances where people are choosing to keep themselves down.
Punctuality for example is not a racial trait. It could be cultural however the outcomes related to it are not racist. If I were to hire someone and they declared the could not come to work in a timely manner because that would be "acting white" the fact that you would fire them is not racist because you would do this to a white person as well.
Discriminate is a dirty word to some, but only if it is used for a negative purpose. When you say that you like Root Beer instead of Pepsi, that is discrimination. You likely discriminate a bit when you choose who to date or marry. If you choose to do it solely for racial reasons, that is wrong. (All black people cannot eat at this restaurant)
However when you do it for traits that are not associated with race but could disportionately affect one race, that is still not wrong. (All people that apply for this job must have a high school diploma)(Since the drop out rate is 45% for the latino community you would likely end up discriminating against them if you imposed this criteria)
You should do a little discriminating yourself with regard to your definitions, because when you draw them too broad and paint everyone with your brush, people are less apt to fight the actual cases where this does occur.
Nick
<strong>OK, slowly you're coming around...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And your condescension is sickening. So what?
If you act like whitey, you're OK.
If you talk like whitey, you're OK.
That's racist.
[quote]<strong>Is the fact that you would face more scrutiny about your skillz as a white rapper really racism?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well yes. Why wouldn't it be?
[quote]<strong>I can tell you regardless of this no principal would ever hire me as a kindergarten teacher. (They just can't picture me singing songs about red in their brain)</strong><hr></blockquote>
And this, to you, seems valid in some way?
[quote]<strong>What I am saying is that anytime you are the minority entering a field you are going to encounter resistance, but is that resistance racism?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If all other things are equal, then yes. How wouldn't it be?
White man #1 (same skill sets, friendly and cooperative) doesn't get flack.
Black man #1 (same skill sets, friendly and cooperative) does get flack.
Hmmm... don't think too hard about it.
Re: "Ebonics"
There is an ocean difference between not wanting a person who speaks ebonics to interact with customers because of communication difficulties and associating "Ebonics" with "stupid". That is a world of difference and I never even broached the first part of that.
I'm not going to hire a guy who only speaks "Ebonics" to be my customer service guy in Duluth.
Will I think he's stupid because he speaks "Ebonics"? I'd say no, Matsu has a different answer. THAT is the issue.
Matsu:
[quote]<strong>And you'll find that successful blacks think pretty much the same thing as I do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because most successful blacks are "converted" to a white with black skin. Through no fault of anyone in particular, I think "Uncle Tom" is (for the most part) an anachronism, but that's the system. We've got a vast majority of whites so if you want to be successful as a black man/woman you'd better act white (unless you can catch a football or sing a song, and even then don't act up too much (*ahem* Terrell Owens *ahem*) because if you start strutting well then, boy, yer outta line and gettin' all uppity).
This all works with the assertion that if blacks weren't held down they'd be just like us, speech patterns and all. And anyone who doesn't fit those white parameters just isn't getting with the program.
<strong>trumptman:
If all other things are equal, then yes. How wouldn't it be?
White man #1 (same skill sets, friendly and cooperative) doesn't get flack.
Black man #1 (same skill sets, friendly and cooperative) does get flack.
Hmmm... don't think too hard about it.
Re: "Ebonics"
There is an ocean difference between not wanting a person who speaks ebonics to interact with customers because of communication difficulties and associating "Ebonics" with "stupid". That is a world of difference and I never even broached the first part of that.
I'm not going to hire a guy who only speaks "Ebonics" to be my customer service guy in Duluth.
Will I think he's stupid because he speaks "Ebonics"? I'd say no, Matsu has a different answer. THAT is the issue.
Because most successful blacks are "converted" to a white with black skin. Through no fault of anyone in particular, I think "Uncle Tom" is (for the most part) an anachronism, but that's the system. We've got a vast majority of whites so if you want to be successful as a black man/woman you'd better act white (unless you can catch a football or sing a song, and even then don't act up too much (*ahem* Terrell Owens *ahem*) because if you start strutting well then, boy, yer outta line and gettin' all uppity).
This all works with the assertion that if blacks weren't held down they'd be just like us, speech patterns and all. And anyone who doesn't fit those white parameters just isn't getting with the program.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Except you show where your own reasoning starts to fall apart. In the example you cited above you list all applicants as skilled, friendly, and cooperative. However you go on to mention that you would not hire someone who would speak in a manner associated with "ebonics" to do certain jobs for you. In otherwords part of being "friendly and cooperative" is being willing to learn and speak in standard, formal English.
You then go on and say that being willing to act in this manner is "acting white." However most people (like Matsu is mentioning) just call it acting smart.
We all carry this baggage cultural baggage with us and when we discard it for a better, more successful system, it is called wanting to be successful and smart, not acting white.
I've had issues with my own mom because we are Italian. If you look into Italian stereotypes (aside from the mobster ones) the southern Italians especially tend to be so closeknit and clannish, that they will keep to the family no matter what. They will do this even at the expense of business or education.
I refuse to subscribe to that ideology. This is not because I am acting "white" it is because I am acting smart and successful. When others don't they aren't "keeping it real" or whatever term you want to call it. They are acting unsuccessful and as Matsu would characterize it "stupid."
You may declare that you wouldn't call him stupid, but you wouldn't give him the job either. The thread speaks about achievement. So in otherwords you could love, marry and have children with someone who speaks non-standard English, but because you wouldn't give them certain jobs by some definitions you are racist.
There are definitions of success associated with jobs including entertainment and athletics. The fact that when you are outside the norm you encounter skepticism is human nature, not racism.
I encounter it as a teacher and you asked if I thought that valid. Of course I do because most of us make decisions based off of information and experience. If we don't have any experience with something than we have less information and are less sure of our outcome with regard to decisions. There don't have to be any racist or wrong motivations there. It is pure numbers. A principal will encounter 19 women to every 1 man she/(or he) deals with as teachers.
The fact that I assume some traits that help her see that I am more like the other 19 candidates she encounters allows her to bring in more of her experience and be more sure about her outcome.
It isn't acting "woman" any more than it is acting "white."
When people define success as only coming, acting or only associating with one group. That really saddens me because it makes it so much harder for others to think they can be successful.
For example successfully managing money is not in my background. My parents have spent most of their lives living paycheck to paycheck. I am becoming successful here but at times I still doubt myself because others learned it from a young age and I didn't start doing it until I was about 27.
The last thing I would need in a scenario like this is to have someone associate success in that area with something I can never be. If someone told me "oh you're just trying to be Chinese," or "Jewish," then that would make a hard, self-doubting task practically impossible.
That is the last thing someone who is trying to climb up needs and that goes for academics and minority achievement as well.
Nick
<strong>
Your analogy is false. The fact that he dislikes traits or behaviors of a person does not mean he dislikes the color of that person. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I'm contesting that racism is more than just disliking someone because of the color of their skin and this seems to be where the two sides of the argument differ. Racism is also believeing that white people and "white" culture are superior.
That's a much more difficult target to hit though. Traditional racism (you're black so I hate you) is so easy to spot, but that's just one manifestation of true individual and cultural racism.
<strong>
I think I'm contesting that racism is more than just disliking someone because of the color of their skin and this seems to be where the two sides of the argument differ. Racism is also believeing that white people and "white" culture are superior.
That's a much more difficult target to hit though. Traditional racism (you're black so I hate you) is so easy to spot, but that's just one manifestation of true individual and cultural racism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think if you check, the assumption that the traits and culture you speak about are only assigned ownership to "whites" is made by you and Groverat.
Now perhaps your contention is that all cultural attributes are equal and that a belief that the superiority of certain attributes over others is racist. Again that definition is so broad as to label all of us racist in one way or another because whenever someone is pressed on this, they will concede ways in which they discriminate and make preferences known in their own lives. That could be time management, belief in formal education (or mistrust in it), etc.
However I don't see people taking these traits and assigning them ownership or exclusivity to certain groups or colors.
Only the people calling others around here racists seem to be doing that...
You don't get much more clear than this...
[quote]What makes you think that I like whitey? Fvck whitey, that's more racist than anything yet posted in here -- this assumption that these traits are specifically white. They aren't. <hr></blockquote>
Nick
[ 01-05-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
For Black Men/Women if you want success you'd better forgo on the Braids and "Urban Talk". Blacks of course are not the only ones affected. Actually Whites are affected just as much which is why there is always a counter culture in every community.
I'm amazed watching even College Football how quick Referee's are quick to throw flags for "Celebration". Of course Blacks will be flagged disporportionally because they tend to be more demonstrative but to me it smacks of subtle racism.
Urban Radio is more likely to censor more words in Rap song than a Rock song. Recently I was amazed that a local Seattle Radio station censored "DUI" Ludacris' "Move Bytch" song. Now that's scary(sorry a little off topic).
I say 'aye' when I mean 'yes' and use many words, phrases and grammatical forms that simply don't exist in 'proper English'.
I've had trouble being understood by a Liverpudlian who lives a hundred miles over the border and to him, in a work environment where we were both wearing suits, so I was on my best behaviour, I sounded just like Groundskeeper Wullie from the Simpsons.
Funnily enough, my local accent tops the table of regional accents that are desirable for call centre work in the UK, as it is repeatedly ranked by people as the most pleasant and intelligible accent.
The cruel irony is that, until fairly recently, my local culture was suffering because people like me had to be adept at standard english to be accepted in academia or business. Even today it is hard to find childrens' books or school textbooks that use scots vocabulary to the point where the poems we study by Burns and others seem to be in a different tongue and it is a rare treat to read a serious novel where the writing reflects the language I speak and hear every day.
parting thought: I recently attended a lecture by Ted Nelson (a crazed academic who invented hypertext) where he commented that: a language is an accent with an army.
So don't look down your nose at others because you think your accent is 'better' than others, it seems shocking to me that people can disparage minorities for using 'slang' as if a) it was a bad thing and b) they are the only ones doing it.
If it will really hold them back then why is it that the President of the United States has trouble constructing a coherent sentence.
<strong>In otherwords part of being "friendly and cooperative" is being willing to learn and speak in standard, formal English.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is? One can't be friendly and cooperative and not speak exactly like everyone else?
Keep in mind that "Ebonics" isn't some entirely different language, it's simply a few different words and different ways of pronunciating.
I've dealt with plenty of people who have said "acks" instead of "ask" and I wouldn't characterize them as unfriendly or uncooperative.
[quote]<strong>You then go on and say that being willing to act in this manner is "acting white." However most people (like Matsu is mentioning) just call it acting smart.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And it's that harmless, eh, that "white" and "smart" are synonymous?
[quote]<strong>We all carry this baggage cultural baggage with us and when we discard it for a better, more successful system, it is called wanting to be successful and smart, not acting white.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, to survive in the racist system one must adapt. That's obvious.
I get the argument, it's not a difficult one to understand, but what you're failing to notice is that, at its very core, the entire setup is racially-biased.
"White" = "Smart"
"Black" = "Stupid"
Just like a simple, even baseless accusation of racism can ruin a politician's career, a simple, even baseless accusation of "acting black" can get a black person under harsh scrutiny.
[quote]<strong>You may declare that you wouldn't call him stupid, but you wouldn't give him the job either. The thread speaks about achievement. So in otherwords you could love, marry and have children with someone who speaks non-standard English, but because you wouldn't give them certain jobs by some definitions you are racist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To deal with whites (like Matsu) who are so repulsed by "acting black", no, there is no reason to hire someone who offends them. I wouldn't hire a quadrapalegic to be my kicker on a football team. No offense to him, but he can't do the job.
Do I think he's "stupid" because he can't? Of course not. Do I think of him as flawed or inherenly less? Of course not.
[quote]<strong>There are definitions of success associated with jobs including entertainment and athletics. The fact that when you are outside the norm you encounter skepticism is human nature, not racism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's really an either/or issue?
It's "human nature" to be racist. It's not like racism is a concept alien to the living creatures of the world.
[quote]<strong>A principal will encounter 19 women to every 1 man she/(or he) deals with as teachers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You put absolutely no value judgement on there, only numbers. They see more, but why would that even matter?
What's the problem with male teachers? Are they rapists? Abusers?
For the last time..
[quote]I get the argument, it's not a difficult one to understand, but what you're failing to notice is that, at its very core, the entire setup is racially-biased.
"White" = "Smart"
"Black" = "Stupid" <hr></blockquote>
The only people assigning race to these values is you and Bunge.
Example:
(Hypothetical Matsu statement)
Man if someone were to walk into a job wearing cornrows, talking slang, and wearing gang attire, they wouldn't get hired. They are stupid if they do that because it holds them back.
(Hypothetical retort)
That's racist. You are saying that if black people act black, they are stupid. That's racist.
(Hypothetical Matsu reply)
Who said anything about them being black?
Sorry to get into those, but that is what has been argued across quite a few posts here and I am making it even more extreme and obvious than he did in an effort to get the point across.
The race in Matsu's statement is assumed by you. Some might argue that in and of itself means you are racist because you believe that only black people could act in such a manner.
Likewise there is nothing inherently "black" about being that way. The point is that if anything it is a caricature created by a racist white media who would prefer to see blacks claim that mantle and take ownership of it in order to keep them down.
For the clearest example of what I am speaking about, I would suggest a viewing of Bamboozled by Spike Lee. It is pretty eye opening and would likely clarify what I am speaking about.
It isn't white = smart, black = stupid. It is believe a self-defeating stereotype = stupid, believe in self-improving characteristics = smart.
My friend is male and loves having long hair. There were several jobs he had to turn down because they would not let him keep his hair that way. They wanted him to have what is considered a male professional appearance. (Wear a suit as well) When I worked at Disneyland they wouldn't allow me to have any facial hair. Sometimes they would even question me late into my shift because, well darn it, I'm pretty hairy and it grows back fast.
The thing is that since the media does put out stereotypes and because a certain percentage does buy into them, it makes it even more important not to play into to it.
I'll give you a personal example since you asked about male school teachers.
Male school teachers use to be about 10% of the teaching population instead of 5%. You stumbled into the answer a bit yourself. A popular tactic of feminists is to portray as sexually destructive. You walk across college campuses and here phrases like "potential rapist."
In otherwords they portray all men as predatory sexual attackers. They create crimes like date rape (consensual that night, but changed mind in morning) sexual harassment, etc.
Well simply put, would you want to risk your entire career on this sort of thing? Think about how easy it is to throw malicious intent into something like..... a hug from an eight year old freckle faced girl... who has a little girl crush on you. How patient and even handed do you think parents handle an accusation involving their innocent child?
How do you disprove somethink like you didn't oogle someone? Meanwhile your job, and reputation are gone.
So that is the deal with male school teachers. I guard against it by not ever being alone with a student. I won't initiate physical contact with a student or even co-worker.(meanwhile the grandmotherly 45+ year old women can hug everyone all day) I don't do any innuendo of any sort nor tell dirty jokes.
Nick
lol......eye opening...lol
<strong>
lol......eye opening...lol</strong><hr></blockquote>
Adding so much to the conversation again.
Though I suppose this is a step up for your posting style.
Nick
<strong>
The only people assigning race to these values is you and Bunge.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Reverse this thinking if possible. Some people are trying to contest that because blacks are now allowed in the same schools as whites there is no more racism. That because Lott didn't use the word "nigger" he's not racist. Because Bush has two blacks in his cabinet he's not racist.
Racism doesn't center around the color of someone's skin.
"They're stupid. Simple. Why? Because they're victimized by a culture and politics heavily invested in making and keeping them stupid -- their own. Show me an ebonics talking corn row wearing rap wannabe and I'll show you a kid with next to no future. Same thing with a greasy carnale (sp?) cruising the boulevard in his low-rider, or perhaps "chiquita" flashing her thong at the boys during recess. They do badly for fairly obvious reasons that now have almost nothing to do with the system."
"Almost nothing to do with the system." He wasn't saying they were stupid for not conforming, he was simply saying they were stupid.
Pick who you stand up for more carefully next time.
[quote]<strong>The race in Matsu's statement is assumed by you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
heh heh
Did you even read his posts?
--
It sucks you have to handcuff yourself so much and it sounds like an extremely sexist arena. Mary Kay Latourneau (sp?) wasn't a man.
<strong>
Reverse this thinking if possible. Some people are trying to contest that because blacks are now allowed in the same schools as whites there is no more racism. That because Lott didn't use the word "nigger" he's not racist. Because Bush has two blacks in his cabinet he's not racist.
Racism doesn't center around the color of someone's skin.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did reverse the thinking. I stated emphatically that there are other factors that can cause people to scrutinize someone. However to just assume racism in the absence of proof and also with the posibility of other factors is just as wrong.
You ask someone to prove a negative. How would you prove you aren't a potential rapist?
If you believe it doesn't only center on skin, then what else do you propose it include? I will state upfront that I do not believe all cultures and cultural attributes to be equal. That doesn't mean I or others with that belief are racist.
If my culture didn't value education, I would declare the culture that did to be better than mine. (and I did when I said I would advocate education over clannish family beliefs)
Nick