As for the rest, I think tomndebb’s replies to you are pretty close to what I would have said. I would just reiterate that Ogbu’s discussions with black kids yielded a very different view of bookworms from that expressed by the white kids, one that went well beyone the usual ostracism.
And in my experience, simply being smart didn’t get you ostracized by white kids in school; being unathletic or ugly or socially awkward did. Those latter things may sometimes correlate with academic performance – the painfully shy kid studies because he can’t get up the nerve to ask anyone out – but not always. For example, at my high school, there was one popular, good looking kid who played soccer – and had the grades to get into Princeton.
And this is, again, disingenuous. Even you have to preface your statement with “Cultural discussions aside,” and this thread is certainly a cultural discussion. In a discussion of society in the U.S. that is focussed on race, the claim that black (or African American) is not associated the descendants of slaves is silly. Had the discussion been race throughout the world or simply the colors of humanity, I’d have agreed with you. However, this thread has a specific point of origin (a proposed “Caucasian club” in California) and a specific subtext, the treatment of black people in the U.S. The context makes Metacom’s statement more realistic than your attempt to apply generic usage.
However, the sense that I have gotten from your posts, here, is that it is simply a moral problem for those people who just are not doing things right, with a subtext of denial that they may have found themselves in that position because of their history. The reason that Reagan’s lie is important, today, is that he gave a sense of self-justification to all the people who felt it was just the blacks’ own problem–an attitude that continues today. After all they “only” have to do all the right things that would get them ahead (whether or not they have experience with or understanding of those right things) and there would no longer be a problem.
I suggest that recognizing the source of those problems (even if it is simply ignorance of the larger culture) will take us further toward resolving the problems.
Meh. I think the term “black” is understood in the U.S as I’ve described it. The average American would refer to Kofi Annan as “black” even upon being informed of Mr. Annan’s background. They would find metacom’s proposed alternate meaning odd, even given the context of the discussion.
I mean, really. When we discuss the ramifications of the Louima and Diallo cases, we are “having a discussion of society in the U.S. that is focused on race.” Does that mean we shouldn’t refer to the victims in those cases as “black” because they were immigrants?
Although this thread has taken a (predictable) side road from my OP, from what I’ve read on the last few pages, a question is still unanswered: Accepting the postulate that, all races and ethnicities have been subject to oppression at some juncture, and that Irish, Polish, Italian, Russian, Asian (many subsets) et. al., have entered the US, taken crappy jobs, and have prospered, and do well in educational settings, why is it that people of color continue to say that they cannot get ahead, particularly in the face of programs designed to afford them an advantage?
No dirth of role models exists: the cotton gin, fountain pen, golf tee, and gas mask were all invented by Blacks. Willie Mays, Larry Holmes, Jackie Robinson, and scores beyond were/are great sportsmen. The unnamed ‘Buffalo Soldiers’, Crispus Attucks, Lillian Fishburne, Brigadier General Mary Saunders, and Secretary of State Colin Powell, are exemplary in their service, despite prejudice.
Well, first I would question the broad claim that “people of color contiinue to say that they cannot get head.” Certainly some do, but that statement is rather too broad for accuracy. In addition, it is not true that all immigrants have faced the same discrimination. German and British immigrants, along with Scandinavians, have nearly always been welcomed. Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, and Hungarians, along with the Balkan immigrants occasionally faced a certain amount of jeering for their language or religion, but they have never been systematically denied jobs in the manner that Irish, Jews, and blacks have.
Beyond that, we get back to the historical question.
All of the European immigrants were able to get past discriminatory practices just by losing their accents and anglicizing their names. A black person cannot change their appearance to avoid discrimination. So the individual whose parents or grandparents immigrated from Europe had an immediate advantage of a black person. In addition, there was never an attempt to destroy the wealth of the immigrant communities in the way that black communities were routinely deprived of their wealth. So European immigrant communities were able to build up a reservoir of cash with which to strike out from their ghettoes and assimilate. On top of that, most of the European immigrants were given jobs in ways that deliberately deprived blacks of income. Blacks operated under “last hired, first fired” rules and their replacements were often the immigrants from Europe.
(And when whites rioted against black communities, burning the black financial districts of Tulsa, OK or Springfield, IL or forcing blacks out of their homes in Detroit, MI, the response of the police departments was invariably to blame the blacks for being rioted upon.)
Asian immigrants were treated more harshly than European immigrants (including the denial of many of their civil rights), but they were (aside from the Japanese internment of WWII) rarely deprived of community wealth. They were always able to establish their own communities in which they could invest. Black communities were often burned down (or, later, destroyed for urban renewal) and black leaders were frequently lynched on trumped up charges. Black farmers were extended loans at much higher rates than white farmers so that a single bad year could provide a white-owned bank with the opportunity to foreclose on and confiscate black property.
As a result of the disparate wealth between blacks and Asians, the stereotypes of the “industrious” Asian was held up in contrast to the “lazy” black, and when the Civil Rights movement saw many of the earlier practices outlawed, blacks were still faced with prejudices in hiring and housing that did not stigmatize Asians in the same way.
The question, of course, is how much of that history applies to blacks, today. I think that one can probably find self-defeating practices in the black community. On the other hand, the denial of housing, jobs, and promotions does continue, today, (although at a reduced level) and the laws and court proceedings over the last 20 years have made it more difficult to prove that prejudice was involved, so simply suing “bad people” is hardly a practical solution.
And I suspect that one does not change cultural perceptions simply by having some white politician or talk-show host claim that everything is equal, now.
I am not sure what would be the best way(s) to resolve the problems. I do not believe that Jesse Jackson’s current grandstanding or Al Sharpton’s rhetoric will help, simply because so many people will ignore those things they say that are true that are buried in the overwhelming torrent of demagoguery.
On the other hand, pretending that there has not been that long period of oppression hardly seems like the appropriate response. (For example, while I think that Mr. Turner of the NAACP was a bit hasty in his condemnation of Ms. McClelland’s proposal, his reaction should be noted in the context that last erm a black teacher at Ms. McClelleand’s school was targeted on a couple of different occasions with nooses hung on his door and from a tree on the school property. Discrimination against and violence against blacks continue, today.)
*Accepting the postulate that, all races and ethnicities have been subject to oppression at some juncture, and that Irish, Polish, Italian, Russian, Asian (many subsets) et. al., have entered the US, taken crappy jobs, and have prospered, and do well in educational settings, why is it that people of color continue to say that they cannot get ahead, particularly in the face of programs designed to afford them an advantage? *
Just when have you heard anyone say they can’t get ahead? WTF are you talking about? As I posted earlier, black Americans have made one of the most rapid advances in human history.
In America, only Native Americans and black Americans have undergone such long periods of abuse and persecution, much of it state sponsored. The other ethnic groups you mentioned generally experienced a substantial improvement in their living conditions and economic opportunities upon coming to America. Black Americans in particular had to fight for years to get the rights and freedoms that European immigrants acquired when they stepped off the boat.
Black Americans do in fact face obstacles that other ethnic groups don’t. There is still extensive discrimination in the justice system, the workplace, schools, and the private sphere. This makes it harder to get ahead. Not impossible.
Why so many people try to deny simple facts of history is anyone’s guess. I suppose it’s because the facts carry an implicit critique of the Pollyanna version of US history and culture.
I have inferred from several things that you have said that the past is the past and basically unrelated to the present situation and expectations for the future. For example:
There was also criticism about Black leaders who refer to the past (such as the link to the woman who was so catty about the Rev. Jackson’s references to Selma).
As I was writing the last paragraph, it occured to me that what you see as the distant past and what I see as the distant past may vary by quite a bit. The Civil Rights Movement was part of my experience as an adult so I relate to it as “not very long ago.”
If there is much of an age difference between us, that might explain some of the difference in how we view past and present.
If I have totally misunderstood you and inferred the wrong things from your posts, I apologize. Nothing would please me more than to know that you recognize that even with all the the advances that Blacks have made in the last forty years, there is still discrimination politically, judicially, socially, etc.
“Unrelated”? No, but I do think it somewhat pointless to dwell on the past.
Let me draw an analogy: suppose your grandfather and my grandfather were business partners in a successful venture. Further suppose that your grandfather, the rat bastard, strongarmed my grandfather out of the business, leaving him penniless, broken and bitter, while your grandfather went on to reap large fortunes. Further suppose that you have inherited the wealth of your grandfather, while my family and I have remained more or less impoverished.
Now, as a matter of historical fact, your grandfather is a direct cause of my present position; but for the ruthlessness of your grandfather, my family would enjoy a much better socioeconomic place in life. Your grandfather’s behavior is clearly related to my current situation.
But what good does it do for me to continunally remind myself of that fact? How does nurturing resentment against you and your family help me in any way? At what point does talking about that aspect of our families’ history cease to be a simple recognition of a historical injustice and start to be an excuse for me not to move forward?
You may be a native-born black person, but have you ever read the history of Africa?? If you have to say that American-Africans have had a harder time than immigrant Africans is foolish. The African history is full of slavery, descrimination, and just keeping people down. But instead of doing so base on skin color, they tend to do it on clans, religion, even the dialect you speak.
Read a history book, a real one. Every immigrant African “people” has had the same history to deal with as a African-American.
You have a point. It seems to me that some of the moral responsibility shifts to me to give you a hand. I should try to make amends for the damage that was done. I should see to it that as much equity as possible is restored. The responsibility then would shift to you to take advantage of the restoration of justice.
There is a difference though. In your scenario, I don’t think self-esteem would be as much of an ingrained factor as it is now.
