S/O "colorblindness" and what we SHOULD teach our kids?

[Pam in CT]

re: If we want to solve problems related to race, why would we consider blindness about it to be helpful?  

 

Well, it IS helpful as an alternative to prejudice, right?  That's where it started to be considered the moral high ground, out of simple fairness.  Let's not forget our history.  MLK famously called for a time when his descendants would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.  That is an important marker of progress.

 

Right.  My parents truly did mean well when they tried to teach us to be color blind.  They were (and are) kind and caring people.

 

They lived through MLK's history.  They believed that once the Civil Rights Act and related legislation was passed, the problem was solved.  They believed, in the 1970s when I was growing up, that our society had progressed beyond the point where race mattered.

 

But they were wrong.  Fifty years later, MLK's (metaphorical) children are not judged solely by the content of their character.  We have not yet attained that important marker of progress.

 

And we won't get there by closing our eyes.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

But they were wrong.  Fifty years later, MLK's (metaphorical) children are not judged solely by the content of their character.  We have not yet attained that important marker of progress.

 

And we won't get there by closing our eyes.

 

Maybe not, and I don't advocate closing our eyes, clearly.

 

But the risk when people pursue identity politics is that it can reentrench racism.  It's a conundrum all around.

[Corraleno]

Well I'm using Oriental as in East Asian, not South Asian.  The features are what I'm talking about.

 

Oriental just means eastern.  And, it doesn't have any negative connotations in my world.

 

People will understand "oriental features."  There isn't a better word I'm aware of.  If there is a better word that everyone will understand, please inform me.

 

Are you saying that you chose the word "oriental" instead of Asian because you think it specifically refers to East Asians, and excludes South Asians? Because actually the opposite is true. The word oriental refers to all of Asia, as far west as Turkey, the Caucasus, and the Arabian peninsula. Google "Orientalism." If you mean East Asian, then you should say East Asian; it's not only more polite, it's far more accurate.

 

And I can assure you that the word does have negative connotations "in your world," even if people are too polite to point it out to you IRL. It's like using the word "colored" and insisting that there are no negative connotations. People will assume that anyone under the age of 80 who uses those words is either ignorant or has purposely chosen to use derogatory terms. 

[Tanaqui]

I also really like this explanation.

 

How to Understand Privilege Using Scraps of Paper and a Trash Bin

 

And this one as well: How to talk to people about privilege (and, thank you, a good primer for some people who keep thinking it's about "guilt" or about how "all white people have it good").

 

[SKL]

 People will assume that anyone under the age of 80 who uses those words is either ignorant or has purposely chosen to use derogatory terms. 

 

Then those are people who don't genuinely want to have a productive conversation.  Nor do I want to waste my time talking to them.

 

Can't wait until people agree with me that "white" is offensive and should no longer be said to refer to people like me.

[Corraleno]

Then those are people who don't genuinely want to have a productive conversation.  Nor do I want to waste my time talking to them.

 

Can't wait until people agree with me that "white" is offensive and should no longer be said to refer to people like me.

 

But multiple people in this thread have tried to have a "productive conversation" with you, gently pointing out that oriental is considered a derogatory term, and in response you defend your use of the term in the mistaken belief that it has no negative connotations "in your world" and that your (inaccurate) use of the term is actually the best way to refer to East Asians. 

 

And then you throw out a flippant remark about not wanting to be called "white," as if that's exactly the same thing as minorities not wanting to be called "oriental" or "colored" because of the historical connotations of those terms. Do you think that minorities shouldn't have the right to ask not to be called words that they find demeaning and derogatory? Or do you acknowledge that right, but insist on your own right to continue using the term as long as your intent is not to demean? Or have you decided that, now that you know this word is widely considered to be outdated and derogatory, you'll refrain from using it in the future?

[Tanaqui]

Then those are people who don't genuinely want to have a productive conversation.  Nor do I want to waste my time talking to them.

 

Can't wait until people agree with me that "white" is offensive and should no longer be said to refer to people like me.

 

SKL, your use of that term, whether you accept it or not, is widely considered to be offensive. If you cannot choose another term out of good manners, then it is surely you who is not interested in having a productive conversation. If somebody got upset over your use of profanity, would you equally insist that they had to listen to you use it if they wanted to have a "productive conversation" and declare unilaterally that YOU think the word "fridge" is offensive as a way to show how silly you think they are?

 

[SporkUK]

White is the designation that the elites took for themselves when they developed race as a social construct in order to excuse their inhumane behaviour during chattel slavery and colonization and to bring poor people of similar ethnic backgrounds together to slow down slave revolts that were often joine an supported by impoverished Whites. The White elites use(d) the systems of society from stories and religion and science, even coming up with psuedoscientific terms like Caucasian (obviously from people who had no idea of geography as the Caucasian peoples of the Caucasus mountains covers several ethnic groups which wouldn't come under the social construct of White now and especially not then when most of Europe didn't), Mongloid, an Negroid along with science ideas like slaves who ran away and wanted to run away had a mental illness (drapetomania), to law and forcing poor White to act as slave patrols to divide people. This history is often washed away and without it we loose a major piece of why this social construct has so much power over our realities and how it was built into the systems all around us like fish in water. 

 

The problem with colourblindness is that it treats racism (and any other oppression based on identity) as an individual thing both as a problem and as a solution and that is a major problem. Racism is a powerful social construct just as money is a powerful social construct and it is built into the systems and it is in the system that it must be recognized and dealt with. As Stokely Carmichael said "If a white man wants to lynch me, that is his problem. If he has the power to lynch me, that is mine. Racism is not a question of attitude, but a question of power." 

 

Colourblindness not only makes it an issue of individual attitude, it says the only way to treat people humanely is to ignore and erase parts of people. I don't want people to erase my identity, I just want the same chances as everyone else no matter what my identities are. The common colourblind cliches of 'I don't see colour/I don't see race/your colour doesn't matter to me' well, it does to me and it hurts when people say it doesn't matter. It's my history, it's my heritage, it's been passed down a rather painful twisted family tree to me. In a world that uses White as default, White beauty as default beauty, where trying to find, work on, and fight for us to be represented in media, in history, in reading lists, the most common thing I hear from White people is 'Well race doesn't matter, why does it matter to you'. To paraphrase Junot Diaz, monsters in our stories often do not have reflections and many people are living fighting against the feeling they are monsters in a society where if we are represented it is twisted. 

 

I am Metis, my children are all lighter than me (odd genetics that they all have very similar skin and hair colour when their father and I do not) and I've long thought on discussing these issues with them as their heritage will differ greatly in how society will treat them. I used to write on social issues academically/professionally, though race was never a focus of mine, it is of many of my friends who I have sought help from over the years. Personally I find 'What If All the Kids are White?' by Louise Olson Derman-Sparks and Patricia Ramsey great for the early years, though it was written for a classroom setting there is much that can be applied at home (good for if you struggle with how to do conversations that we've never been taught to do) and Uprooting Racism by Paul Kivel for older ages as it covers history (though US-centric) and action quite well.

 

Another very important thing, I think, is the concept of mirror books, and wider media, and window books. Mirror books are those that reflect us and window ones show us the lives of others. It is often brought up (and I think it was on this thread) what to do if one is in a very White area or one only has poor interactions with a group and unable to regularly experience others or be regularly part of goo more diverse communities and an answer that is often overlooked is finding media about and preferably written by people of those groups to get a wider window of ones picture of those people. No one is going to have people from every group in their regular social circles nor are the people we have in our circles there is answer all those questions we and our kids will have, but there are many books and other media that do answer these for those interested in seeking them out. 

[LucyStoner]

Well, it IS helpful as an alternative to prejudice, right? That's where it started to be considered the moral high ground, out of simple fairness. Let's not forget our history. MLK famously called for a time when his descendants would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. That is an important marker of progress.

Yes, but MLK was not advocating that people just not see race. He'd have pretty strong words for people who minimized the legacy of racism.

 

There are many words one can listen to King speak in volumes of valuable recordings that go far beyond the I Have a Dream speech. He was a radical thinker getting more radical as he reached his untimely end. He definitely saw the ways that race was used to pit poor people into groups so they'd not be able to better advocate for themselves as a whole.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/remembering-martin-luther-king-jrs-solution-to-poverty/283193/

[LucyStoner]

Do you believe that when you teach a constant narrative of power imbalance that you affirm or undermine those subconscious narratives of equitability you desire? This seems to be where the disagreement is coming.

I don't think I teach a constant narrative of power imbalance.

 

I do teach my kids to see things from the perspective of other people, even when they are fortunate enough not to have those experiences.

 

I do teach my kids to see the world as it is and strive for the changes they want to see. I don't teach them to see the world as we would like it to be or to gloss over hard truths.

[Guest]

Well I do the same. That's where I am thinking our communication is breaking down. I don't teach my kids injustices haven't happened,and aren't still happening. I teach them that THEY are to work very hard at their own perceptions and responses to not be reaffirming those inappropriate actions and thoughts about others. To treat others with respect, dignity, fairness, etc. Its not pretending someone isn't Roma, Hmong, etc, but that those people are the same as them where it counts - on the inside - and that the differences are a good thing and not something to disdain or fear.

 

Maybe I'm using the term colorblind incorrectly. To me, skin color doesn't matter much, it's one of many traits and it doesn't chang how I treat someone. But that doesn't mean I would (excuse the exression) whitewash reality, either. I just see things optimistically and through the prism of the Bible. I find teachings of privilege problematic not because it doesn't exist, but because it isn't really pertinent to how we are to treat others. It's something to check carefully in our own heart attitude, but it (should) have zero impact on the compassion with which we talk to and interact with others.

 

That's why this stresses me out - I reject a lot of the PCisms because I think language matters and that we can internalize 'otherness' to the detriment of everyone involved. So I'm really careful when I present the 'otherness' to try and deal with it frankly, fairly, and through the lens of scripture. Whe something evil like racism or murder has been perpetuated, I want to be able to call that wrong not because it is a hate crime or socially unacceptable, but because it violates the standards God has set for us. And biblical justification for such things is even WORSE, and we handle it as such.

 

This is why I think there are some worldview divides here, as much as linguistic. And why being called privileged, insular, or racist is so offensive to me. It's not just unpopular or a fact of society, but in my life that heart sttitude and the outworkings of it are *sin* and sin is a big, big deal.

 

I think that's all I have to say on the matter. Interesting discussion, everyone! :)

[LucyStoner]

I do not find it offensive to acknowledge that I have privilege. I'm not a good or bad person because of my privileges. Recogiziing that doesn't diminsh me in anyway. What I find offensive is that I have so much more privilege than many others. It is offensive to me that people live in countries were there is a lack of clean water and food and it enrages me to consider the injustices that brought that about. It is offensive to me that I am judged to be better than others in so many subtle ways (micro interactions) because of how I look. It's a horrible reality that doesn't change just because I want it to. I don't generally tell people to check their privilege or make it divisive. It's about my personal reflection and honesty, not about what my neighbor needs to change.

 

Everytime I have been told to "check my privilege" it is by a white well off person who is assuming, based on my skin color that I grew up like they did. I find this endlessly amusing. Someone once told me that I should try and put myself in the shoes of the poor and I was like "excuse me, have we met before?"

[Tanaqui]

I reject a lot of the PCisms because I think language matters and that we can internalize 'otherness' to the detriment of everyone involved.

 

That is what's known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. To put it very broadly, there is some small evidence that the language you speak can determine whether you can distinguish between siniy and goluboy (blue and light blue - Russian makes that distinction, English doesn't) or blue and green (English makes that distinction, Ancient Greek didn't) but there's no real evidence for the Orwellian idea that you can control what people think by altering the language.

 

(Which is not to say that I think we should just use words that are widely considered offensive. You avoid those terms out of politeness. Although I do not think this is the sort of "PCisms" you were referring to, very often what is derided as PC is just what I grew up calling good manners.)

 

And why being called privileged, insular, or racist is so offensive to me. It's not just unpopular or a fact of society, but in my life that heart sttitude and the outworkings of it are *sin* and sin is a big, big deal.

 

I don't know all the details of your theology, but unless "sin" covers things you have no choice about, privilege has nothing to do with it. It's not something you choose or something you do. That'd be like saying you're sinning simply because you woke up today and found $500 under your pillow. That $500 is a big help in your day-to-day life, but you didn't get it by doing anything wrong. Being white means that you get some advantages that others don't, but that doesn't mean you're a bad person.

 

Because I get lost and don't understand half of what people are saying in this thread, not what to do...  I'll just stick with treating others as they want to be treated..  The rest of this stuff is WAY WAY over my head and thinking ability...

 

Well, the ethic of reciprocity is always a good starting point, but might I suggest that the only way we get better at thinking and learning is by practicing on hard things? The brain is a muscle* like any other, you need to exercise it. I'm sure you're plenty smart, you're just not used to thinking about this issue in this way.

 

* Not literally

 

 

[LucyStoner]

Because I get lost and don't understand half of what people are saying in this thread, not what to do... I'll just stick with treating others as they want to be treated.. The rest of this stuff is WAY WAY over my head and thinking ability...

You are an educated, compassionate woman. I think you might be selling yourself short.

[goldberry]

I also really like this explanation.

 

How to Understand Privilege Using Scraps of Paper and a Trash Bin

 

Does anyone have any good links about institutional racism in America?  I would like some more data to discuss that concept with DD.

[LucyStoner]

To me, it's not a sin to have privilege though it may be a sin to do nothing about it.

 

Once my husband, back when he wore suits to work, stopped at the deli for sandwiches and the clerk visibly saw a not as well dressed person of color and went reflexively to serve my husband first. My husband, without being mean to the clerk, just said, "I believe this lady was here before me" and then stepped behind her so she could order first.

 

A tiny example of just being a gracious person. But one that makes me love him. So often I see people just taking the first preference when they don't deserve it rather than rectifying the situation in a way that advances the dignity of all involved.

[Tanaqui]

The ethic of reciprocity is the golden rule. I just prefer that term because "golden rule" has Christian overtones and I've been told one too many times it's an exclusively Christian concept. It is not, every great thinker and many of the dopey ones has come up with that. (It's still a good idea!)

 

However, if this problem thinking and "being in a fog" is upsetting you or keeping you from living, you should probably speak to your doctor about it again. I wouldn't be surprised if it is the depression or the medication, and lots of us know from experience, when you're under that cloud it's hard to remember what it's like not to be.

 

[SKL]

But multiple people in this thread have tried to have a "productive conversation" with you, gently pointing out that oriental is considered a derogatory term, and in response you defend your use of the term in the mistaken belief that it has no negative connotations "in your world" and that your (inaccurate) use of the term is actually the best way to refer to East Asians. 

 

And then you throw out a flippant remark about not wanting to be called "white," as if that's exactly the same thing as minorities not wanting to be called "oriental" or "colored" because of the historical connotations of those terms. Do you think that minorities shouldn't have the right to ask not to be called words that they find demeaning and derogatory? Or do you acknowledge that right, but insist on your own right to continue using the term as long as your intent is not to demean? Or have you decided that, now that you know this word is widely considered to be outdated and derogatory, you'll refrain from using it in the future?

 

Your comment was that upon hearing me utter the word "oriental" people would immediately judge and dismiss me.

 

I did not know oriental was considered derogatory in the context in which I used it, but because some people kindly pointed that out, I will probably avoid using it in the future.  However, according to you, it's way too late for that.  The word crossed my lips once.  It's all over as far as some people are concerned.  And frankly I am fine with that, because I would rather speak to people who are open to a two-way (or multi-way) conversation with diverse participants.

 

[Corraleno]

I did not know oriental was considered derogatory in the context in which I used it, but because some people kindly pointed that out, I will probably avoid using it in the future.  However, according to you, it's way too late for that.  The word crossed my lips once.  It's all over as far as some people are concerned.  And frankly I am fine with that, because I would rather speak to people who are open to a two-way (or multi-way) conversation with diverse participants.

 

 

I'm glad to hear that you will no longer use the word now that you know it's considered offensive. As for the rest of your response, I have no idea what you're talking about since I never said or implied anything remotely like that.  :confused1:

[Tanaqui]

 

Today is my first day on the  new medication, so it is too soon to say whether or not it is working.

 

I've got my fingers crossed that it works!

 

[Slojo]

Treating other people with dignity and respect is Humanity 101. If we go back in time and ask slave owners if they believe in treating other people with kindness, most of them would probably say yes.

 

Racism today is not so much about the concrete things we say or do (though it is that also). It is more about the assumptions we make about people based on race. Most of the time, these assumptions are embedded into our subconscious not only by the abundant narratives about race that we see in the media and in the news, but also by the lack of narratives from the perspective of minorities.

 

So yes, sure we need to treat others with basic human decency. But I believe that basic human decency also includes listening to and trying to understand other perspectives, And it includes desiring deeply an equitable (as opposed to merely equal) society.

 

Good post and agreed, and we don't have to go back that far. Today, if we ask police officers policing black communities - and specifically those implicated in kinds of encounters we are hearing about in the news -- if they believe in treating other people kindly, they'd say yes. And, if I'd met them in any other context, I'd have no reason not to believe them. But sometimes individuals operate within a system larger than themselves, and become participants in the oppression of others -- some more eagerly, directly, and with more callousness than others. And when that happens, it requires more than basic human decency, it requires a systemic response. 

 

Do you believe that when you teach a constant narrative of power imbalance that you affirm or undermine those subconscious narratives of equitability you desire? This seems to be where the disagreement is coming.

Neither. It's just truth-telling. The work of equity is what comes out of being able to tell the truth. I'm not sure I understand the reflex to "stay silent" by being colorblind. Can you point to any other pressing societal issue in which silence, not naming it and talking less about it works to alleviate the problem(s)?  What if I were to tell you that your "silence" -- to the extent that it means that you're proposing that we can't talk about these issues -- is hurtful or harmful? If we can't talk about housing discrimination, or patterns of policing that happen far more frequently in communities of color than they ever do in white communities, or bias against black students in schools, or... then you are asking that whole groups of people be left on their own to deal with these problems and that the broader community has no responsibility to be engaged in those issues. Would that change your mind about it?  

 

Maybe not, and I don't advocate closing our eyes, clearly.

 

But the risk when people pursue identity politics is that it can reentrench racism.  It's a conundrum all around.

 

I don't understand how you are using identity politics. Are you saying my identifying as an African American woman, and making meaning of a broadly shared set of experiences with others who identify similarly is contributing to racism?  Really!  And here I was thinking that it was the ACTUAL the acts of discrimination, bias and unchanged institutional policies that have a damaging impact on people of color that were really contributing to racism. If I follow your logic, I am to remain silent about injustice so as not to allow individuals and institutions that have the power to change things to dig in and re-double their efforts -- I am to demand less dignity?  And then by my silence, these things go away?  Again, on which social issues throughout human history has that worked?  If you are uncomfortable talking about race, just say you are uncomfortable talking about race. But don't ask me to be silent.

[Guest]

Well Slojo, I have zero issues about addressing specific instances or policies that are unjust or unfair. It's the broad and sweeping generalities I think don't help anyone. They're not actionable. Specifics are good. For example, dealing with the Gray case - great and necessary. Decrying the police as a whole? A recipe for apathy.

 

It's right up there with Stalin's famous truism - one death is a tragedy; a million, a statistic. Dealing with specific incidents is much more effective for action items to solve than broad items or agendas. That's where my eyes glaze over and I get stressed and frustrated. EG: I can control the way I talk to or think about a fast food worker, and what I tell my kids. But I cannot singlehandedly clean up the entire industry, and my specific outrage about a general issue goes nowhere.

 

It's a bad example but I have a migraine and my brain is fried.

[Free]

Does anyone have any good links about institutional racism in America?  I would like some more data to discuss that concept with DD.

 

This is a set of very short videos talking about different ways in which institutional racism plays out:

What is Systemic Racism?

 

This is a really powerful speech shared in another thread yesterday which talks about how violence has been institutionalized

The Clock Didn't Start With the Riots

 

A gut wrenching TED Talk that I had shared earlier in another thread, by lawyer Bryan Stevenson. He talks about systemic incarceration policies resulting in disenfranchising a record number of black men.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice?language=en

 

And this link has a short article, but more importantly a wonderful short video by Jay Smooth

The Effects of Ignoring Systemic Racism

[Joanne]

It sounds exhausting to constantly scrutinize your thoughts.

 

It really, really, really does not take time or all that much effort to be informed or responsive. It simply takes awareness and willingness to be wrong and made adjustments.

 

I remember watching a Rosanne show back in the 80's. It was one of the later episodes, when she owned a restaurant(store?). Someone was at the door late at night, after the establishment had closed. She did not want to open it because it was a black man on the other side. I was confronted with the reality - my reality - that I, too, would be more scared and hesitant to open the door to a black man than a white one.

 

It's a lifetime of moments like that - where a (bad) TV sitcom makes you confront your own issues. It just take that amount of openness.

 

I am fairly politically correct in my speech. It has not take much time, effort, or angst, really.

[Slojo]

Well Slojo, I have zero issues about addressing specific instances or policies that are unjust or unfair. It's the broad and sweeping generalities I think don't help anyone. They're not actionable. Specifics are good. For example, dealing with the Gray case - great and necessary. Decrying the police as a whole? A recipe for apathy.

 

It's right up there with Stalin's famous truism - one death is a tragedy; a million, a statistic. Dealing with specific incidents is much more effective for action items to solve than broad items or agendas. That's where my eyes glaze over and I get stressed and frustrated. EG: I can control the way I talk to or think about a fast food worker, and what I tell my kids. But I cannot singlehandedly clean up the entire industry, and my specific outrage about a general issue goes nowhere.

 

It's a bad example but I have a migraine and my brain is fried.

Which broad, sweeping generalities have been posited here?  To suggest that there is a pattern of bias against African Americans in many police departments, and not just a series of random, unconnected instances is hardly a sweeping generality. No one I know suggests that "all cops are X..." -- I don't expect that kind of thinking from anyone who's passed the 7th grade. 

 

The only thing I've seen is that people have recognized patterns, and suggested that given said patterns, a corrective course of action would be to address at least some things at a systemic level. We do this all the time for all kinds of things - we address cancer at a systemic level -- your cancer doctor doesn't have to make everything up from scratch. He or she is able to take the collective knowledge from the patterns found in medicine to come up with a diagnosis for your situation, and when they see the next patient, they are not like "Wait, umm... well, since you're an individual, there's nothing to be learned by looking at other individuals who also have cancer... so I'm going to ignore journals and research and just start from scratch on finding a solution for YOUR cancer."  To address problems only at the "specific instant" level is, at best, horribly inefficient if evidence of a larger pattern exists and at worst, grossly negligent, if the pattern is ignored and there are no system-level responses for addressing the PATTERN.

 

I think you can let go the notion that just because a systemic problem exists, that you individually have to solve it or else glaze over in frustration.  Singlehandedly? No wonder you're stressed and frustrated. The thing is, you do not have to singlehandedly clean up the problems of society. You get to contribute to the collective to make things better. Many hands make light(er) work. I'm not suggesting these issues aren't stressful and frustrating, but no one is asking you to figure all of it out by yourself to have your contribution count. To go with your analogy:  Maybe your role is to make sure that service workers are treated well in your presence, to tell your children to look down on no one and to appreciate the honest work and all individuals. Maybe you want to add on more to that (or maybe you don't or can't add any more of your life energy to that, it's fine, we all have to pick our battles) by educating yourself on what the fight for raising minimum wage to a living wage is about, or at least respecting that viewpoint, etc... Or maybe you do join the picket lines or stop shopping at certain stores until they change their wage practices, etc... I'd love it if more white people would just simply acknowledge when African Americans feel so passionately about this issue (police profiling), maybe they have a point worth respecting. Just that simple acknowledgement would go a long way -  that I don't have to argue about the legitimacy of my experience. Requires no activism or particular political bent to just listen and acknowledge. You don't have to singlehandedly solve anything, and we don't have to agree on the best course of action (because truth be told neither of us really knows until we are willing to try something different). 

[MyThreeSons]

As a Christian, I tell my sons, and the students in my classes at Co-op, that Scripture clearly shows that names are important to God. There are examples where names were changed -- Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, etc. -- for a specific reason. There are also many examples where the meaning of a name is explained: she had a son and named him ______ because ..... If names are important to God, they should be important to me. Therefore, when my student tells me her name is Abigail, and that is what she prefers to be called, I make it a point to not call her Abby. It shows respect for the person.

 

The same thing applies to terms such as Oriental versus Asian. If I say something offensive out of ignorance, I want to know about it. I would hope that the rest of my conversation would have indicated to the hearer that I didn't mean to be offensive. And that when I was gently corrected, I would sincerely thank the person for letting me know. 

[MyThreeSons]

So, something to think about, you all.  When I started in engineering, there weren't very many women.  AND there was a fairly widespread belief among 'the guys' that women engineers were affirmative action hires, possibly incompetent but at least not truly competitive, and had been given an unfair advantage in hiring and promotion practices.  

 

I have two very different personal stories about my experience as a female engineer, going to college and working in the late 70s and early 80s.

 

1) I started off at one college and then transferred to my home-town school after a couple of years. When I was accepted for transfer, I didn't realize that I had been accepted by the university, but not by the department of Mechanical Engineering. I had to petition to get in, and in the meantime I took some general education classes so I wouldn't lose too much time. The acceptance letter I received told me to stop by and introduce myself to the department chair. When I did so, the man had a very puzzled look on his face, ruffled through some papers to find my petition, looked back at me, and then finally asked me, "Why are you taking African American history?" I told him I was taking it because it was at 7:30 in the morning, so I could get it in and still work a full day afterwards. It wasn't until later that I realized that they assumed that I was an African American woman engineering student. That was unheard of in those days. They couldn't unaccept me when it turned out I was white. 

 

2) I once applied for a job at a major company while still going to school. (I took ten years to get my B.S., working to pay my way.) The job would have been fascinating to me, but I knew I would have been in over my head. I just didn't have enough experience, so I wasn't surprised when I didn't get an offer. About a year later, I was notified that I was eligible to be part of a class-action lawsuit, which alleged that the company discriminated against hiring women in technical positions. I let the attorney know that I was not to be included in the suit -- I didn't get the job because I wasn't qualified. It had nothing to do with my gender. 

[MyThreeSons]

This is a set of very short videos talking about different ways in which institutional racism plays out:

What is Systemic Racism?

 

This is a really powerful speech shared in another thread yesterday which talks about how violence has been institutionalized

The Clock Didn't Start With the Riots

 

A gut wrenching TED Talk that I had shared earlier in another thread, by lawyer Bryan Stevenson. He talks about systemic incarceration policies resulting in disenfranchising a record number of black men.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice?language=en

 

And this link has a short article, but more importantly a wonderful short video by Jay Smooth

The Effects of Ignoring Systemic Racism

 

Thank you for all of the links. I'll go back and watch them, but I really do need to get the back lawn mowed this morning.

 

Here is the thing about systemic (or institutionalized) racism, which, unfortunately, many of my friends deny exists:

 

The statistics clearly show some disturbing things, like the disproportionate number of blacks in the prison system, the disproportionate number of blacks living in poverty, the disproportionate number of blacks without a high school diploma,  etc. (I am focusing on blacks here, but I am aware these same concepts apply to Hispanics and other groups of peoples.) Unless one believes that blacks are inherently prone to committing crimes, being lazy, stupid, etc., one must admit that there are other factors at work. If you do believe the former, then not only are you a racist, but you have no grounds for expecting anything better or for criticizing them for their situation.

 

Most of my friends who deny systemic racism exists speak to the concept of "individual choice". But I cannot get them to give me any other answer as to why we are seeing these numbers. If it is simply individual choice, why are such huge numbers of black people making these choices? That just doesn't make sense to me. They run to the "I was poor growing up, and I overcame it to get where I am -- -they can do it, too, if they want to" line. Of course, these same people deny the whole concept of white privilege exists. I mostly feel like I'm banging my head against a wall.

[Carol in Cal.]

Maybe not, and I don't advocate closing our eyes, clearly.

 

But the risk when people pursue identity politics is that it can reentrench racism.  It's a conundrum all around.

 

"I don't understand how you are using identity politics. Are you saying my identifying as an African American woman, and making meaning of a broadly shared set of experiences with others who identify similarly is contributing to racism?  Really!  And here I was thinking that it was the ACTUAL the acts of discrimination, bias and unchanged institutional policies that have a damaging impact on people of color that were really contributing to racism. If I follow your logic, I am to remain silent about injustice so as not to allow individuals and institutions that have the power to change things to dig in and re-double their efforts -- I am to demand less dignity?  And then by my silence, these things go away?  Again, on which social issues throughout human history has that worked?  If you are uncomfortable talking about race, just say you are uncomfortable talking about race. But don't ask me to be silent."

 

 

 

ANSWER:

You're entirely misreading my comment.  I never ever asked anyone to be silent, and the 'logic' you attribute to me has nothing to do with what I said and even less to do with what I think.

How about you take me at my word and I will take you at yours?

What I was pointing out is the difficulty in working on this (deplorable) entrenched stuff.  I'll give you an example of what I mean by identity politics.  Say I'm a woman engineer, and there is a job opening that I apply for that would be a promotion.  Say there is a group of woman professionals at my workplace that starts to agitate for me to be hired because I'm another woman professional (not arguing that I am the most competent)l.  This might help get me the job, but it would also bring my competence into question, because if I did get promoted others would say that it was just because I was female, not because I deserved it.  AND maybe this would precipitate the formation of a group of male professionals who would make the opposite argument, or argue that they have been discriminated against because I was hired because I was female.  

 

So on the one hand, pulling together into an identity group is helpful in agitating for what is right (fairness) and in networking and in those 'clicks' where people realize that they are not the only one who is being mistreated because of their identity.  But on the other hand, it also raises the question of whether it raises arguments that are not right (hire me BECAUSE I am female) (unfair) or opposition that causes more trouble than ever.  That's what I meant by it being a conundrum.  It's not that I am against it, but it's important to recognize the unintended as well as the intended results of banding together that way.

 

[MIch elle]

Sponsor a Fresh Air child.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d4exfxnLhQ

 

 

 

 

[solascriptura]

Then those are people who don't genuinely want to have a productive conversation. Nor do I want to waste my time talking to them.

 

Can't wait until people agree with me that "white" is offensive and should no longer be said to refer to people like me.

Now that's interesting. A friend of mine was quite offended when I called her caucasian. She said that she preferred the term white. That was news to me, but I chose to defer to her since that was her preference. And btw... do not call an east Asian yellow. We do consider that rude. ;)

 

Look, for those who chose to teach their kids to be colorblind, I totally get it. I do. I just find it an concept that is well meaning, but very unproductive. It will never teach your kids about the brokenness of this society nor to fight against it.

[Free]

This is a set of very short videos talking about different ways in which institutional racism plays out:

What is Systemic Racism?

 

This is a really powerful speech shared in another thread yesterday which talks about how violence has been institutionalized

The Clock Didn't Start With the Riots

 

A gut wrenching TED Talk that I had shared earlier in another thread, by lawyer Bryan Stevenson. He talks about systemic incarceration policies resulting in disenfranchising a record number of black men.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice?language=en

 

And this link has a short article, but more importantly a wonderful short video by Jay Smooth

The Effects of Ignoring Systemic Racism

 

In addition to the above links, I want to also share this excellent TED talk which came into my feed today:

How we are priming some kids for college and others for prison.

 

[Carrie12345]

I've only skimmed responses, but I haven't felt a need to teach my kids to be "colorblind" b/c they were born without prejudice and weren't exposed to any bigotry at young ages. Perhaps not even older ages (though I'm not with them every second, so who knows?)

As they got older, we discussed our country's history of racism and the ways in which it systematically persists today and my children were SHOCKED.

Nobody's born thinking skin color defines a person. They can be taught that.  Don't teach them that.

[MyThreeSons]

In addition to the above links, I want to also share this excellent TED talk which came into my feed today:

How we are priming some kids for college and others for prison.

 

 

The Bryan Stevenson talk (click on the box on the upper right of the featured video just before it ends) is excellent as well.