| By Tamia510 - Jun 29th, 2007 at 1:40 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Tavis Smiley, journalist and author of several publications, including bestselling book, "The Covenant with Black America" hosted the first presidential debate at an HBCU (Historically Black College or University) along with a panel of journalists who were all people of color.
This morning at The Center for American Progress, Tavis Smiley enlightened a packed room with people standing on the walls, sitting on floors about the importance of the African American voice. Sitting in the audience to my surprise was Dr. Cornel West, whom Mr. Smiley acknowledged as his older brother that he never had. Dr. West advised him by saying "You can't lead people if you love people, and you can't save people without serving people." Smiley went into the details of how we as people have to follow the needs of others in order to lead. What he accomplished last night was historical, as there has been no other event like this and how in SEptemeber, the Republican candidates will appear at the HBCU Campus of Morgan State University (Baltimore) to discuss issues that are pertinent to people of color.
Smiley noted that education, Darfur, and the Katrina aftermath came up for the first time last night after a series of debates. He acknoweleges that our current America is the most multi-racial, multi-cultural, and multi-ethnic America that "America" has ever seen. It is time that communities of color ask questions that aren't normally asked, or these communities will never see their needs met. Smiley cautioned African American votes to pay attention to the issues and the needs of our community and to make both Republicans and Democrats earn our vote for the 2008 election. "The black vote will be the most sought after vote for the 2008 election." With the likes of Senators Clinton and Obama toughing in out to gain the support of the black vote.
Smiley acknowledged the first question that was asked last night and how most of the candidates did not acknowledge the question about race, but only discussed the issue of the Supreme Court ruling. To the audience surprise, Smiley asked Dr. West to speak about race in America. I could barely pay attention for the first thirty seconds as I was in awe. He began to enlighten us how we as people must always follow a need because there is always something for us to do, regardless of race, gender, color, etc. He says to not worry about being sucessful, but being great. "Greatness comes from service."
Smiley tells us to ask ourselves what is it that we can do right now in our respective communities. Hold our political leaders accountable, go out into the community, talk to people, and talk to your leaders, it will be the only way in which we can be accountable.
What is my take on all of this? Listening to such intelligent men as these two, I have learned that there is more power and strength in my voice than I have realized. Sometimes I have felt in many times alone as I have strived to serve and be a better person in the community. I have realized that there is more strength and power inside of myself and I can thank Mr. Tavis Smiley and Dr. West for their guiding words and incredible spirits that they both have to strenghten the hearts and minds of many Americans today.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Were the 'people of color' all African Americans? Or were Asian Americans and Latinos represented in some way?
I have some issues with the "people of color" word formulation - it causes some serious debates, such as: Are Jews included? What about fair-skinned Lebanese? Hapas? And is there value in diametrically defining people not according to some semblance of identity, but in direct opposition to something (the white 'other'), as the phrase does? The way the term 'people of color' operates makes me deeply uncomfortable.
In this case, the term can also indirectly *deny* a voice to others. There were three moderators of that debate: Juan Williams, Farai Chideya, and Ed Gordon, all African Americans.
To describe the debate as run by "people of color" rather than the term 'African Americans' (or some equivalent) gives the voice of Asian Americans and Latino Americans (who, statistically speaking, tend to have different concerns than African Americans tend to - I keep using the phrase 'tend to' because these are just statistical averages, and there are always outliers like Alan Keyes) to them.
Personally, I'd rather have a debate set to address a certain issue (how about a debate on race and class in America?), and then invite intelligent, informed moderators from any background.
Similarly, I wish the Congressional Black Caucus would admit a non-black member who represents a majority-black district.
(I also wish the CBC would stop being bullshit apologists for corruption when it happens to come from within their own ranks, but that's another post.)
To put it simply, yes. I'm one of those people you described as not clearly falling into a color category (I'm a fair-skinned daughter of Iranian immigrants), but throughout my experiences in the public school system and even today at college, I've found I feel more connected with someone by our sheer "non-whiteness" than your question implies is possible. Regardless of where the person is from or how long their family has been here, there are life-experiences and resulting societal understandings that we share with which white people, while they may sympathize, can never empathize. Does that mean I define myself as being non-white? No; I think an entire person is much more complicated than a single dichotomy. That being said, I’ve found I’ve almost always felt like I’ve had more in common with someone from a minority background, whatever it may be, than with a white person, and that fact is worth acknowledging by the public at large.
I didn't imply it's impossible. I asked if there's value in defining people that way.
I've at times felt the same connection (emphasis on "at times"), despite falling into what I would consider to be the same category that you do (a fair-skinned Jew).
I'm still not sure if the benefits of organizing around that 'connection' are ultimately healthy for our society.
You then get into the odd situation where "non-whiteness" becomes not only a desirable, but a *superior* social good, to be sought out, bargained for, and traded for among well-meaning liberals who want to be part of what then essentially becomes the 'in crowd'. A form of street cred, almost.
Why does that happen?
Because nobody wants to hear this:
"". Regardless of where the person is from or how long their family has been here, there are life-experiences and resulting societal understandings that we share with which white people, while they may sympathize, can never empathize.""
Nobody wants to hear 'you can sympathize with me, but you can never empathize with me'.
The end result is a fight over who gets to be in the 'in crowd'. We all laugh at the girl who's 1/64th Cherokee suddenly emphasizing that trivial aspect when she happens to meet a minority, but it's best understood as an awkward yet heartfelt attempt to meet the social need to feel included.
I have to admit, going from recognizing a simple connection between two people because you have shared experiences to saying that non-whiteness will become a superior social good is a little ridiculous. American history in and of itself is a testament to how not socially superior being non-white can be (from Japanese internment camps to slavery and segregation and the current discrimination against those of Middle Eastern descent – take your pick).
“I'm still not sure if the benefits of organizing around that 'connection' are ultimately healthy for our society.”
If groups didn’t organize around such connections, then coalitions large enough to overcome legal sanctions imposed against certain minorities just wouldn’t exist. Coalition building happens in many cases where two groups feel they’re being cut out of the circle for related reasons (feminist groups and pro-choice groups working together). Why is it so negative for an African-American group to work with a Hispanic group because they have both dealt with being minorities in America?
I agree with you that such a thing can go too far, but I don’t believe it’s an association to be avoided. And the very fact that it does happen is why there’s a value in recognizing it for what it is: not a fad, not a form of exclusion, but a way for people with common experiences to find common ground and support one another.