Undermining Past and Ongoing Efforts

One of my biggest pet peeves is the use of the following phrases: the "whitest/blackest white/black guy I know", and "why you acting white/black?". I hate them. 

I use to argue that those phrases belittle black people and show a blatant disregard for the national efforts made by people of color to been seen and treated like their white counterparts. Here's why: 

It is obvious when a person says "[insert person] is the whitest black person I know" that they clearly are not talking about the melanin in someone's skin. In fact, they aren't talking about their skin color at all. The focus is on white people and seeing how close that black person comes to being like a white person. Based off the use of that phrase, people automatically think of a light-skinned, "fresh-looking", preppy black guy. He most likely enunciates all his word, has an advanced vocabulary for a black person, and does not act like the stereotypical black person. Basically, he's is doing well and not acting or appearing as a thug to society. The word "whiteness" carries a positive connotation to it, which cannot said for the word "blackness".

From our reading of  "The Monster of the Mind" with Jefferson's arbitrary definition of blackness to " Race in the American Dream", we have grappled with the the word "blackness". As we saw and discussed in class, there is not a single definition for the word. The definition changes based off who you're asking and when you ask them. The word is affected by ongoing racial tensions, strides toward equality and equity, and any recent racial hate crime. The fact is blackness is not absolute. The Civil Rights Movement ushered in black people embracing their culture and gave blackness a positive connotation. Examples of this being songs like "I'm Black and I'm Proud", the historic image of black athletes raising a fist at the Olympic games in support of Black Power, and the formation and operation of the Black Panthers. These examples show how black people took back their blackness and, like many other things, made it their own. 

However, when someone says"[insert person] is the blackest person I know", the mental image is not what I described. Instead of any positive images, we think of a stereotypical black person. Someone who is sagging their pants, looks like a predator of some sort, and appears to lack the success and intellect of their white peers. Blackness, in this sense, is the the complete opposite of what the Civil Rights Movement transformed it into.

Our society as a whole is implicitly allowing for small regressions like these to occur, yet still wonders why racial tensions remain an issue in our country. 

We've Been Here Before

In class we talked about what ways we have been here before, in regard to the current situation of today's society. Firstly, we see the similar use of language as we did during the time of slavery. Words such as 'lazy' are being used to describe black people, just as words such as 'childish' were being used to describe blacks during the time of enslavement. Another similarity is the use of music. Slaves would sing in order to make it through the days, and in order to create their own culture/society so they could separate themselves from their white counterparts. Today, we see many artists expressing themselves in their art of rap, hip-hop, and just music overall. For example, Kendrick Lamar's song 'Alright' speaks to all the madness that is going on in today's world, but he says we're going to be alright because he is going to bring us joy and comfort through his words and message.

Music is speaking to the movement and providing hope. It can also be used to counter mainstream images. The aspect of non-violence is also prevalent. However, when individuals begin a violent protest it gives a bad image to the cause, when in reality the cause does not support violent protest, but it seems to be producing just that. The cause was not made to say that all lives do not matter, it was meant to address a social issue of this time. These similarities through history allow us to draw a clearer picture as to what might be the solution, or more likely, what we should try to avoid.

Tomi Lahren and the Political Protest

Tomi Lahren is a conservative commentator who recently went on “The Daily Show” with Trevor Noah. She has gotten a lot of attention for her extreme right-wing views as she comments on political happenings and current events, especially related to race.

In the 30-minute interview, Noah called Lahren out specifically for comments she made comparing the KKK to the Black Lives Matter movement. She says, “When there are people in the streets saying, ‘If you see a white person, beat their ass,’ does that not sound reminiscent of the KK or their motives to you?” Noah responds by arguing that there’s a difference between a movement and the people within the movement. I think he’s spot on with this. It’s not a secret that there are individuals who get more aggressive or violent than the collective majority, but it seems irresponsible to associate these individual actions or transgressions with the movement as a whole. The movement is about justice and equity, not the downfall of whites. There may be individuals calling for this, but it is not in conjunction with the purpose of the movement.

Later they move on to discussing Colin Kaepernick and the notion of political protests. Lahren says, “Why would you take your perceived oppression of black people out on the national anthem and our flag? A country that you live in, a country that you benefit from, a country that people of all races have died for.” To which Noah responds, “Maybe you realize that a lot of those people of “every color” who died for this country didn’t have the rights that their fellow servicemen had when they come back to the country after fighting for it.”

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people feel the same way that Lahren does. When it comes to political protests, there is such a lack of understanding or compassion for why it’s occurring in the first place. Her use of the word “perceived” is ridiculous. She speaks as if there is no basis for any kind of unrest when lived experiences and facts of inequity tell us otherwise. She speaks of the flag as if what it represents has done an equal and fair job at representing and fighting for everybody, but again we know this isn’t true.

With her, as well as many others, disgust for people like Colin Kaepernick and his silent, non-violent protest, I wonder what these people propose in terms of a political protest. Should there be none at all? But then how do we call attention to injustices? If violence is not the answer, why is silence not accepted? I truly just don’t see the harm in standing up (or rather sitting down) for justice, especially when it comes at no cost to others. 

Racism in the Obama Presidency

A major characteristic of the presidency is always approval ratings and popular opinion. Especially with the incorporation of mass media into presidential elections, voters and viewers of televised debates and stories form personal opinions about candidates’ character. What is really unfortunate about this is that media bias plays into these personal opinions, feeding the hatred and anger of many voters with negative information about candidates with views opposing those of the networks themselves. One of the most memorable manipulations of this fear and hatred has been in our current president’s term. While he was elected twice and has indeed not driven the country into the ground like many thought, President Obama has faced backlash and hatred from many Americans throughout the past eight years.

This hatred is frightening for several reasons. For one, President Obama was young and somewhat experienced upon entering the office, bearing some resemblance to the description of President Kennedy. Interestingly, Kennedy was much better received at his inauguration and through his presidency than Obama was. While this can be attributed to the political climate of the time and Obama’s entrance into an office dominated by the Republican Party for eight years prior, there is also an element of racial bias. For another point, Obama’s presidency has been riddled with conspiracy theories in the media about his citizenship and religious affiliation, which is also somewhat similar to the backlash Kennedy received for being the first Roman Catholic president. However, the conspiracies with Obama’s connection with Islam are not at all founded in his actual religious affiliation, and only showcase American racism in both anti-black and anti-Muslim settings. Obama has faced challenges that no other candidate has ever had to face, stemming directly from an uninformed hatred that can only be attributed to widespread racism perpetuated by media bias.

This racism isn’t surprising, especially being from the South. What is surprising is how willing people were to accept the widely disproven rumors about President Obama because of internal racist beliefs. I vividly remember someone at my sixth grade lunch table saying that President Obama was going to make everyone “speak Muslim,” and later my tenth grade math teacher preaching about the impending fiscal cliff and the dark times ahead. I even heard people actually call him the antichrist. It is so important that we refer to factual evidence and experience for our personal opinions of presidential candidates rather than any stereotypes, because following stereotypes and incorrect information proposed by media leads to unnecessary difficulties and the perpetuation of racism across the country.

The power of Rap

In class a week or two ago, we were discussing the NWA song “fuck the police.” Professor McKinney said that the song had an important message, but because of the “fuck” part of the verse it instead changed the conversation from a problem with police brutality into a conversation of language. I do not agree with this viewpoint because of what rap was constructed to be. I will never claim to be a historian on rap but I am a fan and as such have noticed some of the trends of power that flows from rap causing it to be problematic for white institutions. 

Just like Black Power and the BBLM, rap is constantly being depicted as thugs whose only function is to create fear. With some people claiming that it promotes sex and violence this however, is not the fear that comes out of rap for white institutions. What rap has given the black community a way of creating its own self-sustaining institution. This is problematic because what blacks have done up to this point, is change existing systems. Now they have shown they can create institutions that not only bring money into their communities but also give them influence on the scale of the white elite. 

This is impactful because when an institution dependent on whites failed, rap was there. For example in black schools we depended on whites in power to give blacks the necessity to teach the children. When this was not reached, there were  countless protests and legal battles to alleviate this problem. This was just black poetry; a platform where blacks could speak their mind and relate to one another going through the same struggle. This is why whites tried so hard to discredit them and take their power away. This, however, became even more difficult when a young white crowd started to like and support their music. 

The fact that these black rappers now have money and influence to give back to their communities has created a powerful voice capable of change. When NWA said “fuck the police” they didn’t care about trying to coddle the whites into understanding how the police brutality problem was for blacks, they were making a statement.  That says if the police or anyone is treating you as less than a person “fuck” them. If you mind your own business and yet you can not get a break “fuck” it. This is a powerful message that blacks needed at the time to keep moving forward. 

Language in sports

Language that revolves around blacks is something that has bothered me for some time now. People with power have crafted language that dehumanizes blacks, thus generating feelings of inferiority. These feelings have seeped into all facets of black life. Sports are no exception, and this community makes it “normal” to describe athletes with different rhetoric based on their race. When watching a basketball game, the black athletes are described as being animated, aggressive, or a natural born talent while their white counterparts are intelligent, hard workers, and deserve everything they receive. 

This, however, was brought into the open when Lebron James, arguably one of the best basketball players of all time, and his business partners were described as a posse. Phil Jackson answered a question in an interview about Lebron and how he felt about him leaving the Miami Heat. Jackson’s response was "You are on the plane, you are with this team. You can’t hold up the whole team because you and your mom and your posse want to spend an extra night in Cleveland." This posse that Pat Riley discussed consisted of four of LeBron's close high school friends with whom he started an agency. When Phil Jackson got an interview after orchestrating a one billion dollar deal with Nike, and the public associated him as someone who only out to get women and cars; for this, he has every reason to feel infuriated and angry. Lebron was able to do something for blacks that most people in his position do not do. He was able to give people a chance, and for some they had never had this opportunity. To the public who witnessed them take advantage of this opportunity to better themselves, and then trivialize their accomplishments and call them a posse this way of thinking is not only hypocritical but hateful. In today's time you do not hear as much outright racial attacks for the most part, but what you do here is backhanded remarks that have double meanings that are aimed at discrediting, marginalizing, and attacking blacks and other marginalized groups. 

The 13th

Professor McKinney began the class by asking us to reflect on the question “is the Constitution was a proslavery document?” My answer to that question changed after having viewed the 13th, and it was then that I realized that the Constitution is not a proslavery document. In this documentary, the audience was shown how the government abolished slavery while simultaneously allowing the institution to stay hidden within the law. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, states that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." As a result of this, racism and injustice shifted into a more hidden fight. My argument at the beginning of class was in alignment with what the writers of the 13th amendment wanted to achieve. This want included the desire for blacks to be enslaved, without the title of slavery by creating the illusion that systematic oppressive obstacles placed against blacks were a byproduct of their over imagination. 

Immediately after slavery was abolished, there was a movement where whites started to enslave blacks by convincing other whites that blacks are animals and criminals. So, the whites would try to make blacks appear more dangerous than whites, something this still occurs today. When a group of black kids are seen hanging around, it is automatically assumed they are a gang, while a group of whites is a fraternity. This is how the whites with power who benefit from the systems of slavery like Alex benefit from perpetuating this reality. 

When politicians would say “we need to crack down on crime” or “the war on crime” these phrases represent the strategic plans to imprison more blacks than whites; once they became prisoners they were forced to complete labor without pay while their slave owners or companies collected the profit. In addition, when a person is deemed a criminal, in the eyes of society they are viewed as dangerous which makes them unable to find jobs and in most cases results in stealing or selling drugs to make ends meet. American prisons are sold to the populous as a place where we punish our criminals and rehabilitate them. If this is the case, then why is it that after going to jail once, the system is built to force you to return? Why is it that when you are found with crack you are placed in jail for years, but when one are found with cocaine you get a slap on your wrist? So what I truly now believe is that the Constitution is a pro-slavery document aimed to try and preserve slavery under the radar. With all that being said I will leave you with one of the most troubling parts of the 13th, you get to hear Lee Atwater talk about the Southern strategy in an interview in 1981. "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."

"Good People are Separated by Politics"

I have recently read a book titled, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Personally, I am not huge into politics because I believe that it can bring out the worst in people. However, recently I have started to notice that the reason it can bring the worst out in people, is because some people genuinely do care about the country, and the people that live within it, so they become passionate about the subject. Although, this passion that is exhibited from both sides is what often probes an argument. Society has come so far, yet we have pushed each other so far away. This book really gives a good understanding as to why people are separated by their political beliefs, and even insight as to how some individuals can change, for a period of time, their conservative or liberal beliefs.

To understand why people with different beliefs tend to argue, you must understand that is deals with the inability to comprehend where one's beliefs come from, and how the other individual understands these beliefs. To understand others beliefs, he says you must first understand the moral sense of people and how they differ for the individual. This moral sense is comprised of several modules that are affected by internal and external factors. "The internal factors include our personality and its development, while the external factors include the environment in which we are raised and the particular experiences we have. It is these internal and external factors - which differ for all of us - that explain the plurality of moral and political views and ideologies across cultures, as well as within the same culture across individuals". 

It is evident that people are having different experiences within the country, and throughout the entire world. However, we should try to comprehend others before we pass judgement or rush to any conclusions. All people are different and all people have different opinions. It is our part as people and as Americans to respect these differing opinions. It is not until these opinions begin to harm groups or individuals that they should be confronted with distaste. 



Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books, 2012.

"[Don't] Cast Down Your Buckets"

In late October, we read and discussed Booker T. Washington's "Atlanta Compromise" speech. As we saw in class, the speech was and still is not  by everyone. In fact, people, like myself and Zaria, firmly disagree with the "compromise" Washington wants black people to make in his speech.

In what is regarded as "one of the most important and influential speeches in American history", Washington argues that the American negro and America are comparable to a sailor and lost ship at sea. When the ship and its crew are lost at sea and dying of thirst, they are told to cast down their buckets where they are. Once they do this, the sailors realize that the sea water is fresh, sparkling water. 

Following this analogy, Washington is saying that the American negro is dying of thirst. No, not an actual thirst for water, but the metaphorical thirst for freedom and civil rights. The issue is that the negro is being told to "cast down your buckets where you are". In theory, that sounds like great advice. Washington attempts to persuade black people that they should cast down their buckets into “agriculture, mechanics, in commerce, in domestic service, and in the professions”. This message to the American negro, in that current moment, culminates with them being told that they should “learn to dignify and glorify common labour” and “no race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem”. By this point, this speech is empowering black people and recognizing the reality of what it means to be oppressed. He points out how black people are not privileged and will always start from the bottom thus requiring them to work harder to reach the top one day. Up until this point, I wholeheartedly agree with Washington. However, that changes when he addresses “those of the white race” who are listening to him.

When addressing his white audience, Washington starts making huge concessions to reach a compromise. I don’t use the word ‘concession’ lightly either. One could even argue that Washington is using his influence to set his people back rather than progress toward changes for the betterment of black people. The first concession is asking white people to “cast down their buckets” among the eight million negroes in the South. This time though, he is asking for white people to provide aid to black people – to provide field work and farm land for black people. And how does Washington justify this? By explaining how good of a slave black people were. Are you serious? He argues for assistance by saying his people were really good at being a white man’s property and handling his work?! This is ridiculous, but it doesn’t end there.

Washington affirms his previous argument by stating “as we have proved our loyalty to you in the past”, he offers the following promises:

-         “We shall stand by you with a devotion that no foreigner can approach”

-         “[We shall] be ready to lay down our lives, if need be, in your defense”

-         “[We shall] interlac[e] our industrial, commercial, civil, and religious life with yours”

However, he does provide a catch-all phrase to these promises by adding “in a way that shall make the interests of both races one” and “we can be separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential” that suggests these concessions are in fact compromises. But the only thing being compromised is the national effort for civil rights and equality.

The issue with these promises is that they sound like the formation of a codependency between the races, when it is a one-sided dependency. Black people, as Washington would have it, would rely upon white people for jobs working the land. Black people would be the best people to work for white people, since they were outstanding at being enslaved. Black people would be willing to lay down the lives for the people who provide them work (I would say boss, but the word in this context is synonymous with master). These “compromises” don’t empower black people to be independent and embrace realities, they cripple them.

Most of these black people were born into or raised in slavery. They may have certain things that they can call their own, such as their songs or religious practices, but most, if not all, of what made up a black person was created by white men, So when Washington seeks to interlace the aforementioned parts of black life with white life, he is going back to way black people were in slavery. A slave’s religion was interlaced with their master’s faith. A slave’s commercial and industrial life was founded upon their master’s. Most of all, a slave’s life was far from being a civil life. Despite this clear evidence of what this interlacing of the two races will lead to, Washington still concedes it to white people.

I recognize that Booker T. Washington was arguing what he thought was best for black people, but I don’t think these concessions were the best way of pursuing equality. In fact, Washington does not even touch on black people pursuing equality or progressing toward a future that is better than their current post-slavery moment. He is persuading black people to work within the confines of Jim Crow, to embrace the mentality of separate but equal, and to rely upon the people who enslaved them for work. Washington’s speech is important and very influential, but for all of the wrong reasons.

Source: Louis R. Harlan, ed., The Booker T. Washington Papers, Vol. 3, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1974), 583–587.

"Dear Persecuted College Conservative"

This morning I read an article titled “Dear ‘Persecuted’ College Conservative: You Are Not Oppressed.” The article is in response to another article titled “Check Your Liberal Privilege.” The article I read attempts to express why it is so incendiary for conservatives, or perhaps just non-liberals, to draw connections between their discomfort in openly expressing their views vs. “being a member of a historically oppressed group.” While some viewpoints are definitely promoted in college environments while others are more often discouraged, particularly in a liberal arts environment, it is ridiculous to undermine the experiences of “legacies of violence, intimidation, and hatred,” especially when this legacy is very much alive.

The article points out much of what we’ve discussed in our class—we’ve been learning history from the white perspective and mostly about the white experience. This is not to say only white people are conservatives, but it is important to recognize that our society is based around the people of privilege, and it is those same people of privilege that are offended when their opinion isn’t continuously celebrated.

The article continues to eventually express sympathy for any kind of perceived silencing of the conservative voice, but still, the author goes on to try to explain why liberals are speaking out so loudly. The author explains that conservative (also calling out whites, men, and heterosexuals) views and issues have been repeatedly at the forefront of our society. Liberals or their views/issues, the author says, “have not only been ignored, but actively and violently silenced for just as many centuries.”

All in all the article sums up to agree that there needs to be healthier dialogues taking place. People of privilege on both sides of the equation need to use said privilege to dismantle the misunderstandings of both viewpoints. I feel like many of us would agree with this and have been arguing for this throughout the semester. I think most of us agree that in order to move forward we must all be able to discuss openly and honestly with one another. But this is more difficult than we want it to be. It means listening to viewpoints that are contrary to what we believe in and trying to understand another perspective. Our views become so innate to who we are that we have a tendency to give up or shut out anything that departs from this. And while this article is aimed at conservatives, its important for everyone to remember to take the time to understand why certain viewpoints exist, what the limits of these are, and what brought them about in the first place. There is a backstory and history to everything and that shouldn’t be ignored when trying to move forward.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-persecuted-college-conservative_us_584a4179e4b0151082221a02

More Than A #Hashtag

In early July the nation was shook yet again by not one but two more cases of African American men being killed by the police, that were caught on camera. Alton Sterling and Philando Castile became two more names to add to the unfathomably long list of young, black men who's lives have been cut short by police. In recent years their seems to be an awakening of sorts that has transpired within the country in relation to police brutality, yet these injustices against people of color have been purveyed within the nation for centuries. Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray are just a few of the names who have made it to the 24-hour news cycle, many crimes against men and women of color are unknown by the public. In the age of social media, expressing a desire for change and a sense of outrage is easier than ever. With a new wave of the civil rights movement being ushered in and with the rise of Black Lives Matter, it is impossible to ignore the global conscience that is growing. The crimes against people of color and their subsequent disenfranchisement isn’t something that is just now beginning, it is a tradition that is woven into the very fabric of our country. However, the rise of social media and technology have purveyed the availability of proof of crimes and discrimination.

Philando Castile’s girlfriend live streamed his shooting to Facebook. They were stopped at a traffic stop for a broken tail light, and when officer Jeronimo Yanez spotted Castile’s firearm—that he had a license to carry—he assumed he was reaching for it and shot him without haste. The video is traumatic to say the least. Castile’s fiancé is somehow composed as she explains the officer has just shot her partner four times while he bleeds to death next to her, she pleads for him to please not be dead while he gushes blood in the driver’s seat. Alton Sterling was shot by police a day prior to Castile in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He was shot in the back after being tackled to the ground. The video of his shooting was captured by a bystander and instantly became a viral video on the internet and in the news. Aside from being shot and killed by police for essentially being black men, Castile and Sterling also became plastered all over social media within the subsequent days. Their names being turned into hashtags. As a gesture of remembrance and protest against injustice, social media outlets such as twitter and Instagram both began to circulate #PhilandoCastile and #AltonSterling in conjunction with #BlackLivesMatter, although this creates dialogue--which is a crucial aspect of the movement—it does little to create real involvement in the issues. By tweeting about the video of Alton Sterling being pummeled to the ground outside a convenient store or posting an image in support of Black Lives Matter you are engaging in the conversation, however; social media can often give people a false sense of involvement. The core of the fight against structures of oppression lay in ground work and activism, just like the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s. Although social media platforms serve as a place to unite people for certain causes, it can also give people a false sense of participation. By marking you are interested in a Black Lives Matter event or sharing an article on another case of police brutality you are taking a stand in support of the movement , however; you are not doing anything to directly influence the movement. Therefore, it must be said that these victims are more than hashtags, they are fathers, mothers, sons and daughters who's lives ended prematurely. It is crucial we view them as more than a fixture on our newsfeed. 

The "Right" Way to Protest

One of the things I have had to adjust to in my understanding of the Civil Rights Movement and our contemporary moment is the idea of the “right way to protest.” Because there have been numerous protests against police brutality and anti-black bias in legal proceedings since the nonviolent Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s, many Americans have formed their own conception about the correct way to make a change or to bring up an injustice for public acknowledgement. Unfortunately, those conceptions have led a great number of people to believe that nonviolent protest is the “correct” way to protest, and that conclusion has led to a great deal of shaming towards those protesting. Since those protesting have been members and allies of the black community in a great deal of these cases, the shame has also perpetuated anti-black sentiments and stereotypes among whites that have persisted across centuries in the US.

One of the things I struggle with is my personal opinion on the most effective way to protest. I have come to realize that my opinion on the right way to protest should have no effect on those actually protesting, but I also consider the nonviolent movement led by Dr. King and other affiliated organizations to be both tactfully brilliant and morally conscious. I have read a good deal of Dr. King’s speeches and writings, and am very moved by the philosophical basis in Gandhi’s work and biblical scripture. The movement’s basis in principles understood and accepted by white and black Americans appealed to internal morality rather than fear or anger. While it is obvious that there are flaws in this, especially that the entire movement appeals to the oppressor rather than purely expressing the sentiments of the oppressed, I do think that the appeal to white morality through media and scripture was brilliantly executed. It may take away the element of empowerment and expression from protest that is so vital to the protest’s momentum, but the nonviolent movement had considerable successes in law if not in practice.

I absolutely think that the Civil Rights Movement orchestrated in the 1960s was circumstantial as well, and that this type of movement would be less effective today because the mass broadcasting of both the movement and the Vietnam War normalized coverage of war and violence in the media. There has also been somewhat of a shift away from widespread Christianity in the progressive social climate of the 2000s, which would take away much of the movement’s audience and white allies. I understand that assigning a “correct” way to protest can be circumstantially implausible or problematic to those protesting, but it is difficult to reconcile this understanding with my personal love of Dr. King’s nonviolent principles employed in the Civil Rights Movement.