New Orleans And Other Thoughts.
| By Bluejacket - Sep 1st, 2005 at 12:17 am EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Summer Blogathon |
(Again, originally written at Advance To Boardwalk)
First, I do feel really sorry for all of the people in New Orleans, Biloxi, and Alabama. For anyone who can go help, donate money, time, anything to those people. They lost their cities. According to New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, the city is closed to commerce for months and a full investigation of why the levees broke will start. It will take years to get the city back to where it was as a city, and years beyond that to adjust to the new reality of that region. People there not only have to worry about their homes, possessions, and lack of jobs, but dysentery, cholera, mosquitoes, and typhoid. Oh yeah, and they have no clean food, water, no power, and a toxic stew running through their city.
I really have no desire to hear the rest of the country complain about $3 a gallon gas. Where would you rather be right now: watching a little closer where you drive, or knowing that your life is now under 10 feet of water? Right, I'll pay the extra money.
That, however, is not what caught my eye. This is. What is being suggested is that one of the problems in our country is the fact that white people exist. Being a white male, I have a problem with this.
Great strides in racial and sexual equality have been made over the last forty years. Are we there yet, in terms of a happy and equal people? Nope, not yet. But, we are making progress. For some reason, slow progress is no longer seen as acceptable in our society, but I digress.
How can you make a stand that white people are the sole problem that keeps all the races from being equal? Here is one example he uses:
Now, you all have an image of what the person in the example is talking about. How else do you describe them? Spanish-Americans? Mexican-Americans? Maybe you just say for guys, but that really leaves a little bit out of the story. Especially if the fact three of the men have an ethnicity.
Are we still at the point that describing an ethnicity is an issue? Why is there an issue of black, white, Hispanic, oriental, or any other such phrase? Part of the argument seems to be saying that by describing people other than as American somehow infers segregation. That we, as white people, somehow assume that we get privledges that other races do not get. This is true in some ways, but not as overwhelming as some may think. There is an "Old Boys Network", and white males have benefited more than other people from it. However, we have also been doing it for longer. You think that Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzales, Condi Rice, Katharine Harris, Hillary Clinton, and others have not benefited?
If you keep looking to use race politics, it will continue to stay on the table. White people are not the problem, as much as black people, Hispanic people, and all other people are not the problem. It is the fact that each of these people has a different idea of what it means to be "equal". Yeah, much of the power is in white people's hands, but that power is diminishing. Things are shifting. Just because it is not an instantaneous event does not mean it is not happening.
White people are not the problem. And not only white people have to be looked at to solve it.
First, I do feel really sorry for all of the people in New Orleans, Biloxi, and Alabama. For anyone who can go help, donate money, time, anything to those people. They lost their cities. According to New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, the city is closed to commerce for months and a full investigation of why the levees broke will start. It will take years to get the city back to where it was as a city, and years beyond that to adjust to the new reality of that region. People there not only have to worry about their homes, possessions, and lack of jobs, but dysentery, cholera, mosquitoes, and typhoid. Oh yeah, and they have no clean food, water, no power, and a toxic stew running through their city.
I really have no desire to hear the rest of the country complain about $3 a gallon gas. Where would you rather be right now: watching a little closer where you drive, or knowing that your life is now under 10 feet of water? Right, I'll pay the extra money.
That, however, is not what caught my eye. This is. What is being suggested is that one of the problems in our country is the fact that white people exist. Being a white male, I have a problem with this.
Great strides in racial and sexual equality have been made over the last forty years. Are we there yet, in terms of a happy and equal people? Nope, not yet. But, we are making progress. For some reason, slow progress is no longer seen as acceptable in our society, but I digress.
How can you make a stand that white people are the sole problem that keeps all the races from being equal? Here is one example he uses:
I'm in line at a store, unavoidably eavesdropping on two white men in front of me, as one tells the other about a construction job he was on. He says: "There was this guy and three Mexicans standing next to the truck."
Now, you all have an image of what the person in the example is talking about. How else do you describe them? Spanish-Americans? Mexican-Americans? Maybe you just say for guys, but that really leaves a little bit out of the story. Especially if the fact three of the men have an ethnicity.
Are we still at the point that describing an ethnicity is an issue? Why is there an issue of black, white, Hispanic, oriental, or any other such phrase? Part of the argument seems to be saying that by describing people other than as American somehow infers segregation. That we, as white people, somehow assume that we get privledges that other races do not get. This is true in some ways, but not as overwhelming as some may think. There is an "Old Boys Network", and white males have benefited more than other people from it. However, we have also been doing it for longer. You think that Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzales, Condi Rice, Katharine Harris, Hillary Clinton, and others have not benefited?
If you keep looking to use race politics, it will continue to stay on the table. White people are not the problem, as much as black people, Hispanic people, and all other people are not the problem. It is the fact that each of these people has a different idea of what it means to be "equal". Yeah, much of the power is in white people's hands, but that power is diminishing. Things are shifting. Just because it is not an instantaneous event does not mean it is not happening.
White people are not the problem. And not only white people have to be looked at to solve it.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
I'm going to assume--and correct me if I am indeed wrong, but I doubt I am--that the majority (over 50%) of the people you associate with regularly--collegues, classmates, peers, family & neighbors, etc--are white. So I imagine you have a white "default" in your head. If you're telling a story about a run-in with another person--say, a hairdresser or a man walking his dog in front of your house/apartment--you wouldn't say "this white guy was walking his dog in front of my house today, and the dog got loose and ran into the neighbor's house while the door was open and sat on the couch and wouldn't leave." However, if the character was Hispanic or Black or Asian or Arab or Persian or anything off-white, for some reason their race always factors into the story. Why does it matter?
What I think it does is enforce "Otherness"--a concept that you, as a socially conscious college student, must have read about at some time. By differentiating a black man walking his dog and a white man walking his dog, the white "default" of America is pushed further, while the racial minority is again portrayed as irregular, different and not as legitimately American.
You may not agree, but I also really think that there is some kind of tacit prejudice in doing this--especially as whenever I hear this done, it's either a "surprisingly nice person...for a black" or a "typical minority deviant behavior/enforcing a racial stereotype" way.
And the only people I've heard use this kind of tagging are white, so yes, it's up to us. I don't think it leaves more out of a story than knowing a stranger's marital status, medical history, place of employment, etc. etc. are. It's just a guy walking down the street--so why does it have to be a "black guy"? It just goes to show that we don'tthink of everyone as equal, even if we don't consider ourselves racist, believe in equality, and everything. It's just that racism is a more large and subversive problem than you seem to realize.
I'm not trying to attack you--just trying to give you information.
this is interesting: Link
I use the "that black guy over there" or "that white girl over there" set of terms frequently. Perhaps too frequently. But I use them without assuming a default ethnicity, a natural American race, or in a degrading or disrespectful manner. For me (and this is probably a product of the fact that I'm one of those "brown kids over there") the descriptions are important because they usually describe something that's easily identifyable ("not that person, the Latina to her left") but also because racial or ethnic identity is often tied to cultural identity. Culture, unlike race or ethnicity, truly helps define one's outlook and values, and so sometimes, in some contexts, it's quite appropriate to refer to "the vietnamese woman talking over there".
The essential point is that when these terms are used the vast majority of times, the words are not purely descriptive, and they don't have context-based meaning that's insightful or useful in any way. These terms are often used to assign "otherness", as Kayla aptly points out.
You've both written enjoyable posts.
In my case, you'd be entirely wrong.
Sure, I would! Actually, I'm rather taken by the epithet "cracker".
It's used for the same reason someone in a non-majority-white area (such as myself) would use white as a descriptor; to be more descriptive, to paint a visual image, or more often than not, so someone else can potentially identify the person being talked about.
In China, if they say "this guy" to refer to someone who's Chinese and "this White guy" to refer to me, it'd make sense. I'm out of the norm, and thus, adding the descriptive term makes their picture more accurate, more complete.
It is not 'judging me' as a person, any moreso than I was 'judging' a white person by saying "These three white dudes came to the party and blah blah blah..." when I'm back home in a majority-asian area.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to call bullshit on this one. The vast majority of people do not harbor these tacit prejudices, and if you think the phrases you supply are by any means "common" in American discourse, you're dead wrong.
Usually, it's used just in the way the original poster describes; as a physical descriptor. The same way you'd mention to a friend if someone you met was especially short, tall, or, if you're talking about a girl and want to be particularly classy, "hella stacked".
If I'm in Little Saigon and talking to someone who's Vietnamese, Vietnamese becomes the default. "This guy" then refers to a Vietnamese guy, and "this white guy" refers to the out-of-the-ordinary.
People like to get a picture in their mind of what/who you're talking about. It helps with that.
I'm going to make a controversial statement here and claim that, on average and per capita, the majority of racism in America is against white people.
And Superduperficial--I wasn't addressing you, so don't act as if I was with my first remark. I thought you'd gone--imagine my disappointment. I don't understand your need to tear apart my post bit by bit when none of it was even directed toward you.
I go to the second-most diverse school in the nation, and I have for three years lived next door to what most people would classify as a "ghetto" in a city with a huge and historic amount of racial tension. Never have I found it necessary to signify while speaking to someone that people I encounter are of a different race. I've never said "this black man" or "this white man" because it's completely irrelevant.
Call bullshit all you want, but you're wrong. It's an example of the everyday racism that a huge amount of people in this country have. And you've got it too, obviously. I'm not saying you're a racist--I'm saying that racism is so ingrained in our society through the media and other factors that we don't even recognize racist tendencies--they've been accepted as the norm. It's a huge area of academic study that I'm surprised you've never encountered--but my school really stresses diversity in curriculum as well.
I find it interesting that you choose to use foreign country examples, especially since I was stressing that Otherness labeling makes them less American. Thanks for furthering my point.
The "hella stacked" comment? You have no class. And also? "Reverse racism" is total bullshit. I didn't know any supposedly intellegent, progressive people actually believed in it--but I bet you're in the minority. First time for everything, huh?
In case you hadn't noticed, you weren't just directing it at him. You assumed about his situation because he was white. When you make an argument that impacts everyone, myself included, you don't get to hide behind the idea that only the person who you addressed it to may tear into it. :)
You may not be saying I'm a racist, but you're doing the next best thing: You're saying that those who don't agree with you do so because they're blind to racism. In other words, either we're on your side or we're enablers.
A nice smear.
I love the tacit assumption of ignorance simply because I've come to a different conclusion than you. I had the same reaction from the living wage folks whom I battled at my school; either you agree with us, or you're clearly in need of more "education". Not the same degree, of course, as those of the twentieth century who established "re-education" camps for people who came down on the other side from them on political issues, but it's the same basic principle -- that nobody can come to a different conclusion than you without being deficient in intelligence, information, etc.
All the examples I used except for one was in America. But even more importantly -- China was given as an example nation, not for its specific importance; you could clearly use 'country X', or area X, or a community within America (Which is what I used -- Little Saigon!) and come to the same conclusion.
Otherness doesn't make you 'less American'. It does make you stand out. In any given community (And with America, it's much more helpful to look at subcommunities than the country as a whole), there usually is a certain way of dressing, looking, being that is 'common', and one that is not. Being uncommon gets you noticed and noted; it does not make you less American to be noticed, and it does not mean anything beyond that.
I'm terribly sorry, I've forgotten all my schooling and upbringing. I hereby rephrase my statement to "bazoombas".
Bullshit? Many (most, depending on where you're from) of us who actually live in the real world have experienced it in our daily lives.
Look at the goddamn crime statistics, for christ's sake!
Compare the ease of getting a job in Little Saigon or Santa Ana if you're white versus if you're not.
Try walking down pretty much any Martin Luther King Jr. boulevard in America at night being white, as compared to being black.
If you don't think race makes a difference -- and often to the detriment of the crackers among us -- you're kidding yourself.
Since when is racism against white people called "Reverse racism"? As if the "default" for racism involves Evil White People hating all that's true and good and non-white in the world?
Why not just call it "Racism"? Where the hell did the term "reverse racism" come from, and what possible justification could you even try to make for using it?
You're right, as you note in your first post, there are a lot of academic outfits dedicated to promulgating such nonsense. It's a shame kids these days don't use their college degree for something more productive.
However, we live in a country where anyone has "the right to be wrong," and as a result there are in fact entire cultures that continually refuse to take responsibility for themselves and grow up to a self-reliant standing. Its always easier to blame others for ones own problems, and blaming others is certainly a lot easier than quietly and decently taking control of ones' own life.
How come the media does not mention that New Orleans has for at least a decade had a homicide rate at times three times higher than NYC per capita? Why don't they mention that the real reason why many did not get out of the city despite a mandantory evacuation, is because their extended families were so large they could not get everyone out at the same time? How much light is being shown regarding folks making themselves into victims so as not to take responsibility for their own lives, or at least to alleviate some of that responsibility for whatever reasons they might have?
It is easy to blame the bureuocracy for all the ills in New Orleans right now - yet it is that selfsame sense of blame and expressed victimization which have helped to cause the dire situation down there in the first place. Racism is not limited to just one or two races - blacks are just as capable of discriminating against others as anyone else (the "tsunami song, Hot 97???).