Outrage of the Day 11_11_06

[StrykerFSU]

Can someone please explain to me why blackface is so insulting? I'm just having a really hard time understanding how a Halloween costume meant to be in good fun can change from funny to racist just because some white guys paint their faces black. I mean, it's the JAMAICAN bobsled team for crying out loud! It doesn't work if you are white.

While we're at it, can someone please explain to me how shutting down school for an awareness day accomplishes anything? Who's in charge out there, President Garcia-Thompson? Are they changing the mascot to the Whooping Cranes? (Those are PCU references for those with furrowed brows right now)

[Beta]

Can someone please explain to me why blackface is so insulting? I'm just having a really hard time understanding how a Halloween costume meant to be in good fun can change from funny to racist just because some white guys paint their faces black. I mean, it's the JAMAICAN bobsled team for crying out loud! It doesn't work if you are white.

While we're at it, can someone please explain to me how shutting down school for an awareness day accomplishes anything? Who's in charge out there, President Garcia-Thompson? Are they changing the mascot to the Whooping Cranes? (Those are PCU references for those with furrowed brows right now)

Yeah I agree 100% with Stryker on this one. Why is it that at a halloween costume party you can find (all intoxicated) an Islamic Terrorist, Muhammad, Jesus, Santa Claus, Anti-Semetic Anything, The Easter Bunny, Pregnant Nun, Molesting Preist, Duke Lacrosse Player ( ), OJ Simpson, a person with a fat suit, a man dressing like a woman (sexist by these standards apparently), a homeless person, a black guy with his face painted white....but the white guy with his face painted black is offensive. Do tell the logic behind this.

[Arklax]

IUPUI, doing their part to end segregation:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a ... -1/ZONES04

In speaking with someone I know from IUPUI, apparently volunteer groups and other RSO's that are NOT based on skin color receive funds somewhere in the hundreds...compare that to $78K.

[Campbell]

Well black face minstrel shows that started around the 1840s were typically shows where white people painted their faces black, painted exaggerated lips, and portrayed the role of an ignorant slave. Overall, it was making fun of blacks to create humor for the white audiences, but obviously generated negative stereotypes. These shows persisted well into the 20th century. Because of this any black-face, whether it is done to portray the Jamaican bobsled team or the Survivor team awakens feelings of that era and further perpetuates negative stereotypes to some people. I don't think the intentions of either were meant to be racist. It also sounds like the university may have cancelled classes and set up the workshop as a result of the discussion between students on the message boards. It may have simply ben an issue where the university felt the students would benefit based on the discussions, not necessarily in response to a group dressing up in black face.

As far as black people painting their faces white...I would also argue that is racist as well and is often used to perpetuate negative stereotypes of white people. But, the white "race" has never been on the bottom in this country. For blacks to have been subjugated for so long by slavery, and then further subjugated by racism, it makes it so much harder for them to find equality.

[Beta]

IUPUI, doing their part to end segregation:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a ... -1/ZONES04

In speaking with someone I know from IUPUI, apparently volunteer groups and other RSO's that are NOT based on skin color receive funds somewhere in the hundreds...compare that to $78K.

That article and the students that came up with that plan are so absurd that they don't deserve the webspace they're taking up. I would have loved to been a fly on the wall when those students came up with the reasoning behind getting $78,000 and a building.

But, the white "race" has never been on the bottom in this country. For blacks to have been subjugated for so long by slavery, and then further subjugated by racism, it makes it so much harder for them to find equality.

It's not the same people today, that had to deal with that kind of racism back then. There's racism everywhere today, flying in every direction. If you can't punish someone for their ancestor's actions...then you can't reward someone for their ancestor's agony.

[StrykerFSU]

Aye caramba! Does anyone else see the irony here? The only thing that black student centers and the like accomplish is to create more division. Does separate but equal ring a bell? For example, at Lehigh University they created an off-campus living dorm for black students only and called it the Umoja House. It was supposed to help black students feel more comfortable at a university that is mostly white. Guess who the black students who lived there hung out with...only other black students! My fraternity on the other hand had Indians, Puerto Ricans, Jews, WASPs, Italians, an Egyptian, and one very short French-Canadian just in the 3 years I was living there.

As for the blackface, I understand the origin but I for one have never seen a vaudevillian show and would venture to say no one else has either. For me, someone who was offended would have to come up with a better reason than blackface was used to make fun of blacks in the 19th century. This is the 21st century, aren't they blowing this just a little bit out of proportion? Is our society so mind numbingly PC that common sense has become irrelevant?

[Jester]

Good background, Campbell. Makes it a little clearer for those who don't know. The easiest thing in this case would be to ask some black people what they personally think. I would bet quite a lot that you will have a very hard time finding any minority willing to say "Eh, the past is the past, it really doesn't mean anything now..."

My reading of this is that we are trying to say that something isn't negative if we don't understand it to be, and that is just plain untenable. We don't have to understand why something is a problem for someone else, just that it is. If we want to take the extra step towards empathy, that's great, it advances us and them. However, acknowledging that black-face isn't ok to black people will be sufficient for the moment.

Timbalaned, you are a fortunate soul if you have managed to live your life and not experience racism around you, but without question, its not in the "way way past". It hasn't gone away yet. The former leader of the KKK was elected to Congress less than 20 years ago. It especially will not go away if we treat it as the "way way past" and just ignore smaller instances like this one. I don't know about a day of education for the entire school, but clearly the kids who dressed up needed to be told why what they were doing was harmful.

[Jester]

Stryker,

The first point you bring up is absolutely valid, and your fraternity is commendable. My personal belief is that its a matter of trust, and it takes an enormous effort to breach that wall. I don't really think the still forming culture of the minority group is obligated to make that step. That still leaves all the power in other peoples hands.

The second thing you said, I have a foundational problem with. I don't believe that "common sense" exists. There are an incredibly wide variety of cultural and personal views of the same events. When I view the events through the lens of "common sense" I dismiss anyone who doesn't think the exact same way I do. It is a dangerous assumption.

In a larger sense, that's what most of the idea of political correctness is. It's saying that just because you think this way doesn't mean everyone does, and please don't be a jerk outloud about it. I can't figure out what the problem is with that. Like everything else, it does get taken too far sometimes, but the core idea isn't inherently bad.[/quote]

[laxfan25]

I'm not sure if any of the people posting on here can give us the minority viewpoint on this issue, which would certainly be helpful.
I do remember reading an article last year about a doctor who does hair transplants for bald people. One statement was particularly enlightening - "People with hair NEVER think about losing hair. People without hair think about nothing else!"

We as the privileged white class move through life totally oblivious to race as an issue, while our minority counterparts (blacks in particular, since it is such a visible difference) face acts of discrimination every day of their lives. In every interaction with the white establishment there can be subtle changes in response. In most areas, racism is no longer an overt action (people running around in white hoods, for example), but institutional racism continues to be an issue, and it is a LARGE issue to those that suffer its effects. It still exists in housing, employment, mortgage loans, etc. In college, I had the privilege of receiving a real education in my senior year, when I worked for a semester at a private civil rights agency. Doing real estate testing and working on some employment discrimination complaints, I saw first hand the way that blacks are treated. Some of the events were almost comical, but the effect on those suffering from it was much less so. It was an eye-opening experience. "Until you've walked a mile in those mocassins..."

Purpose
Affirmative action began as a corrective measure for governmental and social injustices against demographic groups that have been said to be subjected to discrimination in areas such as employment and education. The stated goal of Affirmative Action is to sufficiently counter past discrimination such that a strategy will no longer be necessary: the power elite will reflect the demographics of society at large.

Some groups who are targetted for affirmative action are characterized by race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or handicap. In India, the focus has mostly been on undoing caste discrimination. In South Africa, the focus has been primarily race-based and, to a lesser extent, sex-based discrimination. When members of targeted groups are actively sought or preferred, the reason given is usually that this is necessary to compensate for advantages that other groups are said to have had (such as through institutional racism or institutional sexism or historical circumstances).

The theory is that a simple adoption of meritocratic principles along the lines of race-blindness or gender-blindness will not suffice to change the situation for several reasons:

* Discrimination practices of the past preclude the acquisition of 'merit' by limiting access to educational opportunities and job experiences.
* Ostensible measures of 'merit' may well be biased toward the same groups who are already empowered.
* Regardless of overt principles, people already in positions of power are likely to hire people they already know, and/or people from similar backgrounds.

Controversy
Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a means to address past discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity. They may argue that the end result — a more diversified student body, police-force or other group — justifies the means.

Many claim that it has unintended and undesireable side-effects and that it fails to achieve its goals. They argue that it can act as a form of discrimination, perpetrate new wrongs to counter old ones, and instill a sense of victimhood in the majority. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups (such as middle to upper class blacks) at the expense of the disenfranchised within majority groups (such as poor whites). In the British 2001 Summer Of Violence Riots in Oldham, Bradford, Leeds and Burnley, one of the major complaints voiced in poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding which favoured minority areas.

There are also claims that the practice is itself racist and/or sexist. Finally critics and supporters disagree on the economic effects of affirmative action. Others believe that programs may be motivated by political considerations.

One of the sad consequences of affirmative action is that it can pit groups against one another - very often poor whites and blacks. I still happen to believe that the reasons for having it exist, and that whites that may lose a spot in college are far outnumbered by minorities that have been disenfranchised during their lives.

One need only look at the boards of directors of corporations in America, or the makeup of our government to see that we have a long way to go to achieve anything close to equality in those areas. On the opposite side, you can look at the percentage of the prison population to realize that blacks are treated much more harshly than white counterparts, and that is based on the percentage of people committing crimes. Whites commit a much larger percentage of crimes than therir numbers in prison would reflect. this can be atributed to lack of resources for hiring legal representation, as well as differences in the makeup of jury pools.

As much as we ALL might like to think that society is color-blind, we are not close to that, and affirmative action is one SMALL effort to try to correct that injustice.

[jessexy]

First off, i will not be ther resident black person that will be relied upon to make comments and explanations that will help other understand the "plight" of racism in the world today.

Racism does still exist. There are still oppressive symbols represented all over this country, like the state flag of SOuth carolina. ask Katrina/Rita victims how they feel now while they are still waiting for help from their government, while the US moved immediately to assist tsunami victims in Asia's affluent tourist region.

Black Face is never entertaining or funny. If a person can be creative enough to dress in Black Face, then they can be just as creative to come up with another costume that is less offensive. having one sole black person in the Presidential Cabinet and leaving her alone to answer the media critics questions rather than standing up to your own ciritcism doesnt solve the problem either.

Stryker, because you havent lived it and experienced it doesnt mean that it isnt real. In fact, just today in Farmers Branch, TX there is a vote in front of the city council to move to eliminate the opportunity for landlords (apartments, duplexes, individuals like you or me who own property) to rent to Mexicans simply because they are Mexican. Doesnt matter if they are naturalized, employed, have chidren, hold visas, etc. that s racism!

maybe you shouldve gotten invovled in your Black Student Center on campus to make yourself available to minority students so that there wouldnt be a perceived need for a suportive housing network on your campus. without the BSC, how many of those studnets would even be attending Lehigh? There are mulitple diversity departments and initiatives at Texas A&M and minority students are still subjected to racism and unwelcome attitudes.

You suggest that all of this and the people that are affected is in the past, yet our young are raised by those people that lived in the past. Their ideals are filtered down to the youth, who suck them up because its what grandpa said and thats gotta be the truth. Racism is not funny and its not a game simply because you havent been affected by it.

[Sonny]

In fact, just today in Farmers Branch, TX there is a vote in front of the city council to move to eliminate the opportunity for landlords (apartments, duplexes, individuals like you or me who own property) to rent to Mexicans simply because they are Mexican. Doesnt matter if they are naturalized, employed, have chidren, hold visas, etc. that s racism!

You got a link to that Jesse? I find it hard to believe that any municipality could make it illegal to rent to someone that is here legally.

[laxfan25]

In fact, just today in Farmers Branch, TX there is a vote in front of the city council to move to eliminate the opportunity for landlords (apartments, duplexes, individuals like you or me who own property) to rent to Mexicans simply because they are Mexican. Doesnt matter if they are naturalized, employed, have chidren, hold visas, etc. that s racism!

You got a link to that Jesse? I find it hard to believe that any municipality could make it illegal to rent to someone that is here legally.

I know that back in CT when I was doing my internship, the equal housing laws did not apply to single-family rentals or duplexes. I would think they apply to apartment complexes though. I'm not familiar with the case that Jesse referred to, and haven't seen anything on line. I know in some other communities laws were being enacted to make it illegal to rent to illegal immigrants - this seems to be going a step beyond that, if true.

(Well, I just did a little search on The Google...
http://blogs.chron.com/bluebayou/2006/1 ... sal_f.html Appears to be another effort against the illegals.)

[Beta]

Racism does still exist. There are still oppressive symbols represented all over this country, like the state flag of SOuth carolina. ask Katrina/Rita victims how they feel now while they are still waiting for help from their government, while the US moved immediately to assist tsunami victims in Asia's affluent tourist region.

"Asked by the Revolutionary Council of Safety in the fall of 1775 to design a flag for the use of South Carolina troops, Col. William Moultrie chose a blue which matched the color of their uniforms and a crescent which reproduced the silver emblem worn on the front of their caps. The palmetto tree was added later to represent Moultrie's heroic defense of the palmetto-log fort on Sullivan's Island against the attack of the British fleet on June 28, 1776"

When I think of a palmetto tree or the revolutionary war...years of racism boil through my veins (sarcasm). Check your sources, or your states.

[laxfan25]

Joe, Jessexy can be excused for confusing the official state flag with this story...

IN 1962 the Confederate battle flag was placed on top of the South Carolina statehouse by vote of the all-white legislature. While other Southern states removed the flag from their statehouses, South Carolina refused to follow suit. This prompted the NAACP to organize a national economic boycott against South Carolina's $14 billion-a-year tourism industry, and since the summer of 1999, more than 100 conventions and business organizations have participated in the boycott. The boycott is considered one of the largest since the 1970s. The NAACP's president, Kweisi Mfume, said of the boycott, "this is a trigger you don't want to pull until all else has failed. In the case of South Carolina, after 38 years of negotiating even the NAACP has a limit to its patience."

Inflammatory remarks by state senator Arthur Ravenel made national headlines in Jan. 2000 when he defended the flying of the Southern Cross, referring to the NAACP as the "the National Association of Retarded People." He then apologized to "retarded people" for associating them with the NAACP. At the time of the the February Republican presidential primary, party differences on the issue were thrown in sharp relief: the Republican contenders declined to take a stand except to say that the issue was a state matter; the Democrats were outspokenly against the flag remaining.

On April 12, 2000, the South Carolina state senate finally passed a bill to remove the flag by a majority of 36-7. The bill specified that a more traditional version of the battle flag (square shaped as opposed to the rectangular flag now flying above the statehouse) would be flown in front of the Capitol next to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers. The bill then went to the House, where it encountered some difficulty. But on May 18, 2000, after the bill was modified to ensure that the height of the flag's new pole would be 30 feet, it was passed by a majority of 66 to 43, and Governor Jim Hodges signed the bill five days later. On July 1, the flag was removed from the South Carolina statehouse.

The bill has not appeased everyone, however: the NAACP has not called off its boycott because they feel that the flag's new position on the Capitol lawn is still too prominent.

Do take note that the Stars and Bars were being flown over the STATE capitol at the behest of the all-white legislature. Sounds like they were representing the interests of ALL their citizens. Of course, it's ancient history - enacted in 1962 and finally taken down after much gnashing of teeth in the year 2000. That's OLD news, especially the enlightened attitude of one state senator "Inflammatory remarks by state senator Arthur Ravenel made national headlines in Jan. 2000 when he defended the flying of the Southern Cross, referring to the NAACP as the "the National Association of Retarded People." He then apologized to "retarded people" for associating them with the NAACP. "

Nice guy.

[Beta]

LaxFan25,

Ahh I see..so it was indeed the source..being the news . Being originally from Connecticut I came to the South always confused why any flags were symbols of racism..at least when they weren't created with racist tones in mind. The (old) state flag of Georgia is still a pretty big deal to a lot of people.