New Blog to Check Out - What's race got to do with it?
Check out this user profile:I write about my experiences as a white woman in the inner city. The only thing scary about my experience is the uniformed fear of the white community of my neighborhood. My message is to white America: we are the root of the problem in urban race relations. Until we understand the damaging affect of using our white privilege, there will be no change.If you prefer your analysis of racial issues to remain at the shallow level of joke blogs, you might not enjoy this one, but I look forward to making it a regular read.
Also, she linked to me yesterday, and commented on my blog - two of my favorite identifying signs of a great blogger.
posted by Dan at 5/06/2008 06:20:00 AM
21 Comments:
Above anon is me. Hit the wrong button. I'll call bullshit on that one and take responsibility for it.
Hey Dan care to take a moment ot post something in support of the union workers on strike at Fairfax?
And don't forget the mine workers in Sri Lanka, and the banana farmers in Haiti, and the baby seals in Canada, and a whole bunch of other shit this blog is completely irrelevant to.
(Dan, post what you want, but I cannot imagine a more goofy waste of time than posting about a strike, unless you know something special about it.)
Beer.
Dan, ignore the strike, but definitely post about beer.
I agree with Travel, on this.
I don't need a white chick lecturing me (sanctimoniously) about how priviledged and bad I am.
I already know that.
There are more productive ways to have a dialogue like this.
And let's also talk about the first thing AFRICAN-AMERICANS do when they attain some measure of affluence and success....
Guess what they do....
(they move out of neighborhoods like hers)
The dirty little secret is that race matters less than affluence when it comes to making decisions about where to live.
Black affluence & privilege has just as damning an influence on urban neighborhoods as white privilege, if not more.
Guess where Janice Ellis and Alvin Brooks live? I watched the UMKC Mayoral forum where they both had to answer that question.
The simple reason people don't live in transitional, marginalized urban neighborhoods is because of many different factors, not the least of which is that THEY"RE MORE DANGEROUS. DAH!!!
The schools suck.
There's aren't any decent neighborhood amenities.
And there are weird people that confront you all the time, invade your personal space, beg for money, and the whole deal just takes people out of their comfort zones.
Don't get me started. (And I live in the hood, too, sister, just like you, so don't even think about lecturing me.)
I can't blame people for making a decision to not live in marginal areas - I don't agree with it but I understand the other perspective.
Being self-righteous doesn't help one try to get their arms around a very difficult situation.
Mainstream and Travel - like I said, if you prefer your conversations about race to remain at the joke blog level, "What's race" is probably a little over your head . . .
mainstream,
You and I may not agree on a lot of things. But your post was spot on.
I myself have been on this world long enough to ignore the color of a person's skin and wish others could also. I am also not naive enough to believe that there is no racism in this country.
And Dan, the race problem is very complex, to lay entire blame on "white privelege" is absurd. And to imply that travel and mainstream belong on a "joke blog" when talking about the race issue is condesending.
The white man is responsible for all of the black man's problems.
Or more precisely,
"My message is to white America: we are the root of the problem in urban race relations."
That's certainly not a joke blog conversation-starter!!!
Good luck with that, that tactic has worked so well for Rev Wright, why not copy it?
Well Craig, the attitude of Dan and what's her name, is self-limiting.
No one buys it, and publicizing it just takes it from the viewpoint of an ecccentric and well-meaning friend to, well, ripping their credibility publicly on all sides of this issue.
I mean really, who in their right mind buys the argument
"My message is to white America: we are the root of the problem in urban race relations."
????
Common sense rules, thank God. I mean think about it, if we left race relations to these two?
mainstream,
Who would have thought that a liberal that lives in the hood, and a conservative that lives in the 'burbs could agree on the race issue?
IMHO, it is attitudes like Dan's that are partially to blame for the slow progress in race relations. Don't get me wrong, we have come a long way in just one generation and are about one more generation from some real progress, but it could have happened a lot faster.
And Dan, no offense meant by that last comment, I truly believe that you say and do what you think is best, and don't have any ulterior motive, but just are a little misguided.
I agree Craig.
Keep in mind that Dan is a social justice Brooksider/Waldonian (depending upon the issue)democrat, a very special breed. those types move to the white island of Brookside for the diversity.
After all, they can choose between Baskin & Robbins or Foo's.
(Thank God for zoning laws otherwise Brookside would be full of cul-de-sacs)
:o)
Dan talks about politics all of the time and is active locally, why not post about thousands of local workers possibly losing jobs due to outsourcing? This blog isn't irrelevant to anything.
It's not Haiti, Canada, Sri Lanka, It's Kansas City.
Craig and Mainstream -
I can certainly see how you interpreted my comment as condescending, but I was shooting more for flippant. If you don't like the blog, that's just fine, but I have enjoyed what I've read so far and intend to make it a regular read. I brought it to your attention, and if it upsets you too deeply to handle it, then it's okay with me if you get your race analysis from a joke blog.
Is white America really the root of the problem of urban race relations? I can see arguments both ways - in such a complex topic, a "chicken and egg" dynamic sets in. It could be argued that white America is responsible for middle-class black flight, and for black-on-black crime. Others might argue other causes.
The author of the blog has formulated a perspective that works for her. I know her, and admire her, so I definitely want to read her thoughts on the matter. I appreciate the fact that in stating her view of the problem, she is looking at herself first. That's rare and inspiring. "Be the change you want to see," and all that.
Each of us sees racial issues through our own lens. I acknowledge the power of white privilege, and any honest white person must. I also acknowledge that African-Americans suffer from human nature, too.
I'm glad there's a fresh blog voice raising questions and challenging assumptions at a deeper level than Tony. Aren't you?
Dan,
I don't get anything from Tony.
Plain and simple.
I get your point, I just think it is off base.
I usually talk about race in person with a lot of people, I don't usually talk about it on blogs, because you usually get a few clowns who will clog up a thread about race with racial or race baiting comments and it goes nowhere.
This thread was pretty good though, thanks at least for posting it, even though we may disagree there was at least meaningful dialouge. Well, as much meaningful dialouge.
Anonymous 12:10 -
I'm probably not going to write anything about the strike because the people over at Blue Blog have sent out an email to local bloggers exhorting us to all write a post that supports the union. Stuff like that provokes nausea in me - what kind of self-important, impotent yahoo does that? I'm pretty cynical about the motivation of someone who confuses the status of blogger with that of self-appointed "leader of a movement". But maybe that's just me.
Besides, it seems you have already made up your mind about the merits of the strike - are you seeking challenging analysis from me, or are you demanding orthodoxy?
Dan, we're commenters, and the basis for a comment is either (1) agreeing with a post; (2) disagreeing with it; or (3) bringing new information about the subject to the table.
I'm engaging in types (2) and (3) in terms of accetable commenter behavior.
Now, explain this: what's the difference between TKC constantly dogging insentive white hipsters and labelling them racists (along with just about all other white people) and this comment:
"My message is to white America: we are the root of the problem in urban race relations."
I'm wondering what the difference is between TKC and this person.
Sounds like the joke Blog and the blogger you applaud are basically of the same mind on race relation issues.
:o)
I"m just sayin'.
I'd say the difference is that she seeks to promote thought and Tony seeks to provoke reaction.
From your "great" blogger's most recent entry.
"Listen to Barak's speech on race relations again. It is stirring, it is real, it pulls no punches. The same cannot be said for Hillary and her campaign of innuendos and sly racism. Shame on you Hillary. I can't vote for you."
I must admit the Professor's tutorial is a bit "over my head."
Guess I need to bone up on "sly racism."
Good point Travel.
To anon at 9:53 - I don't know what the difference is between "provoke thought" and "provoke reaction".
I think it's a matter of degree and style, but of substance? I think both bloggers want to provoke some sort of intellectual action, and their starting points are that white people are the cause of race relations problems.
There's a certain amount of truth to that, but it's not the whole truth.
On the race topic. Why isn't Sharpton's arrest getting any national press?
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/sean.bell.protests.2.717705.html
This is one of the things I like about Sharpton. Uhlike Jesse Jackson and Jeremiah Wright, Sharpton walks the walk. While I don't necessarily agree with his opinion a lot, he expresses it in a common sense fashion. Many people like to lump him in with the likes of Jackson and Wright, but he is his own type of man. Another thing of note, this was civil disobediance, nobody was hurt. This is what our country was founded on. Maybe he will be able to make some changes.
First,
Jewish people are the most intelligent. They win almost 40% of the Nobel Prize's and they have a small population of only 14 million. So by far they exceed the other races in intelligence. The other races having huge numbers and such small contributions.
Second,
IQ tests, test intellectual conformity, not creativity and originality. This would explain the Asian high IQ's. They as a people are the ultimate conformists.
In IQ tests there is typically only one answer to the problem. That problem being a social conformity to reason. But everyone knows that Genius's and all of the greatest developments in the world are not the product of conformity. Conformity never breeds creativity. We can see this in the lack of influence the Asian population has had on Science. China used to be called the "sick man" of Asia. Their population is massive and their contribution to innovation is almost nil. We can see this lack of originality in their adoptation of European philosophies, I.e. Communism.
Friedrich Nietzsche and other Philosophers have critized Asians. Nietsche used the words "Pallid osification" to describe Orientals.
Pallid: lacking sparkle or liveliness.
Osification: The process of becoming set and inflexible in behavior, attitudes, and actions. Inflexible conformity, rigid unthinking acceptance of social conventions.
The reality is Asian people have yet to understand that laws and rules are arbitrary. Europeans make the rules and Asian's follow them.
It also doesn't make sense that Asian's are considered smart because of the fact that they have destroyed their own countries. This is due to over-population and their basic lack of enviromental understanding.
It is also common scientific fact that women who have many children are ignorant, and those who have less children are more intelligent. This has already been proven in studies. So it seems strange to say that Asians are smart when the obviousness of their backwards countries, and medieval lifestyle makes them contrary to that premise.
Europeans have the most advanced civilizations and every other race has yet to meet these levels other than the Japanese. The Japanese only being good at copying other people's inventions and making them better. Other than that their original creativity is lacking as well. They took American cars and made them better. They took the German camera and made it better. And they took German steel and made it better. Otherwise the greatest advances still come from Europeans and Jews. Other than that the Orientals have yet to produce an Einstein or a Thomas Edison.
When it comes to Black people. It makes sense that they have low intellectual comformity, I.e. IQ tests. They are far too creative to be trapped in this unoriginal form of conditioning. You can tell their creative capacity in their athletics, music, dance, and the way they talk. They by far exceed the Asiatic races in these areas. Being better singers, musicians ect. Blacks far exceed Asians in emotive expression. In all of North America there is only one or two famous high-paid Asian actors.
Reality, Europeans rule the world and they have allowed others to exist only out of desire for economic bennifet. They, (Europeans) are also the physically strongest, winning the Strongest Man competitions again and again.
The greater the conformity, the weaker the race. Thus we see the races as they are today. The wild animal being bred out of man, and the physically impotent, conformist thriving.
Otherwise "Group psychology" is the most destructive thing in the world. All these stereotypes are false when it comes to the individual. Individualism is the most important thing for this time. All countries, Relgions, groups need to dissolve for man to live in peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home