4/25/09
First up, I'd like to ask for some feedback on this one. I have a lot of questions... sorry it's kind of a long post but...
Story.
Background knowledge: There is one Black kid on the distance team in track / cross country team.
The other day at practice, some of us were stretching after our run, and he says, "I'm not trying to sound racist but..."
This is when I kind of step in and say, "Jon, you can't be racist..." The comment is kind of brushed aside by him, but picked up by other people. But he finishes his thought and says "I've noticed that when it gets sunny outside or when it gets to be summer time, White people's hair gets blonder."
My friend (who took an Anthropology course last semester entitled "Race and Racism") proceeded to argue with me. "Joe CAN be a racist." I explained that because of the definition of racism (a system of advantage based on race), he can't be a racist, because since he's a person of color he is in the "oppressed" category, not the "oppressor" category. Sure, he can be prejudiced, but not racist.
Anyway, after having this conversation a second time (see earlier post), I've come to realize that racism is kind of contextual. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure if this makes sense. The same situation Aaron was talking about in class at the beginning of the semester (his argument: in East Saint Louis, Black people can be racist against White people) came up again.
Sooo, pretty much from these discussions with others, "-isms" all depend on the context of the situation. If you're in a location where women are the dominant sex (I'm not sure if this is true anywhere, but go with me on this one), then they can be sexist against men. Same with race. Any place where one race has power over other races - where there is a system of advantage based on race, it depends on who has the advantage.
My argument was that since we are in America, where White people are systematically advantaged, Joe cannot be racist. But, what I wonder - is could this be scaled down to a different societal level? Could this be at a community level where Aaron's example of East Saint Louis would be valid?
Another question arose during this argument (and as a result, I'd like to say neither of us backed down, but there are no hard feelings - we just dropped the subject). Who makes this definition of racism? My question is: is this a Psychological definition? Because my friend who took the Anthropology class Race and Racism was not exposed to this same definition. And she's not an ignorant person - she's really smart... so something tells me that different classes learn different definitions - or something. It just confused me so much - especially this coming from her because she has been educated on this subject, so she should know the definition of racism, assuming it's a universal definition, which it seems isn't. I'd really like some feedback on this. This is something that's been kind of bothering me for a couple of days now.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Being an Ally.
4/21/09
Allies. It's something that I most commonly heard when IWU Pride Alliance had posters around campus (that said LGBTA - or something of that nature). I never really had a definition of it, but I vaguely knew about what it entailed. It was someone from a dominant group who supported a minority or someone frequently discriminated against. After reading Ayvazian's "Interruption the Cycle of Oppression: The Role of Allies as Agents of Change," I realize how important allies are in fighting "-isms." She explains that it is when allies get together and say "No" is when real history starts to change.
"'When a critical mass of white people join together, rise up, and shout a thunderous 'No' to racism, we will actually alter the course of history" (600).
From a historical context, this is so true, and it's nothing I have ever even considered before. Take the right to vote, for example. The people who actually made the change had to be White men to allow people of African descent (and later, women) the right to vote.
People in the minority position, however active they may be in fighting racism, will only succeed so long as the people in power (Whites) support the view. Because, that just makes logical sense - those in power are the ones who make the changes in our country.
Although it is a very difficult task, I definitely think it is possible to make big changes to fight racism. The article showed the same results as our class earlier this year, when asked to name some prominent White anti-racists. Almost no one could name any (in our class, or in the example class in this article) (601). Maybe this says something about our education - that either students are not learning about White people who are actively anti-racist in history classes or, they are and it's more difficult to remember. I think it might have something to do with social psychology that the words "White" and "racist" go better together than "White" and "anti-racist." So White racists may be more easily remembered than White anti-racists such as Lucretia Mott or William Lloyd Garrison.
But, something I worry about, in my role as an ally is the difficult work. Ayvazian discusses that a lot of times you don't seen the effects of your hard work, or sometimes you lack a support system. Personally, I am more worried about the latter. Due to the responses I have received in the past semester, when I bring up these topics, it worries me that I will have no outlet (as I did in this class) to tell about my experiences and talk about how they have affected me.
A really great quote that the author brought up in this text that really stuck with me was:
"I will act as though what I do makes a difference." - William James.
Its a good quote to keep you motivated and keep you working toward a goal, even if you don't see the results right away. The more you work at something, the more likely you'll see results down the road. It's something I'm going to have to work on. I feel as though this class really did change me, and I would like to continue that into the future, but it's going to be hard.
Which makes me think of my action plan: I'm REALLY excited about it. I can't wait until we finally get to submit our proposal to Dr. Folse next fall. I really hope "Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?" gets chosen for the first year summer reading book. I think we have a good shot at it, but I don't want to get my hopes up too high. AND how flippin' cool would it be to have Dr. Tatum come to IWU to talk about this topic. It would be awesome.
Allies. It's something that I most commonly heard when IWU Pride Alliance had posters around campus (that said LGBTA - or something of that nature). I never really had a definition of it, but I vaguely knew about what it entailed. It was someone from a dominant group who supported a minority or someone frequently discriminated against. After reading Ayvazian's "Interruption the Cycle of Oppression: The Role of Allies as Agents of Change," I realize how important allies are in fighting "-isms." She explains that it is when allies get together and say "No" is when real history starts to change.
"'When a critical mass of white people join together, rise up, and shout a thunderous 'No' to racism, we will actually alter the course of history" (600).
From a historical context, this is so true, and it's nothing I have ever even considered before. Take the right to vote, for example. The people who actually made the change had to be White men to allow people of African descent (and later, women) the right to vote.
People in the minority position, however active they may be in fighting racism, will only succeed so long as the people in power (Whites) support the view. Because, that just makes logical sense - those in power are the ones who make the changes in our country.
Although it is a very difficult task, I definitely think it is possible to make big changes to fight racism. The article showed the same results as our class earlier this year, when asked to name some prominent White anti-racists. Almost no one could name any (in our class, or in the example class in this article) (601). Maybe this says something about our education - that either students are not learning about White people who are actively anti-racist in history classes or, they are and it's more difficult to remember. I think it might have something to do with social psychology that the words "White" and "racist" go better together than "White" and "anti-racist." So White racists may be more easily remembered than White anti-racists such as Lucretia Mott or William Lloyd Garrison.
But, something I worry about, in my role as an ally is the difficult work. Ayvazian discusses that a lot of times you don't seen the effects of your hard work, or sometimes you lack a support system. Personally, I am more worried about the latter. Due to the responses I have received in the past semester, when I bring up these topics, it worries me that I will have no outlet (as I did in this class) to tell about my experiences and talk about how they have affected me.
A really great quote that the author brought up in this text that really stuck with me was:
"I will act as though what I do makes a difference." - William James.
Its a good quote to keep you motivated and keep you working toward a goal, even if you don't see the results right away. The more you work at something, the more likely you'll see results down the road. It's something I'm going to have to work on. I feel as though this class really did change me, and I would like to continue that into the future, but it's going to be hard.
Which makes me think of my action plan: I'm REALLY excited about it. I can't wait until we finally get to submit our proposal to Dr. Folse next fall. I really hope "Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?" gets chosen for the first year summer reading book. I think we have a good shot at it, but I don't want to get my hopes up too high. AND how flippin' cool would it be to have Dr. Tatum come to IWU to talk about this topic. It would be awesome.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Going Home.
4/12/09
It happens every time I go home. Well, maybe not EVERY time. But enough for me to notice it. My dad brings race into some conversation where it's not even relevant. Friday night, I had dinner with my parents at this sports bar / tavern place where ESPN was on.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4055343
This story came on the TV. Nick Adenhart, LA Angels' pitcher was killed by a drunk driver. This guy was charged with murder. Anyway, they showed the drunk driver's picture on the TV.
My dad said something like, he looks Hispanic, doesn't he?
Completely irrelevant. I brought this up - I told him that it had nothing to do with anything - so what if he was Hispanic, White, Black Arabic, Asian, etc?
My dad agreed that it had nothing to do with the story, but just said, well, he's a murderer, that's all. Kind of this passive-aggressive tone. Really frustrating.
But, that's not all. Saturday night, we were eating dinner again, and my dad brings up this news story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090412/ap_on_re_af/piracy
Pirates took a ship's captain hostage (Today - Sunday, he was freed). This story really has absolutely nothing to do with race.
But he claims that this guy wouldn't have been captured when Bush was president because of Bush's active military. Okay. Whatever. My dad is conservative.
Next, he says that this guy is being held hostage and Obama isn't going to try to get him released because he is White.
WHAT?!?!?!? That doesn't even make sense.
And I couldn't take it. I finally said it. "Why do you make everything about race? This has nothing to do with race. And you did the same thing last night at dinner. The fact that the drunk driver was Latino has nothing to do with anything. It could have been anyone. And why do you have such a problem with Obama as a president?" It was not a pretty dinner table conversation.
The subject was dropped thereafter, and race hasn't been made an issue since. At least not in front of me. Maybe he'll realize not to say things like that in front of me. Who knows. It's so frustrating.
It happens every time I go home. Well, maybe not EVERY time. But enough for me to notice it. My dad brings race into some conversation where it's not even relevant. Friday night, I had dinner with my parents at this sports bar / tavern place where ESPN was on.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4055343
This story came on the TV. Nick Adenhart, LA Angels' pitcher was killed by a drunk driver. This guy was charged with murder. Anyway, they showed the drunk driver's picture on the TV.
My dad said something like, he looks Hispanic, doesn't he?
Completely irrelevant. I brought this up - I told him that it had nothing to do with anything - so what if he was Hispanic, White, Black Arabic, Asian, etc?
My dad agreed that it had nothing to do with the story, but just said, well, he's a murderer, that's all. Kind of this passive-aggressive tone. Really frustrating.
But, that's not all. Saturday night, we were eating dinner again, and my dad brings up this news story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090412/ap_on_re_af/piracy
Pirates took a ship's captain hostage (Today - Sunday, he was freed). This story really has absolutely nothing to do with race.
But he claims that this guy wouldn't have been captured when Bush was president because of Bush's active military. Okay. Whatever. My dad is conservative.
Next, he says that this guy is being held hostage and Obama isn't going to try to get him released because he is White.
WHAT?!?!?!? That doesn't even make sense.
And I couldn't take it. I finally said it. "Why do you make everything about race? This has nothing to do with race. And you did the same thing last night at dinner. The fact that the drunk driver was Latino has nothing to do with anything. It could have been anyone. And why do you have such a problem with Obama as a president?" It was not a pretty dinner table conversation.
The subject was dropped thereafter, and race hasn't been made an issue since. At least not in front of me. Maybe he'll realize not to say things like that in front of me. Who knows. It's so frustrating.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Affirmative Action & Group Dialogue
Thinking about our class discussion this past week, it makes me really sad to realize that that session was our last class discussion. I have really enjoyed the open atmosphere that our class has on the topic of racism. I felt that my opinion varied from the class as a whole, but I felt like my opinions were still respected.
I thought Steele had brought up some good points in his article: shocking statistics that show that affirmative action isn't working (the income gap - for every $1.00 the White American family earns, a Latino family earns $0.12, and a Black family earns $0.10. Or the fact that only 26% of Black students are graduating from a four year college in SIX years compared to the national average of 54% graduating in FOUR years).
Affirmative action isn't working, and we really need to focus on our failing education system.
But part of my stance that I made in my paper changed since our class discussion. Steele argued that affirmative action may cause lower self esteem in those receiving special treatment. Upon reading this article - I agreed with this statement. But then I read Kivel (after I finished my paper).
He forced me to think about putting myself in a similar position:
Have I ever received something based on the fact that (I'll use personal examples):
1. My father is a Vietnam Veteran (I've probably received something because of this)
2. My mother is a University of Illinois alum (I was accepted there - maybe that's why I got in?)
3. I am a Wesleyan student (my boss at the hospital is an IWU alum)
4. I am a female (maybe that helped me get into college?)
I could go on. But do I feel like I didn't deserve some of these things? Did I even think that the reason I got accepted to a university or for a job was because of one of these things? No. I felt like I deserved it. And my self-esteem was not harmed in the process. So, putting myself into this perspective makes me disagree with Steele's opinion on this section.
I really appreciate how a single group discussion can give different insights to an opinion other than your own. Discussing topics, such as racism and affirmative action, with other people can really allow you to branch out and think in different ways. I'm really going to miss this class.
But, I think I am more comfortable bringing up this topic with others since I have had the dialogue that we had in this class. I'm getting to nostalgic. I'm finished.
I thought Steele had brought up some good points in his article: shocking statistics that show that affirmative action isn't working (the income gap - for every $1.00 the White American family earns, a Latino family earns $0.12, and a Black family earns $0.10. Or the fact that only 26% of Black students are graduating from a four year college in SIX years compared to the national average of 54% graduating in FOUR years).
Affirmative action isn't working, and we really need to focus on our failing education system.
But part of my stance that I made in my paper changed since our class discussion. Steele argued that affirmative action may cause lower self esteem in those receiving special treatment. Upon reading this article - I agreed with this statement. But then I read Kivel (after I finished my paper).
He forced me to think about putting myself in a similar position:
Have I ever received something based on the fact that (I'll use personal examples):
1. My father is a Vietnam Veteran (I've probably received something because of this)
2. My mother is a University of Illinois alum (I was accepted there - maybe that's why I got in?)
3. I am a Wesleyan student (my boss at the hospital is an IWU alum)
4. I am a female (maybe that helped me get into college?)
I could go on. But do I feel like I didn't deserve some of these things? Did I even think that the reason I got accepted to a university or for a job was because of one of these things? No. I felt like I deserved it. And my self-esteem was not harmed in the process. So, putting myself into this perspective makes me disagree with Steele's opinion on this section.
I really appreciate how a single group discussion can give different insights to an opinion other than your own. Discussing topics, such as racism and affirmative action, with other people can really allow you to branch out and think in different ways. I'm really going to miss this class.
But, I think I am more comfortable bringing up this topic with others since I have had the dialogue that we had in this class. I'm getting to nostalgic. I'm finished.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Saga Conversation, or Argument, Rather, on Racism
3/30/09
My last blog and my last paper left off with me wondering how to have a conversation about racism or race. Well, guess what? I finally did it. I got over my fear and just made it happen. There was a lot of arguing, but I'll write out the run-down of the situation:
I was at dinner one night after practice with the cross country / distance track team. I'm not sure what the conversation had been going on before it all happened, but, one of the guys on the team said, "You can say something racist or a racist joke and not actually be racist." Here was my turn to jump in. I had the option of just sitting there and listening to whatever conversation was about to go on, or I could say something.
Me: "John - did you just say that you can say something racist and not actually be racist?"
John: "Yeah...?"
Me: "Well, isn't saying racist things perpetuating racism? So, by doing this, wouldn't you actually be continuing racism? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
That's how it all got started.
Somehow, the topic changed to if black people could be racist. I, of course, used my knowledge that I had gained in this class, to say no, that racism is "a system of advantage based on race." That only the oppressor could be the racist. So I explained that only white people can be racist. But then the question (very similar to what Aaron had proposed in class near the beginning of the semester) of if you're in an all-minority location, can't those people be racist against white people? I explained that that would be prejudice - not racism, because racism ("a system of advantage") exists at a societal level.
So someone tried to argue that in Australia (I think that was the example they used?) that over 50% of the population is Black - so since that country's majority is Black does that make them the domineering race? Would this "system of advantage" assist these people? I explained that I didn't know a lot about the culture and social structure of Australia, so I didn't know the answer to that question.
I tried to explain that the DEFINITION of racism was this system of advantage based on race. Then I got people arguing with me about who made the definition and why is it the definition. Geez. I just explained to them that it was the psychological definition - I didn't know otherwise. But then I tried to use the metaphor of sexism - it's a "system of advantage based on sex." I explained that men can only be sexist, not women. Wow. Did people freak out about that one. Two of my male teammates explained to me that they were not hired by female women for a job because she was sexist. I explained, well, she's not sexist because she's not putting women down, but she very well is prejudiced, and what she did is wrong. But, by the standards of the definition - she is not sexist.
This conversation was ridiculous. I really felt like everyone at the table was attacking me with these arguments that just aren't correct. It makes me think about what I can do for my action plan to help people understand actual definitions and understand what it is that they argue so passionately about. How can you make a valid argument about something if you don't even have the correct definition about what it is. I'd really like to help get rid of some of the ignorance on this campus.
My last blog and my last paper left off with me wondering how to have a conversation about racism or race. Well, guess what? I finally did it. I got over my fear and just made it happen. There was a lot of arguing, but I'll write out the run-down of the situation:
I was at dinner one night after practice with the cross country / distance track team. I'm not sure what the conversation had been going on before it all happened, but, one of the guys on the team said, "You can say something racist or a racist joke and not actually be racist." Here was my turn to jump in. I had the option of just sitting there and listening to whatever conversation was about to go on, or I could say something.
Me: "John - did you just say that you can say something racist and not actually be racist?"
John: "Yeah...?"
Me: "Well, isn't saying racist things perpetuating racism? So, by doing this, wouldn't you actually be continuing racism? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
That's how it all got started.
Somehow, the topic changed to if black people could be racist. I, of course, used my knowledge that I had gained in this class, to say no, that racism is "a system of advantage based on race." That only the oppressor could be the racist. So I explained that only white people can be racist. But then the question (very similar to what Aaron had proposed in class near the beginning of the semester) of if you're in an all-minority location, can't those people be racist against white people? I explained that that would be prejudice - not racism, because racism ("a system of advantage") exists at a societal level.
So someone tried to argue that in Australia (I think that was the example they used?) that over 50% of the population is Black - so since that country's majority is Black does that make them the domineering race? Would this "system of advantage" assist these people? I explained that I didn't know a lot about the culture and social structure of Australia, so I didn't know the answer to that question.
I tried to explain that the DEFINITION of racism was this system of advantage based on race. Then I got people arguing with me about who made the definition and why is it the definition. Geez. I just explained to them that it was the psychological definition - I didn't know otherwise. But then I tried to use the metaphor of sexism - it's a "system of advantage based on sex." I explained that men can only be sexist, not women. Wow. Did people freak out about that one. Two of my male teammates explained to me that they were not hired by female women for a job because she was sexist. I explained, well, she's not sexist because she's not putting women down, but she very well is prejudiced, and what she did is wrong. But, by the standards of the definition - she is not sexist.
This conversation was ridiculous. I really felt like everyone at the table was attacking me with these arguments that just aren't correct. It makes me think about what I can do for my action plan to help people understand actual definitions and understand what it is that they argue so passionately about. How can you make a valid argument about something if you don't even have the correct definition about what it is. I'd really like to help get rid of some of the ignorance on this campus.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Dialogue On Racism
3/24/09
Writing my "State of Dialogue On Campus" paper really made me think a lot about how much I have grown since taking this course. Before taking Psychology of Racism, I knew that racism existed, but I just didn't know how much it actually affected me. I've become more perceptive about conversations about race and racism. And racist comments and jokes bother me. A lot. But, as we talked about in class, I still don't know how to respond when I hear an off-color comment. I hear someone say something and there are so many things buzzing through my mind: "that's rooted in old stereotypes," "that's completely incorrect," "totally ignorant." Keeping silent maintains the status quo that is racism. I can't just keep silent anymore. Well, I can - I just don't want to. But I need to think about how I can have some sort of response. Someone in class said that when they're caught in this situation they just tell their friend to "quit being an asshole." That works - when you're with friends, or friends who have a sense of humor where that would be appropriate. But what about in the context of work? When you're with someone who you just know as an acquaintance? Totally inappropriate. How would you respond?
See, this is where I'm stuck. I hate offending others, but I hate staying complacent. Ugh. I'm so frustrated. Maybe this is something I can keep thinking about for my action plan?
I read the articles for class this week after completing my paper, and I realized that so many of the things that I had noticed on campus were exactly what these articles were talking about. The Worthington article "Color-Blind Racial Attitudes, Social Dominance Orientation, Racial-Ethnic Group Membership and College Students' Perceptions of Campus Climate" found that unawareness of racial privilege was associated with more positive perceptions of both Racial Ethnic Campus Climate and General Campus Climate. These students were more likely to perceive that everything is all good and dandy for ethnic minorities because they don't perceive that racism is happening in their world. I could definitely see how this could happen - I didn't even THINK about race and racial relations on IWU's campus until I was educated in this course. White students were more likely to rate RECC as higher than minority students because they simply don't have the same background of discrimination as students of color.
Also, I found the Hogan article interesting. One thing that the authors point out is that "students who enroll in diversity courses relatively early during their tenure are possibly more tolerant than students who delay completing the requirement." I definitely see how this could be true. My freshman year (I went to the University of Illinois freshman year, and then transferred) I completely avoided my US Diversity General Education requirement because I thought it would be "boring." I did a lot of growing up between freshman year and now. I was very conservative and ignorant coming into college. It's not that I was intolerant, I just wasn't really interested in learning anything about different cultures - or even my own culture. I was kind of in my own little bubble. Anyway, sophomore year, I didn't get into any of the classes I wanted to second semester, and as a result, I was forced to take my US Diversity class. The only one that was open was Women's Studies (ugh). I was kind of an anti-feminist going into the class, but the class actually changed my outlook a lot. In the end I'm really glad I took that class because it increased my interest in learning things about oppression, and sparked my interest in taking this course when I saw it listed.
The Spanierman article and the Hogan article talked about diversity classes as general education classes, and how they help students realize that there is a need for change (unfortunately all of the effects don't last). This makes students want to change, and I think more students need to be exposed to classes about race and racism to open up dialogue on campus about these topics. Making this class a general education credit (US Diversity?) would encourage more interest in the class, which would result in more students interested in gaining exposure to the problems of racism.
I don't have dialogues about racism like we witnessed in the Color of Fear video. That conversation was so moving to see everyone so open about their feelings and experiences on the topic. I was thinking about why I don't engage in conversations about race more often. Is it that much of a "touchy subject" that no one wants to go near it? No one wants to offend others? Or is it that I'm just so sheltered and all of my close friends (except one) are White?
Writing my "State of Dialogue On Campus" paper really made me think a lot about how much I have grown since taking this course. Before taking Psychology of Racism, I knew that racism existed, but I just didn't know how much it actually affected me. I've become more perceptive about conversations about race and racism. And racist comments and jokes bother me. A lot. But, as we talked about in class, I still don't know how to respond when I hear an off-color comment. I hear someone say something and there are so many things buzzing through my mind: "that's rooted in old stereotypes," "that's completely incorrect," "totally ignorant." Keeping silent maintains the status quo that is racism. I can't just keep silent anymore. Well, I can - I just don't want to. But I need to think about how I can have some sort of response. Someone in class said that when they're caught in this situation they just tell their friend to "quit being an asshole." That works - when you're with friends, or friends who have a sense of humor where that would be appropriate. But what about in the context of work? When you're with someone who you just know as an acquaintance? Totally inappropriate. How would you respond?
See, this is where I'm stuck. I hate offending others, but I hate staying complacent. Ugh. I'm so frustrated. Maybe this is something I can keep thinking about for my action plan?
I read the articles for class this week after completing my paper, and I realized that so many of the things that I had noticed on campus were exactly what these articles were talking about. The Worthington article "Color-Blind Racial Attitudes, Social Dominance Orientation, Racial-Ethnic Group Membership and College Students' Perceptions of Campus Climate" found that unawareness of racial privilege was associated with more positive perceptions of both Racial Ethnic Campus Climate and General Campus Climate. These students were more likely to perceive that everything is all good and dandy for ethnic minorities because they don't perceive that racism is happening in their world. I could definitely see how this could happen - I didn't even THINK about race and racial relations on IWU's campus until I was educated in this course. White students were more likely to rate RECC as higher than minority students because they simply don't have the same background of discrimination as students of color.
Also, I found the Hogan article interesting. One thing that the authors point out is that "students who enroll in diversity courses relatively early during their tenure are possibly more tolerant than students who delay completing the requirement." I definitely see how this could be true. My freshman year (I went to the University of Illinois freshman year, and then transferred) I completely avoided my US Diversity General Education requirement because I thought it would be "boring." I did a lot of growing up between freshman year and now. I was very conservative and ignorant coming into college. It's not that I was intolerant, I just wasn't really interested in learning anything about different cultures - or even my own culture. I was kind of in my own little bubble. Anyway, sophomore year, I didn't get into any of the classes I wanted to second semester, and as a result, I was forced to take my US Diversity class. The only one that was open was Women's Studies (ugh). I was kind of an anti-feminist going into the class, but the class actually changed my outlook a lot. In the end I'm really glad I took that class because it increased my interest in learning things about oppression, and sparked my interest in taking this course when I saw it listed.
The Spanierman article and the Hogan article talked about diversity classes as general education classes, and how they help students realize that there is a need for change (unfortunately all of the effects don't last). This makes students want to change, and I think more students need to be exposed to classes about race and racism to open up dialogue on campus about these topics. Making this class a general education credit (US Diversity?) would encourage more interest in the class, which would result in more students interested in gaining exposure to the problems of racism.
I don't have dialogues about racism like we witnessed in the Color of Fear video. That conversation was so moving to see everyone so open about their feelings and experiences on the topic. I was thinking about why I don't engage in conversations about race more often. Is it that much of a "touchy subject" that no one wants to go near it? No one wants to offend others? Or is it that I'm just so sheltered and all of my close friends (except one) are White?
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Ebony Experiment
3/23/09
This article, that I posted the week before spring break really struck me as a couple who is very much involved in their immersion / emersion stage of Racial Identity Development. They really want to support the Black economy and help other Black people thrive in this failing economy. It doesn't say anywhere in the article that they even pay attention to White people - they're kind of off the radar and more focused on their own racial group.
What I found interesting is although this family lives in Oak Park (a relatively diverse community) which is near the city, we still see the effects of oppression that are found elsewhere. The article stated that this family had to drive fourteen miles to buy groceries. That is actually surprising to me - I would have thought that there would be more Black owned stores and companies than it appears.
I'm personally very glad I have taken this class because I am armed with the knowledge about racism, so that I don't sound ignorant like this one letter the Anderson family received:
"One anonymous letter mailed to their home accused the Andersons of "unabashed, virulent racism." "Because of you," the writer stated, "we will totally avoid black suppliers. Because of you, we will dodge every which way to avoid hiring black employees.""
Black people cannot be racist. Racism is a system where minorities are oppressed... and minorities cannot do the oppressing. It's really sad, actually that people can be so ignorant to not understand that this "Ebony Experiment" as they called it, was not to bash White businesses, but rather to help boost their fellow Black community members.
This article, that I posted the week before spring break really struck me as a couple who is very much involved in their immersion / emersion stage of Racial Identity Development. They really want to support the Black economy and help other Black people thrive in this failing economy. It doesn't say anywhere in the article that they even pay attention to White people - they're kind of off the radar and more focused on their own racial group.
What I found interesting is although this family lives in Oak Park (a relatively diverse community) which is near the city, we still see the effects of oppression that are found elsewhere. The article stated that this family had to drive fourteen miles to buy groceries. That is actually surprising to me - I would have thought that there would be more Black owned stores and companies than it appears.
I'm personally very glad I have taken this class because I am armed with the knowledge about racism, so that I don't sound ignorant like this one letter the Anderson family received:
"One anonymous letter mailed to their home accused the Andersons of "unabashed, virulent racism." "Because of you," the writer stated, "we will totally avoid black suppliers. Because of you, we will dodge every which way to avoid hiring black employees.""
Black people cannot be racist. Racism is a system where minorities are oppressed... and minorities cannot do the oppressing. It's really sad, actually that people can be so ignorant to not understand that this "Ebony Experiment" as they called it, was not to bash White businesses, but rather to help boost their fellow Black community members.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)