Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 46 } Location: Soon to be in Europe
Posted: Wed 01 Jun 2005 15:13 Post subject: Why not Seek Commonality Rather than Differences?
javier wrote:
To Xcolumn (a Chicano activist): I know of no nation whose residents (especially Anglo "blacks" and "whites") are as absolutely clueless as to the dynamics of social class. I had originally felt that the increased Latino presence could somewhat mitigate the awful (and completely phony) "black" and "white" social divisions in the U.S. As it is, assimilation and acculturation to U.S. mainstream society seem to require acceptance of mechanisms ("black'/"white" endogamy, "race"-consciousness, hypodescent for "blacks", etc.) which literally guarantee separation of American negroes from everyone else.
Your column seems to imply that "blacks" are totally victims of U.S. racism. The fact is, that identity politics to the exclusion of national politics is the province of nearly every "racial" interest group.
Recently, Matt Kelley, a multiracial ("white" and Korean) individual has appeared on the national scene (he just received a presidential award). His tactics are straight out of the identity politics handbook. Instead of using the idea of racial blending as a uniter, Kelley advocates adding multiracial individuals to the Balkan identity-politics mosaic which comprises the North American social scene.
In the meantime, corporate culture continues to rape all of us (as you have said). Over a 40 year period, living expenses have risen by a factor of ten, wages by a factor of four or less. Stupid Anglos ("black" or "white") cannot seem to fathom what this means. For example, Jesse Jackson's recent criticism of Mex. President Fox's remarks about "blacks" would have been better served if he had commented on the oligarchic regimes in all Latin American societies, which guarantee Latino immigration to the United States. Some sort of acknowledgement by Jackson would have pointed to a possible new direction of non-combative dialog.
Xcolumn wrote:
Reply to Javier: good points... dialogue indeed has to go boith ways...
The interest in "how folks smell" saddens me--because it continues the U.S (and maybe overall human) tendency to look for ways in which people differ, as opposed to how they have things in common. Add a little medical paranoia (health and diet) and it comprises a perfect gringo discussion series.
I recall the film "Dances With Wolves" in one of the last scenes. In that scene, Ten bears, the Lakota elder was talking with the ex U.S. Army lieutenant whom the Army authorities were no chasing. One of the most profound film lines I ever heard was the one uttered by Ten Bears, as he tried to assure the ex-lieutenant,
"I have thought about you--more than you know. You are the only white man I have ever known. But the white man the Army is looking for no longer exists. In his place is a Sioux warrior named Dances With Wolves"
The Indian revealed a level of thought (in the 1860s) not attained yet by the mass of North Americans. What that ex-"white" man did and felt was more important to Ten Bears than his genetics and overall body. Now, after having read the "smell" posts, will I look at the two men the next time I see the film and ruminate on their relative sweat glands and other interesting items?
This society is indeed a difficult one in which to gain appreciation of others' common humanity. When I wrote to Mixed Mom some days ago, I felt a commonality with her based on common mixed-ness and common appreciation of civility. I even wondered what kind of Dominican she would have made.
What North Americans wonder about, ruminate about and are fascinated with seem to guarantee a permanent fixation on how people are different, and a certain lock on giving the top 3% of the population a permanent pass to continue their economic rape of the other 97% (of all "races").
Posted: Wed 01 Jun 2005 16:04 Post subject: Re: Why not Seek Commonality Rather than Differences?
javier wrote:
The interest in "how folks smell" saddens me--because it continues the U.S (and maybe overall human) tendency to look for ways in which people differ, as opposed to how they have things in common. Add a little medical paranoia (health and diet) and it comprises a perfect gringo discussion series.
I disagree. I think that it comprises a typical hard-science biological, medical, and physical anthropological discussion of human variation. Those who are saddened by such blood-and-gore bio-medical topics might do better to avoid the "America's Admixed Population" forum, which is dedicated to just such topics. I agree, however, that the entire topic was misplaced and I have moved it to the "America's Admixed Population" forum.
Xcolumn wrote:
dialogue indeed has to go boith ways...
I hate to say it, but I think that Xcolumn missed Javier's point. As I understood it, Javier was saying that that America's obsession with identity politics is a deliberate distraction concocted by the elite to distract us from horrific spiraling financial inequality. I thought that Javier was pleading for people to stop staring at the skillfully presented illusion (ethicity/race) and start noticing that there is a man behind the curtain (corporate greed) who is impoverishing us all. It seems to me that Xcolumn thought that Javier was saying that "they" should be open to mutual dialog with "us", when Javier's point, as I read it, was that the whole "they/us" mentality is what is killing us.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 46 } Location: Soon to be in Europe
Posted: Wed 01 Jun 2005 21:08 Post subject:
It is not the existence of hard science topics nor of their need for discussion with which I am taking issue.
What I meant to point out was the relative interest such topics hold for most people, as compared with other topics which deal with human commonalities.
Posted: Thu 02 Jun 2005 14:54 Post subject: Commonalities rather than differences
I understand what Javier is saying here. Throughout the years at "Interracial Voice" I noted that very few people were interested in or commented on the historical articles and book reviews that proved that many legends of the "One Drop Rule" and American "miscegenation" in general were false. Most readers seemed to prefer a "soap opera" approach in which individuals, celebrities, etc. were discussed without regard to historical context or contradictory evidence.
For example, at another "mixed-race" listserve, there was a discussion condemning Tom Cruise for saying in an interview that he did not recognize "race" in raising his mixed-race adopted son. Some suggested that his "unrealistic" attitude towards "race" made him unqualified to be the boy's parent. Another discussion concerned the supposed inability of "white" mothers to fix the kinky hair of biracial daughters and whether (mentioned on the Oprah Winfrey show) this should discourage them from either birthing or adopting such daughters. My answer to them is below:
Quote:
It wasn't too long ago when an American who says that he doesn't consider or accept "race" would have been deemed anti-racist in the extreme, especially if he adopted or produced children with obvious African ancestry. Now the same sentiments get you labeled "racist" because members of the black and Mulatto Elite intelligentsia want to maintain forced racial classification for financial and psychological reasons (none of which are of any benefit to the children they want to "save" from loving parents).
No one would dare to suggest that the government institute an official classification for Jews so they can be "protected" from anti-Semitism (which is a form of racism). Latinos (nearly all of whom are mixed-race to various degrees) have managed to avoid racial classification with an ambiguous "Hispanic" category that is supposed to be beyond "race" and ignore the difference between a white, wealthy, Cuban Republican and a poor, brown-skinned Mexican or Puerto Rican in the barrio. Therefore, people who want to eliminate government classifications are VERY grounded in reality. We see all the contradictions that others are trained to ignore.
Ignore "race"? Everyone ignores "race" when it's convenient. For example, if Oprah Winfrey and company want to suggest that "white" women shouldn't mother biracial daughters because they don't know how to fix their hair, doesn't it follow that...
1) Mixed race women with "Caucasian" hair should avoid marrying black men because they will have trouble dealing with a daughter's "nappy" hair.
2) Black women shouldn't mother mixed-race daughters because the kid might have Caucasian hair she doesn't know how to fix properly.
Needless to say, blacks like Winfrey will not agree to those arguments. Their argument against white mothers and biracial daughters is therefore hypocritical.
Needless to say, they didn't care to address these contradictions. The conversation moved on to discuss the personal vices (real or imagined) of Tom Cruise.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
