ThinkBlog

Why is racism still so prevalent? Maybe we could chalk that up to human nature; or lingering hatred from some family feuds of indeterminate but ethnically-based origin; or the biggest cop-out of them all, “culture.” But more importantly, or at least in my mind what is more striking, why are we tolerating subtly racist remarks to persist? It goes beyond the likes of avant garde comedians Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle, whose willingness to tickle the boundaries of good taste leaves us ourselves in stitches. It’s the real thing out in the world, harsh and untamed, not presented as a joke to cultured men and women of all walks of (dare I say middle-class?) life from behind a mic but as the reality of a person’s heart. A blogger whom I’ve recently come to read and respect has commented on several things. I don’t want to merely echo his sentiments, but he’s spot on. Observe.

The Boston Herald ran a story on how white jurors are not the peers of black defendants, claiming, “African-Americans have different life experiences” than Caucasians. Now, to borrow a phrase from the author of an article in a recent First Things, “There’s a certain of-courseness to” that sentence. But that’s precisely why it’s so obnoxious: my life experience is going to be different than any one of you in some foundational way. That doesn’t mean that we aren’t peers. There are certain things that are simply common to man, and on a much lower level, common to life experiences of anyone from a given city, income level, or other classification.

It seems to me that this article describes an assumption, then. It is assumed by the people who pick the jury that whites cannot know the struggle of black defendants, or at least the gang-related type. But let’s look deeper at the assumption: is it not rather more pointedly assumed that these “peers” are going to find this black defendant guilty because they are racist and, therefore by definition are more inclined to pre-judge?

Then we have the Kayne West debacle. West was the one who said outright, “Bush doesn’t care about black people.” When I heard this argument, I thought it sounded like a typical plunking down of the race card. (”Playing the race card” is when someone jumps to the conclusion without equivocation, “Well, I’m being discriminated against/picked on/misunderstood because I’m [whatever ethnicity], and since you’re [a different ethnicity], you’ll never be able to understand what I’m going through on any level whatsoever, case closed.”) But then again, kids are learning this way of thinking, too. Kids are learning that their white president is all about oppressing them if they are black (or whatever). The author of “Just My Opinion” comments,

What if Mr. West had said something unifying, rather than divisive? What if he had said, “It’s true that there are a lot of black people still in need of help in New Orleans, but we all need to come together to help these people. This isn’t about them being black or white, it’s about these people being people, and people in need of help.” What might little Mr. Jones have responded then? Even if young Mr. Jones[, who was quoted as saying, “I totally agree with Kanye on this subject. If it were a bunch of white people down there instead of all the black people then everybody would have been saved already. There have been so many deaths since the hurricane first hit and Gorge Bush has not yet still to this day done any kind of relief effort to help these people out…”] were already racist, what could he have disagreed with? Or is it more likely that he would have learned a valuable lesson in equality?

Why is it if a white person is racist they are hateful and bigoted, but if a black person is racist they are oppressed and, therefore, defended. Kanye is perpetuating the exact issue he claims to speak out against. Brilliant!

But then we have the cake-taker. How is it possible for William Bennett, who served in prominent positions under Reagan and Bush senior, to say, and this really is a quote,

If you wanted to reduce crime, you could—if that were your sole purpose—you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.

That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

You could do what? WHAT?

It is incumbent upon political leaders to watch their words and take care not to inflame anyone unnecessarily. How could he possibly justify saying this? Chinese leaders at his level saying that we need to abort every newborn girl would go over with less shock in either their country or ours.

It looks like to me this is a battle for kids’ minds. The more liquor of hate is poured into the Kool Aid of childhood, the more drunk with ignorant bigotry the adult will be. Think about it. What’s the proof of your words?

Why is racism still so prevalent? Maybe we could chalk that up to human nature; or lingering hatred from some family feuds of indeterminate but ethnically-based origin; or the biggest cop-out of them all, “culture.” But more importantly, or at least in my mind what is more striking, why are we tolerating subtly racist remarks to persist? It goes beyond the likes of avant garde comedians Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle, whose willingness to tickle the boundaries of good taste leaves us ourselves in stitches. It’s the real thing out in the world, harsh and untamed, not presented as a joke to cultured men and women of all walks of (dare I say middle-class?) life from behind a mic but as the reality of a person’s heart. A blogger whom I’ve recently come to read and respect has commented on several things. I don’t want to merely echo his sentiments, but he’s spot on. Observe.

The Boston Herald ran a story on how white jurors are not the peers of black defendants, claiming, “African-Americans have different life experiences” than Caucasians. Now, to borrow a phrase from the author of an article in a recent First Things, “There’s a certain of-courseness to” that sentence. But that’s precisely why it’s so obnoxious: my life experience is going to be different than any one of you in some foundational way. That doesn’t mean that we aren’t peers. There are certain things that are simply common to man, and on a much lower level, common to life experiences of anyone from a given city, income level, or other classification.

It seems to me that this article describes an assumption, then. It is assumed by the people who pick the jury that whites cannot know the struggle of black defendants, or at least the gang-related type. But let’s look deeper at the assumption: is it not rather more pointedly assumed that these “peers” are going to find this black defendant guilty because they are racist and, therefore by definition are more inclined to pre-judge?

Then we have the Kayne West debacle. West was the one who said outright, “Bush doesn’t care about black people.” When I heard this argument, I thought it sounded like a typical plunking down of the race card. (”Playing the race card” is when someone jumps to the conclusion without equivocation, “Well, I’m being discriminated against/picked on/misunderstood because I’m [whatever ethnicity], and since you’re [a different ethnicity], you’ll never be able to understand what I’m going through on any level whatsoever, case closed.”) But then again, kids are learning this way of thinking, too. Kids are learning that their white president is all about oppressing them if they are black (or whatever). The author of “Just My Opinion” comments,

What if Mr. West had said something unifying, rather than divisive? What if he had said, “It’s true that there are a lot of black people still in need of help in New Orleans, but we all need to come together to help these people. This isn’t about them being black or white, it’s about these people being people, and people in need of help.” What might little Mr. Jones have responded then? Even if young Mr. Jones[, who was quoted as saying, “I totally agree with Kanye on this subject. If it were a bunch of white people down there instead of all the black people then everybody would have been saved already. There have been so many deaths since the hurricane first hit and Gorge Bush has not yet still to this day done any kind of relief effort to help these people out…”] were already racist, what could he have disagreed with? Or is it more likely that he would have learned a valuable lesson in equality?

Why is it if a white person is racist they are hateful and bigoted, but if a black person is racist they are oppressed and, therefore, defended. Kanye is perpetuating the exact issue he claims to speak out against. Brilliant!

But then we have the cake-taker. How is it possible for William Bennett, who served in prominent positions under Reagan and Bush senior, to say, and this really is a quote,

If you wanted to reduce crime, you could—if that were your sole purpose—you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.

That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

You could do what? WHAT?

It is incumbent upon political leaders to watch their words and take care not to inflame anyone unnecessarily. How could he possibly justify saying this? Chinese leaders at his level saying that we need to abort every newborn girl would go over with less shock in either their country or ours.

It looks like to me this is a battle for kids’ minds. The more liquor of hate is poured into the Kool Aid of childhood, the more drunk with ignorant bigotry the adult will be. Think about it. What’s the proof of your words?