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

Originally posted by ceci2006
BH: ... 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.

No she doesn't. 60 pages and you still haven't figured that out yet.

You have voted Benevolent Heretic for the Way Above Top Secret award.
You have used all of your votes for this month.

BH .. you take a licking and keep on ticking. I admire your patience. From my interactions with you and from reading your posts I can definately say .. you are not a racist.

Yes, there are some that are truly more patient than others. But without a consensus of other voices other than the dominant culture, there is no way to assess what impact the two articles actually have. The last article, however, describes an atmosphere that many people of color have to go through in terms of institutional racism. And sometimes, they have to deal with the close-mindedness on a daily basis without anyone to truly understand how that same experience affects them.

Even people who mean well do not truly understand the implications of what people of color have to go through. Instead, they ignore recognizing the depth of the issue and instead try to cover it with other things to deflect away from what truly happens. One could explain many times about their point of view and opinion on these topics, but one has to repeat opinions many, many times without any demonstration of understanding what exactly happens from the other side.

It is like hitting a brick wall because the other side feels they are right and nothing can intercede on the behalf of those affected daily by racism.

So, one can praise the efforts of others. However, certain behavior continues to be reinforced. Certain issues continue to be misconstrued. Tunnel vision continues to be applied.

And this can go on for a period of years without any stoppage. So, the criticism that comes from relating these experiences in this thread are like child's play to what the average person of color has to endure in RL.

But, one has to be satisfied with the small inkling of understanding some show in terms of the problem Plus, one has to recognize that with that small inkling, there is always a regression backward for that small kernel of understanding can never be truly understood.

You just have to watch the train-wreck happen day after day, week after week, year after year.




[edit on 1-10-2006 by ceci2006]

I havn't gone thorugh 61 pages so forgive me if this is repeated.

I think that we are making racism worse by trying to make it less. We have groups that just look for things that can be called racism ex. Al Sharpton. I mean it's great news and sells. We need to quiet racism not exploit it for money and fame. Racism is of course still a problem of all races depending on the majority of where you live.

Actually, what we need is to do is put racism out there for everyone to see. We need to put it in everyones' faces untill it becomes so ugly that it isn't tolerated anymore. Keeping it behind closed doors and letting it stay taboo is the reason that it still survives to this day.

Originally posted by I See You
We need to quiet racism not exploit it for money and fame.

While I agree that racism shouldn't be exploited for any reason, I don't think it should be 'quieted'. If true racism is being practiced, it should be 'outed' and not hidden or covered up.

Originally posted by Infra_red
We need to put it in everyones' faces untill it becomes so ugly that it isn't tolerated anymore.

And while I do think racism should be in the light for all to see, I'm not sure that "putting it in everyone's faces" is an effective way of fighting it either. You can't force someone not to be racist. You can't legislate feelings.

Semper,

Thank you for giving your perspective on the article. Sorry to take so long to reply to your thoughtful answer. Every once in a while, I refrain from posting for a few days, because this discussion is just so intense, .

Originally posted by semperfortis
we have lost the "drug war" and the money needs to go into rehab. programs and education. It has become ridiculous to the sublime.

I agree with you 110%! I think the Netherlands model is an excellent one. Jeez... they have better laws, better levees....

Overall I agree with what he is saying, to an extent. I have personally witnessed the racism he speaks of, having worked for years in uniformed narcotics. So yes, it is there.

His point wasn't so much that racism still exists. He made a very specific indictment of our legal system, with the police being used as an 'enforcer.'

It is my opinion, (Opinion mind you) that compiling numbers like this in an effort to support your contention does little to give one confidence in the entire premise.
However, if read carefully, he makes good points and presents a valid argument.

I thought he might have been. I also figured that he was aware that the audience would be able to catch him in an outright lie. That's why I asked you and gallopinghordes.

The racial profiling that was taught, (Yes I was also in the classes) was actually directed largely at Hispanics.

If you don't mind, what state are you in? I ask because your training, and the focus on Hispanics, may have been a function of location.

leading my department in drug arrests for several years making completely random stops.

Well, good! Like they say, blacks aren't in jail because they're the only ones committing crimes. I was on line for a movie opening in mid-town Manhattan, maybe two summers ago, and two white guys were behind me on line- smoking a joint! Broad daylight, major intersection, police cars driving by, nannies with their charges-- and these guys are behind me smoking a joint! They weren't even sneaky about it. I was in total disbelief, waiting for the police to screech to a halt and arrest them... I'm still waiting.

No I am not some crusader, I just believe in what I do and what I am supposed to do is work for all of you, no matter what color. Racism and other issues are tearing away at the foundation of what I have spent my life in service too, and I will never give in to it.

Thank you for your sacrifice, sir. It's not the military, but the force is just as dangerous.

Keep your morals and you'll retire with the ability to sleep at night.

HH,

they have better laws, better levees.

Now that's funny I don't care who you are...

with the police being used as an 'enforcer.'

As in the military, there are orders that NO Police Officer should even follow. 1. Illegal 2. Unethical and 3. Immoral

If they enforce this, they become the guilty as well.

If you don't mind, what state are you in? I ask because your training, and the focus on Hispanics, may have been a function of location.

I actually started my Police career in Maryland, ending it in Delaware. (I retired at the age of 41 there)
I then took the job I have now in South Carolina, so I have experience in 3 states.

I was in total disbelief, waiting for the police to screech to a halt and arrest them... I'm still waiting.

Honestly???? I would not have stopped for a joint either. (I mean to arrest..LOL)
It really should be legalized and controlled the same as liquor.

Semper

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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 ...
Perhaps this article will actually help some women to talk to each other, and if it does, that's great.

This article is about feminism, not racism. The author is attempting to make the point that, although we are all women, we come to the table with different concerns.

I don't think she invoked those stereotypes in order to stoke the fires of racism. It seemed that she was addressing them so it would be out in the open, and people could move past them and deal with the real issues of feminism.

We can't all work together if half the group is misinformed about the other half.

Another thing: BH, have you noticed the dearth of black women in the Feminist Movement? Why do you think that is?

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
The author is attempting to make the point that, although we are all women, we come to the table with different concerns.

And my position is that any 2 women are going to come to the table with different concerns. Is there really a set of concerns for black women and an entirely different set of concerns for white women? I normally don't think in those terms. But I guess there are some general differences, although I don't know what they are. We're women, as far as I'm concerned, and that's a bond that just doesn't exist between men and women of any color or culture.

And from the article as regards this idea:

“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?”

How can I say this? I'm not offended by the author's "anger around racism", but I'm ever-so-slightly offended by the idea that this question assumes. I'd also like to add that I personally don't feel any guilt or even agreement about white women hanging out with the 'oppressors'. My father was a pretty oppressive sort, over his family, but he would have been the same had he been a black man. And I've never been the wife, sister or lover of an oppressor. I admit I may not have been as open to the real meat of the article because of the generalizations that abound.

And let me reiterate (for all the good it will do) I don't think anyone's intimidated by anger about racism. Only when it's directed AT us for the color of our skin might we feel intimidated. This author seems to assume that when we (white women) see an angry black woman, we run for the safety of our white man's protective and patriarchial arms. That thought makes me a little ill. I don't know ANY woman who would do that.

There's not a white woman I know who wouldn't get angry right along with a black woman who was angry about being discriminated against because we face it all the time, too! We are angry about it! Perhaps it's easier for us NOT to blame the 'white man' as the oppressor because we do hang out with white men in our lives and know them to be respectful, sensitive, caring human beings.

There are men, however (of all colors) who are "the oppressors" and more significantly, there are the women (of all colors) who play right along with them and support the "patriarchy" of which they are a contributing member. This group can rightly be called the Dominant Culture. But it doesn't just consist of men, it doesn't just consist of white people and there are tons of white men who DO NOT fit into that group, so it's unfair (in my mind) to use that term as synonymous with white people or white men.

I got the feeling from this article that the author had everyone comfortably tucked away in their little compartments complete with labels and I was in pretty much disagreement with that. Did I miss the whole meaning of the article?

And...

Stereotyping and projecting allow White women and women of color to maintain their places in the status quo. It keeps us from initiating and managing systemic changes and prevents us from recognizing racial differences as having the same legitimacy as gender differences.

I'm sure there are some general differences between white women and black women, but I personally see us as having much more in common than say white women and white men. In other words, the gender gap (to me), which is supported by actual biological differences, is MUCH larger and more noticeable than the color gap between people of the same gender. Maybe that's because I'm coming from it from the 'white perspective', though. Do you, as a black woman, see as big a gap between women of both races as between men and women?

Secondarily, there is the culture gap, say between myself and a Chinese woman. But I am apparently largely missing the gap between a a black and a white woman raised in the US. I think we have different experiences, but no more so that a white woman raised on a Montana ranch and one raised in Manhattan. If the black and white woman were both raised in Chicago, I'm not at all sure I'd recognize a racial gap.

But apparently this author (and you?) assert that it's as wide as the gender gap?

I don't think she invoked those stereotypes in order to stoke the fires of racism.

I don't think so either. It's just that I don't see these stereotypes in the first place. Say I'm in denial, but when I meet a woman, I don't automatically think she must be assertive because she's black. So I agree with getting the stereotypes out of the way, if they're there.

Another thing: BH, have you noticed the dearth of black women in the Feminist Movement? Why do you think that is?

I hadn't noticed, but if that's the case, I have no clue why that is. Can you tell me?

I watched Malcolm X today. It was very good. One quote struck me as very important:

"You haven't learned to disagree without being disagreeable."

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I watched Malcolm X today. It was very good. One quote struck me as very important:

"You haven't learned to disagree without being disagreeable."

You talking to me, lady?

Actually, I was talking to me.

But if the shoe fits...


I only have a few minutes right now, but after seeing that movie today, I liked Malcolm X less than before I watched it. In my opinion, he (according to the film) supported segregation and the use of religion to 'manipulate' the people. Especially during his pre-Mecca days was a flaming racist and even after, he still pretty much hated a group of people (whites) for what some white people had done to black people long ago. He spoke of not being American, of not having a choice about being here. Well, neither did I. I was born here though and I'm grateful for it.

I know some won't like what I have to say about him, but that's what I see.

A white man raped me because he wanted to exert power over me. Is it right that I hate men and hold that against every man I ever encounter?

Malcolm X had some very good qualities, but I don't see him as a 'great man'.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Even people who mean well do not truly understand the implications of what people of color have to go through. Instead, they ignore recognizing the depth of the issue and instead try to cover it with other things to deflect away from what truly happens.

Ok, then. Help me understand something.

Does this belief hold that those "implications" can NEVER be understood? And if so, how is that reconciled with the next sentence that implicitly expects recognition of that which is already prevented by incapacity?

If it doesn't mean that, then help me understand what special actions or statements would be sufficient to demonstrate such an understanding.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I got the feeling from this article that the author had everyone comfortably tucked away in their little compartments complete with labels and I was in pretty much disagreement with that. Did I miss the whole meaning of the article?

BINGO!




[edit on 2-10-2006 by loam]

Originally quoted by loam
Does this belief hold that those "implications" can NEVER be understood?

No. Some people, like Jane Elliot, for example, understand the depth of racism that happens in this country. She especially points this fact out when discussing what happens to people of color.

She, like a lot of others, demonstrate a sense of empathy and feeling for what happens by acknowledging that these acts exist. In all my readings of herself and others like her (i.e. Robert Jensen, et. al.), they have never written off an experience conveyed by a person of color as being "idiotic", "unintelligent" or "illogical". They deal with the experience as it is instead of trying to play it off or play dumb about it.

It is a shame that others do not follow their lead.

They do not shy away from these issues and call them nonsense. They understand them and try to discuss them as they are. They also account for their own short comings without accusing anyone of being racist. No one has to worry about whether someone is bigoted or not. They discuss the issues as they come. And they use racial identifications (such as "Black" or "White") without it being "divisive", "racist" or problematic. They also don't accuse others of the same thing when they use racial identifications.

That is the difference between a "discussion about race" and a discussion about race. People who specialize in Ethnic, Civil Rights, Cultural and National studies do this all the time without any need to deflect anything. They attack it head on and analyze the issue without accusing anyone of any behavior whatsoever.

I've said before, that issues of personality and behavior does not need to supercede the subject matter no matter what type of character the person is displaying.

You have to be a good listener.

And if so, how is that reconciled with the next sentence that implicitly expects recognition of that which is already prevented by incapacity?

It doesn't convey that meaning. Let us say we're talking about what happened to the secretary from the Mid-West (from the last article I posted) and her experiences. She clearly discusses how another co-worker called her "BuckWheat".

Some conversants would discuss the implications of what "BuckWheat" means to Black people and ask questions about it.

Others would ignore the question and not bring it up because they "don't see it" (i.e. selective hearing).

Still others would deflect the issue into other areas, most namely a part of the discussion that is considered "safe ground" for them. To keep that "safe ground", they would shout down the interrogators by using words to demean and shame them. To even keep the "safe ground" (in the midst of deflection) going, they would announce how smarter their "side of the issue" is. Not to mention, claim that the other side of the issue (the impact of being called "BuckWheat" has on the person or Blacks in general)is a pure fantasy because they do not have any remote experience of that happening. And when another person tells of their similar experience, it is written off as "fantasy", to keep up the charade of "safe ground".

This "safe ground" continues to happen because some participants in the discussion do not want to be disturbed with the more problematic issues of race. Surely, everyone knows about "cross burnings" and "lynchings". But when it comes to the more subtle actions like the feelings of "superiority" and "control issues", then it is an act of control to acheive that "safe ground" by asserting power over the topic to make sure that these disturbing questions are buried and ignored.

Another act of deflection is "equating" the experience. It is easy for someone to say because one race experiences a particular act one way, all races do the same. But in the "real world", that does not happen because the same experience is taken in different ways.

That is why it is seen as minimalizing a particular experience when people say that "other people experience them", because when a particular race has had a negative experience from the said act another a person from another race can write that experience off by not acknowledging it properly.

This is rather bizarre to you, I know. But, I particularly do not like it when someone says, "I treat everyone the same". It rarely or never happens. People treat others differently all the time. And that is particulary true by race. Because the treatment is different, subconsciously the people executing the act have issues that they don't bring to the forefront.

That goes for everyone. The funny thing is that so much is invested in saying that "everyone is the same", but even from the thread this is not the case. I take the Jungian interpretation of group and societal acts through the "collective unconscious". Because particular races have certain experiences and mythos which guide them, they use these same beliefs in how they treat other races in an institutional and private setting.

So, the best question that needs to be asked for those who say they treat others "the same" is how they describe "sameness". Do they treat others the same as a White person? Do they treat others the same as a Black person?

And when they say they treat everyone like human beings, which human being are they basing the sameness? Like them? Like their Asian neighbor down the street? In Darwinian terms?

Using "equality" as a way of deflection is quite more complicated than what people think.

But I take a cue from an earlier article that I posted that discussed a test to see how much one knows about racism: if one catches themselves "equalizing" the experience or saying that they "treat others the same", they need to learn more about the depth of racism in this country. There is no way around it. It can't be hidden or put in the backdrop. Racism needs to be shown as it is for people to understand why certain races have particular feelings about it socially, historically and politically. Trying to hide racism doesn't do anyone good.

With that, I agree with Infra_Red's assessment. Too many people in the past have tried to hide "racism".

If it doesn't mean that, then help me understand what special actions or statements would be sufficient to demonstrate such an understanding.

Here is my assessment of the matter:

1)Listen to what we're saying and don't write it off as "nonsense" or "fantasy". Ask questions about it, of course. But don't say it doesn't happen. People wouldn't mention it if it didn't happen (especially in acknowledging what happened to James Byrd in Jasper, TX).

2)Do not de-intellectualize our experiences. Do not say that it is less intelligent than your experience. Do not patronize the speaker by saying that they ought to know better. Do not accuse the person of racism because they mentioned a particular race did it to them. Accept the experience as it is educatively.

3)Do not ridicule our experiences or make jokes about them. A racist joke is something that should not be laughed at. If it happened to you, you wouldn't be laughing about it. Why should you laugh about the experiences of others?

4)Be honest and frank about the experience. Tell us your feelings about what happened (like in the case of what happens in the work place with a lot of people of color). If you don't understand it, say so.

5)Do not ignore our experiences. Do not pass them off as if it didn't happen. Say something about them. If you do, we wouldn't have to repeat our experiences over and over to get them to understand them.

6)Do not write our experiences off as another "-ism". Racism and race-relations is the key topic we are discussing here. You would probably think it derogatory if we wrote off your experience as another "ism", so why would you do it to us? Yes, some people are not very comfortable with discussing race. That is par for the course and acceptable. But, deal with the act in its proper context and not as another "ism" because it conveys that the listener (when responding) does not want to discuss the topic or wants to deflect it to get the issue into "safe ground".

That's a few things to get started with. Much later, I will post a list from those in ethnic and cultural studies about how to proceed regarding discussions about race.




[edit on 3-10-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He spoke of not being American, of not having a choice about being here.

I don't believe he 'didn't have a choice' of being here. He had plenty of money. He was well travelled. He knew where the airport was. He could have left this country and became a citizen of some other 'better' country at any time.

None of us can choose where we are born. But as educated adults with the financial means we certainly can choose where we want to be citizens.

Becoming a citizen of a different country is NOT that difficult to do. He could have left at any time. LOTS of people do. If I ever run into any american who says they are not American and they don't have a choice about being here ... I'll give them directions to the airport and I'll even throw in taxi cab money.

I have found some articles that might shed light on some of the issues we are hashing out.

Sally Lehrman's piece on how to discuss these issues in the present day is quite interesting because she points the discussion of race toward issues of inequality forged by past policy:

Colorblind Racism

The racial hierarchy established over the middle of the 20th century has largely held fast because one generation builds on the accomplishments of the last, Duster explains. Like interest on a bank deposit, children collect economic potential for themselves from the property and social status of their parents. Just as directly, he argues, disadvantages such as barriers to well-paying jobs, segregation in housing and discrimination in lending reverberate from parent to child. "The past becomes relevant to the present as personal wealth and assets are reproduced from generation to generation," agrees Barlow. His new book on globalization makes a similar argument about the historical underpinnings of U.S. racial stratification. Furthermore, privileges in housing, jobs, education and other arenas reinforce and augment one another, he says.

And far from lessening over time, Barlow argues that the disparities built into American society are becoming more entrenched. In the 1960s and '70s, business regulation, low-income housing, job training, public health and other social programs successfully began to compensate for long-term economic advantages held by white people. But starting in the 1980s, the growth of the service sector and technology information jobs, the mobility of businesses, and policy changes such as deregulation and the curtailment of taxes reversed the trend. As industry extends its global reach and creates large pools of investment capital in developed countries, whites are clinging tightly to their privileges, he says. "A greater disparity in income and growing inequality makes more and more of the middle class experience a sense of crisis, so they try to buffer themselves," says Barlow, who describes himself as a civil rights activist as well as a sociologist. "We need to think about racism in a new way."

[...]

While whites will acknowledge that disparities in education or other realms exist, Barlow says, they are more likely to attribute these to a lack of ambition and effort on the part of minorities than to structural favoritism toward whites built into U.S. institutions for generations.

"You don't need to be a racist to promote policies that are race-conscious," says David Wellman, a professor of community studies at UC-Santa Cruz and one of the "White-Washing Race" authors. "Most whites don't see white as a race. Like a fish in water, they don't think about whiteness because it's so beneficial to them."

In his 2002 piece about how to formulate the issue of Racism in the United States, Justin Podur writes of five distinct categories that institutional racism happens. They are highly instructive in getting people to think about this problem:

Institutional Racism Instructional

Racism is a social system that has two main effects: first, to constrain people's lives by sorting them into positions in a hierarchy of power, prestige, status, wealth, opportunity, and life chances; and second, to maintain, extend, and reproduce this hierarchy by using political, economic, patriarchal, and cultural power. The system has five key components:

(1) The economic system-- shunting people of colour to the bottom of the economic system and keeping them there;

(2) Geography-- maintaining spatial separation between white people and people of colour, or, if space is shared, ensuring that the space is controlled by whites;

(3) Culture-- by denying people of colour the means of communication, by controlling cultural institutions to determine how people communicate and therefore think about themselves and society;

(4) The state-- by using force to fight any changes in the other components of the system; by denying political power to people of colour;

(5) Kinship and Gender-- by enforcing separation between races, preventing intimacy and socialization together, race is maintained as a social fact.

This is a site from Columbia University about race-relations and racism. This article "Seeing White" is particulary important because it discusses an example of "institutional racism" going on in the Publishing Industry. The entire article is very good, but these excerpts have been highlighted for people to get a taste of what the text is about. There are other interesting articles listed with this one that gives readers a view of a multi-cultural perspective:

Seeing White


Betty Prashker, during her more than 40 years as an esteemed book editor, has seen publishing in New York City transformed from a "glamour industry" into just another business worried about the bottom line. She has seen the creation of rich literature evolve into the proliferation of in-your-face biographies by people like The Rock, the wrestling star. And she has seen authors' salaries shrink from seven figures to a more modest five. But one facet of the publishing industry has barely changed - the overwhelming dominance of white people like herself.

"There have always been few minorities in publishing," Prashker said. "I believe that there was no aggressive recruitment and then there was always the problem of the salary level."

Many publishing insiders - editors, literary agents, marketing executives and others -agree with Prashker's observations. Some also say deeper, more subtle factors - such as the "club-like" atmosphere of publishing and episodes of white insensitivity - help explain why so few minorities, particularly African-Americans, are involved in the decisions to publish the books Americans read.

Statistics on minority employment in the industry are hard to find. Organizations like the American Association of Publishers, or AAP, and trade magazines like Publishers Weekly and Library Journal document the latest news in the publishing industry. None of those resources releases figures on the percentage of African-Americas working in the various New York publishing houses, but one need look no further than the offices themselves to get a sense of the racial make-up.

This is just to compliment the latest discussions.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by ceci2006]

I'm going to wake up tomorrow morning, and the first thing I'm going to do is to decide how to spend my day.

Of course! I'll spend it rooting out and recognizing incidents of racism all around me!

When I find an incident of racism, real or perceived, I will approach it with great gravity and seriousness.

I will then engage the victim in discussion so that I might better understand what it means to him/her, and how they are forced to deal with it every single day of their lives.

During this time, nothing else will matter in my life. Racism has taken over my body, my soul, my entire being.

I will listen to the victim, nodding solemnly at the appropriate times, and always agreeing agreeing agreeing.

Occasionally I will ask what I think is an intelligent question, designed to show empathy for and bonding with the victim.

This I will supplement with scholarly articles from obscure academics, which will lend credence to the victim's claim, and my understanding.

We will then have a group hug, and commiserate with each other.

This will take me until about noontime, after which I'll be off again to find more cases of the dominant culture abusing my people.

Then there's the day after that...

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Becoming a citizen of a different country is NOT that difficult to do. He could have left at any time. LOTS of people do. If I ever run into any american who says they are not American and they don't have a choice about being here ... I'll give them directions to the airport and I'll even throw in taxi cab money.

Absolutely true. He managed to find his way to complete his hajj, didn't he?

They understand them and try to discuss them as they are. They also account for their own short comings without accusing anyone of being racist. No one has to worry about whether someone is bigoted or not. They discuss the issues as they come. And they use racial identifications (such as "Black" or "White") without it being "divisive", "racist" or problematic. They also don't accuse others of the same thing when they use racial identifications.

That is the difference between a "discussion about race" and a discussion about race. People who specialize in Ethnic, Civil Rights, Cultural and National studies do this all the time without any need to deflect anything. They attack it head on and analyze the issue without accusing anyone of any behavior whatsoever.

Jsobecky

Shame this does not work both ways...huh?

What amazes me jsobecky, is that "only" the dominant culture is ever accused of "not" doing this; what are the odds of that being true?

Semper

Originally posted by ceci2006
She, like a lot of others, demonstrate a sense of empathy and feeling for what happens by acknowledging that these acts exist.

I'd just like to say that I've certainly made mistakes while discussing racism here and I've apologized for them. I have, in no uncertain terms said:

"I offer an apology for things that I've said
that actually contributed to racism's spread"

And I have since been very careful, I've listened, I've been empathetic and acknowledging. Yet every time you post to me it's acerbic. Could I ask that you stop that? Please? If you want to have a discussion, I want to as well. But I won't continue if I'm under attack covertly or overtly.

I understand that you don't like people discussing your behavior. And there's something you can do about that. If there are no attacks, no little barbs and digs, there will be nothing to discuss about it.

Some conversants would discuss the implications of what "BuckWheat" means to Black people and ask questions about it.

Others would ignore the question and not bring it up because they "don't see it" (i.e. selective hearing).

And both options are available and valid. Not everyone is required to have empathy. I do, by the way.

There are some things I've asked questions about with genuine curiosity. I've said "I don't see it" and asked for explanation and you just accuse me of "selective hearing". I want to remain curious, but when I ask or say that I don't understand only to be accused of doing it on purpose, it's pretty disheartening.

I imagine being called "Buckwheat" would be very painful. Any racially charged name is painful. If you expect to call people racially charged names and then expect empathy from them when you or someone of your race gets called a racially charged name, that's very unrealistic to expect. Calling names such as "Miss Scarlett" and "The Lyncher" to white people and then expecting people to feel sorry for you and your race because someone was called "Buckwheat" or "Aunt Jemima" is VERY unrealistic and a blatant double standard.

Why is it OK for you to lash out in this way yet not ok for white people to do the same?

Perhaps you need the consider that 'practicing what you preach' is a very important rule to go by when expecting people to listen to you and respect what you have to say. Don't you think? If you want to talk about white people respecting, listening, and being empathetic to your point of view, isn't it important that you be extra sure that you are practicing these principles as well?

This is rather bizarre to you, I know. But, I particularly do not like it when someone says, "I treat everyone the same".

Just to explain, when I say this (or similar phrasing) I mean that in general, I don't make negative judgments about people before knowing them. Whether they're old, young, black, white, have baggy pants or a mini-skirt, I do my very best to withhold judgment. If I literally treated everyone the same, I'd be a robot and I am not. So yes, there are some unconscious judgments that take place, but I do my very best consciously to withhold judgment before getting to know them.

So, the best question that needs to be asked for those who say they treat others "the same" is how they describe "sameness".

This is wonderful! A question from you about others. Thank you! I really mean that. And an important question it is! What I mean by sameness is that when I meet someone, they all have the benefit of the doubt as far as respect. I don't have any mind chatter going on like, "She's black, so I better not say this" or "he's white so it's OK to say this" or "He's black so he probably thinks that" or "she's white so she probably understands that". What I mean by sameness is that I approach new people in the spirit of curiosity. I notice they're black or Asian or gay or male or other differences from me, but my experience has taught me that that really doesn't mean much in terms of WHO they are. Their morals, their beliefs, their experiences, their thoughts. I have to get to know someone before I can say WHO I think they are. And even then, I can still be wrong. But they all start on an even playing field.

Does that make sense?

Using "equality" as a way of deflection is quite more complicated than what people think.

Do you think that everyone who says they treat people equally is automatically deflecting? Could it ever just be the truth?