What can we do to address race-relations and solve racism?

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
By the way, as an aside one of the white gangs is called the Peckerwoods have you ever heard a more stupid name then that? Why would anybody want to admit to the world that they belonged to a group called the Peckerwoods?

Maybe because the suffix "-heads" was already taken?

Oh my gosh jso I had not tought about that. You are more then likely correct

HH I didn't want you to think I was being deliberately rude and I do feel bad about keeping you waiting just as a matter of courtesy. I'm glad you got a laugh from my story I just used it to illustrate how a closed mind ignores facts and operates well in his case hate; just goes to show how hard it can be to change feelings and open minds. I guess we shall all have to continue working and leading by example and refusing to accept quietly evil behavior. I feel that if I were to listen to someone use racial/ethnic slurs and not speak up then I'm as guilty as they.

I 'm glad you asked Semper for his opinion he's has in my humble opinion some very remarkable insights.

Originally quoted by loam


I was directed to this thread, now, by several other members.

It will take me awhile to read it all, but even just based on this one page, I know there must be some good stuff here.

Unfortunately, ceci, it appears your approach is as caustic here as in the other thread we are currently posting together on.

How nice. But I'm glad you read the thread and found something informative out of it. But I don't see what you're trying to do here if you have nothing of import to add to current topics discussed in the thread.

Next.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by ceci2006]

I do believe you have gone a long way in proving loam's "caustic" theory.

Same reason I dropped out of the thread.

in conclusion, what we can do to address race-relations, and solve racism.
Is to have a DIALOGUE, not a MONOLOGUE.

now, I retreat to more interesting, and productive threads.

I don't know what you're talking about, Spacedoubt. But, if you feel badly about the thread, please continue to drop out of the conversation so you can feel better.

I care about your well being and hope that you enjoy the best during this time. Otherwise, we have a topic to discuss.




[edit on 30-9-2006 by ceci2006]

To add to the conversation, I thought some articles about the stereotype of "anger" should be brought into the fold again.

This is from the Louisiana Weekly. The article discusses why blacks are angry at the response during Hurricane Katrina:

Katrina: The Hurricane of Righteous Black anger

The Black community has a right to be angry about the slow response of its government to the human crisis in New Orleans created by Hurricane Katrina. In a recent Gallup/CNN poll, 76 percent (compared to 60 percent of Whites) said they were angry about the government's response to Katrina. According to a Pew poll, 66 percent of Blacks felt that if the victims had been White, the response of the federal government would been quicker.

This places the anger squarely at the federal government as the unit with the largest and most effective resources to respond to the crisis, but did not respond in a timely manner.
[...]
Their anger was also grounded in the knowledge that this was not the case when the tsunami hit Asia and looting and rioting also occurred. That event was considered a human tragedy, worthy of our immediate response, complete with former presidents dispatched to raise funds. By comparison, the human response to the Katrina hurricane was racialized by some, who used the lense of persistent negative stereotypes rather than the truth that much of what was occurring was the normal human response of desperate people trying to survive.

Perhaps it was providential that hurricane Katrina attacked Louisiana, dredging up the profound fact that of New Orleans' population of 450,000, one quarter (100,000), are officially classified as poor. The virulence of this poverty not only trapped a largely Black population so that it could not move out of the city, it signaled that their social and economic opportunities had been trapped as well.

This next piece has to do with dealing with the stereotypes of conflict and anger--especially between Black and White women. The interpretation here might be a little controversial, but I think it might give some insight into how issues can be resolved by looking past the "anger stereotype" and finding commonalities in the struggle of sexism and racism. However, people should read the entire thing to get the full meaning of what is trying to be attempted within the piece:

How Do I Talk to You, My White Sister?

Stereotypes serve as social shorthand. At their most positive,they facilitate connection by allowing us to feel that we know something about another person without doing the work of
actually getting to know them. At their most negative, they allow us to feel justified in avoiding contact with others, andm as a result we may feel we don’t have to work at making
connections.

Beliefs that are informed bystereotypes can be so strong thatwe tend to accept them, even about ourselves, and act as though they are true. Thus girls think they are not supposed to be good at math, women believe they are not supposed to do jobs that men have traditionally done, etc. I call this internalized sexism, which has many of the same consequences as internalized racism.

If we think about the different stereotypes ascribed to White women and Black women we can see, developmentally, how White girls and Black girls might process their experiences differently due to gender and race. Black women can take on roles ascribed to them such as nurturing, strong, and aggressive. White women can take on passive, fragile, weak, and powerless roles. We need to consider how these roles and the perceptions of these roles get played out in our interactions with each other. If White women have internalized perceptions of themselves as weak, passive, and powerless, then it must be difficult to identify with the power of White skin privilege.
[...]
Now how do these stereotypes influence our interactions? When in conflict with Black women, White women often take a stance that suggests that they are weak. They cry, they shut down, they act as though they have no power. This was my experience of most of the White women at the conference I mentioned previously, and I have had similar experiences in work situations. Many women of color perceive this behavior as a manipulation that is enacted in the service of deflecting attention away from the power that comes with White women’s skin privilege and their affiliation with powerful White men. Perpetuating the stereotypes of being passive and weak, especially around issues related to racism, allows White women to see themselves as powerless in initiating change and making a difference in society. Black women also buy into the stereotype and underestimate the power of White women. If we remain stuck in these stereotypical representations of each other, we will not be able to effectively utilize our collective strengths or empathize with our respective vulnerabilities.

The last comes from a research paper that studies the psychology of stereotypes behind ambiguous faces. They especially explore the stereotype of typing anger to Blacks as a result of learned prejudice. This is a fascinating report from NorthWestern University about the "idea" behind anger, but here I will post a few excerpts from the literary review that people can read to get a gist of the subject matter:

Facing Prejudice
Given these biases in behavioral interpretation, one might expect that stereotypes would also influence the interpretation of facial affect.Whereas most research involving facial affect has used unambiguously emotional faces (e.g., Ekman, Sorenson, & Friesen, 1969), such facial expressions are rarely observable in everyday interaction (Wehrle & Kaiser, 2000). Instead, people typically decode somewhat ambiguous facial displays requiring at least a modicum of interpretation. Given that stereotypes are quite powerful in ambiguous situations (e.g., Bodenhausen & Macrae, 1998), disambiguating an ambiguous facial display is not only a common occurrence, but also one in which stereotypes may have a potent influence.

The research we report here tested the hypothesis that stereotypes influence perceptions of facial affect. We hypothesized that ambiguously hostile Black faces would be perceived as more hostile than similar White faces, which would be consistent with the cultural stereotype of African Americans as aggressive (Devine, 1989). Although most individuals know the content of this stereotype, high-prejudice individuals are more likely than others to activate and apply such stereotypic content (Lepore & Brown, 1997).

[edit on 30-9-2006 by ceci2006]

I wanted you guys to read this because the film is written about from a different perspective: an Indian-American columnist gives his view of the movie and what it stood for. See if he portrays something differently than Jensen and Wosnitz:

'Crash' Peddles Racial Stereotypes but Forgets About Class

"Crash" has sparked discussions across race lines and now sparkles with Oscar glory, but as an Indian-American, I'm angered that it won Best Picture. Why? Because the film has, in a strange way, reinforced my suspicion that there must be institutional methods for making racial stereotypes acceptable."Crash" declares that all is well in the multicultural America, as all communities share similar misperceptions of each other.
[...]

If mainstream cinemas educate and entertain at the same time, what does "Crash" teach immigrants about their shared histories of conflicts, their experiences of assimilation, acculturation and adaptation in a pluralistic society filled with social tensions?

The affirmations of identities are essential in the movie, but they are achieved through replays of stereotypes. There is a psychological numbing of rebelliousness and an uncanny triumph for conformity. For example, Anthony is the rebel, the film's only potential revolutionary. He epitomizes angry black youth disenchanted by the system. The director even gets him to cite famous Black Panthers to justify his sentiments. He talks about issues of white supremacy and bigotry against blacks.

But what does he do in "real life" in the movie? He steals cars. He abandons a "Chinaman" after running him over with a stolen car. Quite paradoxical considering that he has been shown having a concern over how the poor are treated.

First, director Paul Haggis gets away with a gross portrayal of the ideals that the Black Panthers stood for, but omits their context. The Panthers were not fighting only to reclaim respect in a racist society, they were also demanding a just society based first on economic emancipation. The film gives an impression that the Panthers must have been wrong somehow, without exploring the economic backdrop of their social criticism. Nowhere in the movie is any anger ever directed at capitalism. The intersection between class and race is simply unexplored.

Originally posted by ceci2006

How Do I Talk to You, My White Sister?

Well, I read the whole thing.

I realized after reading this and thinking about it that I am so far from the stereotypical white person and the stereotypical woman, that this does not apply to me or help me understand anything at all. In fact, I found I was getting a little pissed. As far as I am from being "passive, weak, fragile, and powerless", I also do not stereotype black women as "independent, assertive and aggressive". I can proudly say that these stereotypes (that I was not aware of and I'm still not sure I 'buy') don't even come into my mind when meeting another woman.

That's why I always say stuff like, "Well I'm not like that or "I don't feel that way in these discussions.

I don't like stereotyping and I don't think it's helpful in dealing with other people. I think the stereotypes should be thrown out the window and we should connect with people for who they are instead of expecting such stereotypes as “Miss Anne”, the “Snow Queen” or “Femme Fatale". Or heaven forbid, "Miss Scarlett".

I can deal with people's anger just fine... as long as it's not aimed at me. Especially for something I didn't do. I'm angry about racism, too and I don't blame black people one bit for being angry! They have every right to be angry! But not at me. Which Ceci, you clearly are. You don't throw around the personal, racial insults that you have without being very angry at me, I can only assume because I'm white and you have assigned me one of the stereotypes. Taking your racial anger out on me is highly misdirected. I'm on your side. I actually agree with you about most things. But when I do disagree with you, you break out the racial rage ON ME, which is highly inappropriate.

Perhaps this article will actually help some women to talk to each other, and if it does, that's great. What I'd like to hear are your (and others') opinions on the piece. It's great to source articles, but it doesn't help us to get to know each other. That's why I rarely source articles. Anyone can look on the Internet and find interesting information to support or disprove their position, but my interest lies in people. My interest lies in looking beyond the color of your skin. Because something I think we can do to improve race relations is to get to know each other.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I can deal with people's anger just fine... as long as it's not aimed at me. Especially for something I didn't do. I'm angry about racism, too and I don't blame black people one bit for being angry! They have every right to be angry! But not at me. Which Ceci, you clearly are. You don't throw around the personal, racial insults that you have without being very angry at me, I can only assume because I'm white and you have assigned me one of the stereotypes. Taking your racial anger out on me is highly misdirected. I'm on your side. I actually agree with you about most things. But when I do disagree with you, you break out the racial rage ON ME, which is highly inappropriate.

Ditto.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Perhaps this article will actually help some women to talk to each other, and if it does, that's great. What I'd like to hear are your (and others') opinions on the piece.

Well as a male, I find it interesting that implicit in her premise, issues of race are subordinate to her view on feminism.

I wonder what that view is?

In order to clarify roles and tasks, I asked, “When talking about oppression, how did White women deal with the fact that they were the daughters, lovers, wives, sisters and mothers of the White men that were identified as the oppressors?”

And she wonders why white women couldn't deal with her anger?

This is what your posts do, ceci...ascribe guilt on the basis of association.

What a load of crap.

And another load is "White men are the oppressors!"

I don't recall ever oppressing anyone!

Someone needs to tell this paranoid, arrogant nutcase associate Professor at New York University’s Steinhardt School of Education, that you can't FIX prejudice by practicing it yourself...

And I didn't need a protracted "conference" with committees...and speeches...and discussion groups to have figured that one out.



[edit on 30-9-2006 by loam]

Fine, loam. As long as you accept that there are other people who don't think of it as a load of crap. Then, you might have to accept that there are people who think you might be saying a load of crap because your cultural experiences are different than theirs.

For me, I could care less if you think what I'm doing is a load of crap. I care about people actually thinking what has been said and trying to reach for those parallels in their life so we can reach the middle ground.

And BH: All I can say is that if you were getting angry, you have some racial anger and racism all your own you have to deal with before you try to accuse others of the same thing.



[edit on 30-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
Fine, loam. As long as you accept that there are other people who don't think of it as a load of crap.

Haven't you spent your time in this thread arguing racism, prejudice and stereotypes are wrong?

Yet, when I present you with an example ("white men are oppressors"), you're prepared to give this statement a pass?

What could be more hypocritical?

Originally posted by ceci2006
Then, you might have to accept that there are people who think you might be saying a load of crap because your cultural experiences are different than theirs.

Any difference in your cultural experience has NOTHING to do with who, in fact, *I* am as a person. Really, ceci, you're smarter than this. How does that make sense?

Originally posted by ceci2006
For me, I could care less if you think what I'm doing is a load of crap.

Let be precise. What I say is a "load of crap" is ascribing guilt on the basis of association.

Why is that a value you wish to defend?

Originally posted by ceci2006
I care about people actually thinking what has been said and trying to reach for those parallels in their life so we can reach the middle ground.

I am hard pressed to see examples of it.

I'm not defending anything. I'm just standing on the sidelines watching you run your mouth.

Other than that, I have a response to prepare to BH because obviously she had to go on and on about my behavior and not solely focus on the article.

Originally posted by ceci2006
I'm just standing on the sidelines watching you run your mouth.

Lovely. Instead of watching it, how about hearing some of it?

It doesn't really appear you have any intention to explore the answer to the question posed in the title of this thread.

How sad.

How do you know? Have you asked me yet? Or are you still running off your mouth while your finger continues to wag?

Btw, since you are getting at a dead end about my personality and behavior, it is always helpful to set up a thread with these concerns. There, you and others can discuss what I've done all you want.

Otherwise, I am still focusing on the topic.

[edit on 30-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
How do you know? Have you asked me yet?

Fine.

Expressly answer the question: "What can we do to address race-relations and solve racism?"

I'll await your reply.

[edit on 30-9-2006 by loam]

Address my comments on diversity. You'll find my answer there.

Originally posted by ceci2006
And BH: All I can say is that if you were getting angry, you have some racial anger and racism all your own you have to deal with before you try to accuse others of the same thing.

I think there's been a msunderstanding. What I was getting angry about were the stereotypes in the "Sister" piece. I don't like to be stereotyped (especially so incorrectly) any more than the next person.

I have said I have anger around racism. There's nothing wrong with anger and I'm not 'accusing' anyone of being angry, I'm saying I understand and agree with it. If you take that as an 'accusation', that's certainly not what I meant. I'm not afraid to say when I'm angry. It's a very natural and human emotion. It's not an accusation. It's an observation.

Edit to add paragraph: And after I took the time to read the article and tell you my true feelings and thoughts about it, that's what you have to say to me? That's your reply? Is that how you encourage intelligent discussion?

Originally posted by ceci2006
I have a response to prepare to BH because obviously she had to go on and on about my behavior and not solely focus on the article.

Edit to add paragraph: I didn't realize it was required that I focus solely on the article... I thought I was free to make observations and express my opinion. Sorry, but whether you like it or not, I will continue to do so.

I'm addressing your behavior because I believe that human behavior and interaction have everything to do with how to address racism and solve race-relations. How we interact with each other (our behavior) is a very important factor to examine... Else why did you bring in the "Sister" piece? It's about black and white women interacting and behaving toward each other.


[edit on 30-9-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by ceci2006
Address my comments on diversity. You'll find my answer there.

What kind of reply is that? You asked me to ask you the question and then send me off to hunt through 60 pages for an answer?

You are playing games... otherwise answer the question in a post addressed to me.



And what comments on diversity would you like me to address?

[edit on 30-9-2006 by loam]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
..."Sister" piece... It's about black and white women interacting and behaving toward each other.

So they can then more effectively address the problem of white males...the oppressors...

That "Sister" piece is rich beyond all belief.

I decided that instead of focusing on gripes from other individuals I should post something of value to complement the articles I previously posted. This comes from a study about the phenomenon of African-American anger. I suggest that this article be read to give a clue to why stereotypes and belief patterns can have drastic effects on people of color:

(Note: for those who frequently comment upon "anger towards another race", this article will hopefully dismantle the assumptions made on this accord because it demonstrates that the actions made against individuals of color are more prevalent in scope when it comes to a hostile arena in which all races are not equally represented)

The Social Generation of Race and Anger
In commenting on racially hostile or unsupportive workplace climates, some focus group participants described general feelings of frustration and anger, while others told of specific incidents that generated these feelings. A common source of anger is white use of racist epithets or similar derogatory references, which can trigger painful individual and collective memories. One black professional described her reaction to an incident with a white administrator:

I have felt, I have felt extremely upset, anger, rage, I guess you would call it? One incident that comes to mind happened in a social setting. I was with some, with my former boss and some coworkers and a man who ran, like, a federal program. And we were having dinner, and he made a comment, and he had been drinking heavily. And he referred to black people as "'n-word's" . . . . I'm sitting-he's there, and I'm here. . . . And as soon as he said it, he looked in my face. And then he turned beet red, you know? [Laughter] And I said, "Excuse me, what did you say?" And he just couldn't say anything. And then my boss, my former boss, intervened and said, "Now, you know, move his glass, because he's had too much to drink." And you know just making all these excuses. So, of course, I got up and left. I said goodnight, and left. And the next morning, the man called me and apologized. . . . His excuse was that he had been drinking, you know. And I said, "Well [gives name], we don't get drunk and just say things that we wouldn't otherwise say. You know, I don't get drunk and start speaking Spanish. [Laughter]. This was already in you, you know, in order for it to come out. [Voices: Exactly. Yeah, yeah. ] . . . . I mean so, keep your apology, I'm not interested.

Another person contributes her feelings on the issue during the study:

Similarly, a secretary in the Midwest related an incident in which she had to explain the meaning of an epithet to her supervisor, who subsequently did nothing to reprimand the white employee who used the term:

A white individual in my department was talking to me, and he referred to me as "Buckwheat." My supervisor, when I reported it to her, told me that she did not feel that I looked like Buckwheat. Nor . . . did she understand what the term meant. Then she asked me to define it for her. She felt that [the term] was not derogatory. After I told her what it meant . . . . she said "Well, you don't exemplify that, so I wouldn't worry about that." She also refused to talk to the individual.

This last example from the study points out when those from the dominant culture do not try to resolve the issue, anger is turned inward because of the lack of empathy and response towards resolution:

A female supervisor in one focus group discussed the link between black rage and unfair promotion practices in workplace settings:

I think a lot of anger and rage comes in when we . . . feel like-like I have a friend, he's been with the company twenty years, and he didn't get a promotion. And he was well over-qualified. They gave it to a [white] guy who had been there only seven [years], and knows nothing. So, of course, I was kinda angry with the process, but it was because he was the ex-boyfriend of the girl who was doing the promoting. So he was upset about it. But I told him, I felt like this: "They can only tell you 'no' so many times. Keep applying for that position."

The anger over mistreatment is more than a matter of what happens to the black person as an individual. Rage over racism is also fueled by what happens to friends and family members. Collective memories of racism against all African Americans, as well as knowledge of specific discriminatory actions against particular friends and relatives, multiply racialized stress for African American individuals.

Combined with the article "How Do I Talk To You, My White Sister?", these texts can address the reasons why stereotypes and belief systems undermine basic discussions about race. "My White Sister" addressed how people of all colors have to get past the stereotypes and just talk to one another to build new belief systems about race-relations. The "Social Generation of Race and Anger" seems to add that misunderstandings due to cultural experience can lead to frustration due to the fact that acts of racism are taken lightly in places in which racial hostily is high. Because of those cultural misunderstandings, no actions are taken to defuse feelings of frustration due to racial animus when it has to do with people of color.


[edit on 1-10-2006 by ceci2006]