BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 06:20 PM

gnu, if your question were phrased, "How many people have posted on this thread who have publicly acknowledged on Mudcat that they are Black?", my count is three-if you count the comments that I reposted that Hilda Fish wrote on that archived "Response to Racism" Mudcat thread.

In addition to Hilda Fish, the two people are Quarcoo, who is from Ghana, West Africa and me {United States}.

If your question had been "How many people of color have posted on this thread {with "people of color" meaning those who have publicly acknowledged on Mudcat that they are non-White as the term "non-White" is currently defined by most people in the United States, my response would be the same. And I would be counting the same people who I counted for your first question.

If I were asked "How many people who posts on Mudcat are Black and/or are people of color?", I wouldn't know the answer to that question. However, I know that there is at least one other Black person who periodically posts on Mudcat. I know this because last year that Mudcat member sent me a private message and told me that he is African American. This Mudcat member also told me in that private message that he never posts to threads about race. He gave no reasons as to why he did not identify himself by race or why he did not participate in any Mudcat threads about race. That private message came out of the blue. Or at least, I don't recall any reason why he communicated with me. However, that pm probably coincided with a discussion about race that was going on at that time on another Mudcat thread. My response to this Mudcat member was that I regretted that he chose not to identify himself by race, but to each his or her own. By the way, I have received only a few other private messages from this member, but I have seen a photo of him that confirms that he is,indeed, of African descent.

And I will also say that he seems like a nice person.

But being nice doesn't have anything to do with the price of beans in Boston.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:22 PM

I don't think I was playing "Who had it worse?". My point was that if the fairly persuasive theory that interruption of cultural or famalial cohesion that might have enabled a memory of a historical culture could explain certain things, then if we made a rank order of the rates of "success" of ethnic groupings we should be abe to identify the factors that did or didn't interrupt the continuity of knowledge of their ascendants.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:59 PM

Oh. Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding of your comment, Richard. Sorry 'bout that.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Rowan
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 11:34 PM

By golly things move fast; you go away for a day or two and you're well behind the conversation!

Asia can include everything from Russia to Japan
"Asian" in England these days tends to be understood as meaning South Asian - India, Pakistan, Bangla Desh and Ceylon. Perhaps Afghanistan and Malaya.

Although it's now seen only in historical references (like the Mediterranean coast of Africa being known as "Africa Minor") "Asia Minor" used to be understood as a term referring to what we now call "the Middle East". The latter, along with "the Far East" betray a Eurocentric perspective that has penetrated the English speaking world, even though both are 'geographically out of whack" for the American continent. They're both misleading geographically for Australians but we're used to being relegated to the provinces in such matters.

In terms of using ethnicity to put people down, though, Australian Immigration documentation describe all groups, from the eastern shores of the Mediterranean (unless they're carrying Israeli passports) all the way to the western shores of the Bering Sea. The "Indian subcontinent" (in Oz) includes Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, while Burma (now Myanmar), Malaysia through to Vietnam and the Philippines, as well as everything south of that arc but north of PNG would be referred to as "Southeast Asia" in Oz.

Another reference in the discussions has me pondering, again because of how I think of language as an influence over our perceptions.

of African descent and similar expressions seem routine but, to me, it seems to imply a movement that is downward in more than the genetic sense. I prefer to use "ancestry" (but then I've also never really seen the sense in the phrase "falling pregnant", for similar reasons) as , to me, it avoids the negative connotations that can be associated with 'downwards'

Someone earlier in the thread made the comment to the effect that, if a person had only one ancestor who was "Black", then "polite society" regarded that person as "Black". I think the poster designated the rise of this notion as occurring in the 18th century. To me, such notions are harkening back to a primitively agricultural (and untenable) notion of "blood" and ethnicity that still seems to have appeal to the simple minded, some of whom are legislators.

But I must go. for now.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 12:45 AM

"of African descent and similar expressions seem routine but, to me, it seems to imply a movement that is downward in more than the genetic sense."

For crying out loud. Are we all to be so worried about offending someone that we'll be struck dumb? Because I say you were descended from cave-dwelling Picts doesn't mean you are inferior to them, Rowan. I'm sure your cave is much more comfy.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 03:24 AM

Over three hundred posts of people falling over themselves trying not to appear racist! Mudcat at its daftest!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: gnu
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 04:47 AM

McGrath... right. See you around 400 or maybe 500 or... maybe not.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 09:50 AM

"Over three hundred posts of people falling over themselves trying not to appear racist! Mudcat at its daftest!"

Wonderful contribution there.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 09:56 AM

Including the inevitable pointless posts like the last two...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 09:56 AM

And another wonderful person heard from.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 09:57 AM

That was for the 'wonderful' poster who seems to have lost his cookie.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: meself
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 09:58 AM

And one post of some person trying to appear - aw, never mind ...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Azizi
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 12:29 PM

It may come as no surprise for anyone to know that I very much disagree with Paco Rabanne's 03 Mar 08 - 03:24 AM opinion about this thread.

I believe this thread is Mudcat as its finest.

I think that subjects such as race & racism are complicated and emotive, and potentially volative. For this reason, a lot of people don't even try to discuss this kind of subjects. But we tried.

Given the subject matter, it's not surprising that we didn't always agree with each other. But I believe that we discussed this subject without wallowing in the mud.

And, given the fact that this is Mudcat, I think that's a big compliment to us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 07:19 PM

Hmm, I'm sure I said this before. The Mudcat post eater seems to be hiding under the bridge again.

Paco Rabanne says:
"Over three hundred posts of people falling over themselves trying not to appear racist!"

I hoped and thought we were succeeding, largely.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Charley Noble
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 09:26 PM

While we're meditating on the relevance of this thread, here's another story from another time when things were more difficult than they may be today for African Americans. It's based on my family's experience in the World War 2 period and we had a family friend read it at my Father's memorial service:

Jabo

Sometimes appealing to someone in higher authority works if you can figure out the way to get access, if you're persistent, and if they're inclined to listen. I'm thinking back to one of my Father's stories which goes back to the issues of racism and social justice within our armed forces during WW II.

One of our summer neighbors in Maine employed Willie Paul Campbell, a Black man nicknamed "Jabo," as a chauffeur and handyman. When Jabo was drafted into the army, after basic training, he was assigned for further training as a cook. All the cook trainees were Black and during the training there was a special event at the base and the Black trainees were not invited and they were not pleased. Well, I'm not sure what went on between the trainees at that point, but later that night Jabo and his brothers broke into the armory, armed themselves with rifles and forced their way into the party. No one was seriously injured but when the military police were called in, all the Blacks were hauled off to the brig and subsequently tried for mutiny. Jabo was identified as a ringleader and perhaps he was. He did stand over 6 feet tall and weighed over 250 pounds, and certainly cut an imposing figure. It's also rumored that the principal person who testified against him owed him money from gambling. Jabo was convicted of leading the muntiny and sentenced to be shot. Our family finally got news of this from Jabo's former employers by phone one evening and Father began to consider if there was anything he could do to help. Now Father at that point was a dairy farmer, not exactly one of the political or economic elite of this country. However, he had been a teacher in the 1930's at an experimental progressive school in West Virginia, known as the Arthurdale Project, set up by Eleanor Roosevelt and some of her friends for unemployed coal miners. Father drafted a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt, asking her to personally look into the facts of this case. He was disappointed to receive in a couple of weeks a form response with no indication that they had even met. He decided to send a longer letter and this time received a handwritten letter from Eleanor with an apology and assurance that the incident would be looked into. She did follow through with her investigation and Jabo was cleared of the most serious charges but was dishonorably discharged from the army. However, at that point he was a very happy man! Father was very pleased too. I have fond memories of listening to Jabo's stories when he'd come up every year with our summer neighbors but I never heard this story till years later.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Rowan
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 11:02 PM

"of African descent and similar expressions seem routine but, to me, it seems to imply a movement that is downward in more than the genetic sense."

For crying out loud. Are we all to be so worried about offending someone that we'll be struck dumb? Because I say you were descended from cave-dwelling Picts doesn't mean you are inferior to them, Rowan. I'm sure your cave is much more comfy.

You're probably right about my particular cave LEJ, but our different appreciations of the language implications in "descent" may be attributable to differences of experience, context (social, national or disciplinary) or basic attitude; in your case I'm sure it's not our basic attitudes that are different.

Australia, which is my context, is multicultural in that we have people from almost every country around the globe; all of us except those with only Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ancestry are the descendants of immigrants and the earliest of these immigrants (the colonising group) came from a social context that put the meanest and lowliest of them "above" the indigenous locals. The racism behind such social barriers are very well described (although in an Indian setting) in EM Forster's "A passage to India", where it was clearly understood that the highest indigenous stratum was "subordinate" to every member of the colonising group.

In this, Australian indigenes share a similar status with indigenous Indians in India and 'The first nations' of both Canada and the US, and for the same reasons; they were colonised peoples. Australian indigenes may share their skin colour with both African American "Blacks" and many immigrants in Britain who've come from countries that Britain colonised, especially those whose ancestors were enslaved. But even though the "slavery" of the Australian indigenes has never been formally recognised as such, unlike that of those with African ancestry, they are still demeaned socially. I'm not in the US so I can only observe from a distance but I get the impression that the resentments of African Americans, while rooted in dispossession, that dispossession was a result of the slavery of their ancestors rather than the dispossession purely as a result of being colonised. But the demeaning of all these groups has the same causes and effects.

Some of the demeaning has been institutional; while the art of "white" people has routinely been collected and displayed in national galleries, the art of Aboriginal and other coloured peoples has routinely been (until quite recently) displayed in museums of natural history. If museums have collections of skeletal materials, almost always the collection is mostly from "coloured" peoples rather than from "white peoples"; Spitalfields is a rare exception and the British Museum has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even consider the return of Aboriginal remains (quite literally) "stolen" by "white" people.

In most "Western" societies "whiteness is "us" and "Black" or "coloured" is "them" and "other" and definitely "not us"; "we" do the studying and curation and paternalism of "them". Because "they" are "less than us". You may have guessed by now that I have particular sensitivities because of my context and I may as well let on that, by profession I have many dealings with Australian Aborigines; at both personal and professional levels I try to be sensitive to their perceptions and understandings.

A colloquial term of approval for a good bloke, common in Oz and probably elsewhere, "He's a white man!" It has even been used, in the past, as a term of approval for people in Oz who are coloured. Its qualitative modifier is "He's a real white man!"

I cringe at the racism behind such an apparently innocent statement and wouldn't dream of uttering it or any of the phrases associating blackness with "bad" or "evil". But I may be a wimp. [Having a left handed daughter I even wince at the casual use of "dextrous", "sinister" and "kack-handed", so I must be a wimp.] While I've acknowledged my ancestry I can't say that I have any particular pride in it; I may as well be proud of my eye colour or my height or any other attribute over which I've had no control. Garbage!

I don't expect you to share my senstivities, because it's likely you come from quite different contexts and have other strengths, but I would ask you not to dismiss them or demean them until you can demonstrate their inadequacies.

You might be correct in your attribution of "Pictish" to my ancestry, but it's too far back for me to discern; the "Rowan" came out of the blue, before my mother knew her own ancestry.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Azizi
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 05:34 AM

I thought that I had decided not to post to this thread anymore. But I just woke up from a dream with these words sing songing in my head Noah's Ark Noak's Ark Noah's Ark. And the plot that of that dream that I remembered was very long and involved but mostly centered around a person who had thought that they were making changes in the world by adding some kind of chemical to the atmosphere to cause it to rain in a place where there had been too little rain for too long. And it did rain, and red wildflowers with yellow spots in their middle grew and they were beautiful. But then it rained and the red & yellow wild flowers kept getting bigger and it rained some more and the wild flowers got bigger and it rained and rained and rained and the flowers got bigger and bigger and bigger and the person realized the wrong she had done trying to mess with mother nature but she didn't mean no harm but harm was done anyway and she cried as the water rose higher and higher she was carried by the water and other people were carried also toward these volzwagon beatle type vans of different colors but all shaped the same. And the vans were being driven or were floating down the middle of this water which had come about because of the woman's good intentioned mistake which was more than a mistake since it meant the end of the world not just the world that she knew but the world for every body else. The procession of vans was going in a vertical line straight ahead but where? As the woman was carried by the water's movement she cried and cried she saw the procession of vans ahead of her and thought if she could get on board one of those vans than she could be saved and if other people could than they would be saved also. And as she thought this the main thing that echoed in her head was Noah's Ark Noak Ark Noak's Ark. And she floated closer and closer to one of the vans.

And then I woke up.

with thoughts about that scene and bits and pieces of the story which it was a part of but also with thoughts about this Mudcat thread. I thought about my good intentions for starting this thread and I thought about the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Then I thought about Rodney King's saying "Can't we all get along?" and I thought about the bickering that was occurring on this thread the last time I checked. Right after that the Smokey Robinson song "Tracks of My Tears" popped into my mind and right after that came a memory of an experience I had in the 1980s when a crazy woman or was she crazy? chanted over and over again on the bus "America is the last leg of the last trip of Christ's 2000 year old journey through SPACE. And then came the question "Suppose this is a test?" Suppose right now at this time in the world when the planets are aligned a certain way and people are ready for it then are tested to see if they really are ready? Suppose throughout the world in different ways people who mean well are tested in different ways to see if they stay true to themselves when they are taunted or maligned or treated badly. They have a choice will they keep to the high road or take the low road and if they take the low that means that failed the test and we who are the world we the people aren't ready yet to move on to the next stage of our development but still there are Noah's Arks to save us or at least save those of us who can make it on to those arks. I hope we yield not to temptation but we keep on keepin on showing that we not only can get along but we can learn from others and we can deal with heavy duty subjects like what is discussed in this thread in truly civilized way without getting down and without getting dirty.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 07:55 AM

I believe Australians these days are generally quite pleased if they can prove that they are descended from convicts.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Billy Weeks
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 11:42 AM

Back in 04 I got hammered in a thread about the ethnicity of Mudcatters for observing that there seemed to be very few African Americans posting. With longer experience of the Forum I now know enough to ignore coat-trailing 'what's your problem?'responses from people who sign themselves GUEST, but the memorable thing is that it was Azizi who, a bit later, made what,to me, was the most interesting posting. And she's still doing it. I still find it a bit odd, though, that Ziz is in such a small minority (here, I mean) when, as a matter of simple statistical probability you'd expect that not to be so.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 12:35 PM

Rowan, I fully understand what you are saying, and appreciate the insights from a cultural point of view.
We have a saying here in the States which is equally repulsive to the one you sited, when thanking someone for doing a good turn..."that's mighty white of you." Lately, the trend in its use has become more sarcastic, it is used more often by people of color, and used to emphasize negative white traits. Tit for tat, I suppose.
We still disagree on the "descended from" issue. I happen to be descended from Scotch-Irish, Swedish, and Cherokee forebears, and look on all of my family history with interest, if not always pride. Yes, my mother's family is rooted in Southern Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, and while my Great Grandfather x 3 Jacob Elder apparently held two black slaves, his grandson David rode in the Union Cavalry to end slavery. He is the same man who wedded a Cherokee woman after returning from the Civil War, a woman that was mentioned only in whispers, even into my Mom's generation. But I am descended from him and am proud of his spirit, and of my Cherokee heritage as well. My hope is that, in time, the blood of all of those who were maltreated will be celebrated by their descendants.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 12:50 PM

My great-grandmother on my fathers side of the family was a full blooded Ojibwa indian. And that was never really talked about until we were adults. Appearently my grandmother was not happy that she had married a "half-breed" indian. But when you look at my great-grandmothers photo you can see it. And all the males in our family have her nose. The story is that my great-grandmother was sold several times. I guess that made her a slave.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: M.Ted
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 02:44 PM

John Hardly is an American, and has been an honorable member of Mudcat for long enough that many of us know it, out of hand.

To my way of thinking, it is a bit presumptuous to jump to conclusions as to where he is from based on an interpretation of something he has said.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Rowan
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 04:23 PM

I believe Australians these days are generally quite pleased if they can prove that they are descended from convicts.

There was a peak of such sentiment, publicly, in the lead-up to "The Bicentennial" and for some years following it. And, as I was then teaching history, I taught some of the basic genealogical techniques and tried them out on my own ancestry to exemplify them. So, yes, it was with some interest that I found I had ancestors on both ends of the ball and chain; the Ensign that came out in the Second Fleet took, as his common-law wife, the daughter of a pair of First Fleet convicts. Incidentally, it wasn't until I got to South Carolina that I discovered the background to the commutation of the thug's original sentencing ("Death") to "Transportation to Africa"; I had thought New South Wales was automatically their destination.

But "pride"? Nah! "Interest" certainly.

On a note more central to the thread, while we make our posts as part of an ongoing conversational correspondence, our 'conversations' are not just "ours" and ephemeral; it seems there are others who use them for legitimate research purposes. I suspect this one might be of more interest than many 'below the line'.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 05:02 PM

I'm amazed that this thread has so many posts. I didn't like the idea of it in the first place, but there have been some worthwhile posts. I don't really think that racism is an issue here at Mudcat. Everyone says things at times that are racially insensitive, but that's life. We humans are intrinsically awkward, and often say things that don't come out right and make us sound like we're far more hateful than we actually are. And there's something about the Internet that amplifies awkward expression, and makes it quadrupally offensive.

But most people here are people of good will, and they are not essentially racist even when what they say has rough edges.

In my 25 years as an investigator for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, I had to do a number of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) cases, investigations of complaints of discrimination in federal employment. Now, federal employees, like Mudcatters, are usually pretty fair-minded people, and there really aren't many racists in positions of power in the feds. While there isn't a lot of racism among the feds (or Mudcat), the federal government has a good number of people who are either incredibly nasty or incredibly stupid or incredibly vulnerable (often due to stupidity or obnoxiousness) - and the same thing takes place at Mudcat.

So, in my investigation of complaints of discrimination, I very rarely found racial discrimination (or any other legally prohibited forms of discrimination). I found discrimination based on personal dislike, pettiness, or just plain orneriness - but the law didn't cover any of those. I find all sorts of nastiness, and almost always found improper or unwise personnel practices - but my investigation could result in mandated changes only if there were actual discrimination. I also often found that the person complaining was wrong - that the complainer was obnoxious, stupid, incompetent, or just nasty. I also often found that the complainer was the kind of person who made himself or herself vulnerable to persecution - usually by obnoxiousness or stupidity. Same thing often happens at Mudcat - and it isn't due to racial discrimination. So, I think that if a person finds Mudcat (or federal employment) "difficult," it probably isn't because of race.

-Joe-


As an aside - while my investigations often didn't mandate a change, they did point out the problems. Oftentimes, that was enough to convince somebody that changes were needed. I suppose the same could be true at Mudcat - we may not have racism, but we certainly do have problems. Pointing them out in a rational manner may help solve the problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Rowan
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 05:09 PM

Spot on, Joe!

Even the 'difficult' posts prompt me to have another look at my own perceptions and the variety of contexts resident on Mudcat keep my thoughts "on their toes". A bit like a work in progress.

Cheers, Rowan.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 06:04 PM

And as if to illustrate your own point that "We humans are intrinsically awkward, and often say things that don't come out right and make us sound like we're far more hateful than we actually are", your post COULD be (mis)interpreted as a pretty hard kick at the original poster: ' also often found that the person complaining was wrong - that the complainer was obnoxious, stupid, incompetent, or just nasty. I also often found that the complainer was the kind of person who made himself or herself vulnerable to persecution - usually by obnoxiousness or stupidity. Same thing often happens at Mudcat - and it isn't due to racial discrimination. So, I think that if a person finds Mudcat (or federal employment) "difficult," it probably isn't because of race.' Well .. maybe it is a pretty hard kick at the original poster ... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 06:13 PM

who, btw, was not complaining particularly about racism and racists, but about the awkwardness of feeling it was so often up to her to respond to comments that expressed troubling attitudes or ideas pertaining to race, as one of the perhaps two self-identified persons of colour on the forum ...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 06:16 PM

I think one of the points is that if we are 'all' so open to discussion, then why WOULD only PoC respond to perceived racism on the threads? Shouldn't that be the issue for any people of good will regardless of their 'ethnicity'?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: meself
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 07:07 PM

Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 06:00 PM

Joe's post can indeed be read in the way meself suggested it could be,   with the general points he makes from his experience directed at Azizi.   I very much doubt that would have been what Joe was intending.
............................................

So far as overt and intentional racismis concerned, I think you can indeed expect that there will be a response from "people of good will regardless of their 'ethnicity'". If the post survives long enough to get a response.

But there are plenty of times when it's not racism as such, but a kind of misunderstanding, or an unexamined assumption - "troubling attitudes or ideas pertaining to race" as meself put it. And I think a lot of those "people of good will" are less liable to feel they have the personal knowledge that is really required in a response. Or they may well not pick up on the "troubling" nature of the post - thye may even share that unexamined assumption.

A lot of the time, when some post indicates a damaging misunderstanding about our corner of the world or something like that, and we feel some response is needed, by the time we get round to sending one, it's already been done. We don't have to feel we are the only one who can do it, because we aren't. But if we were, we'd be in the same position as Azizi, and I think we'd find it "difficult" at times.

I thin this has been a pretty valuable thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 06:09 PM

With you all the way, McG of H.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Rowan
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 06:36 PM

"A lot of the time, when some post indicates a damaging misunderstanding about our corner of the world or something like that, and we feel some response is needed, by the time we get round to sending one, it's already been done. "

So true. Even if the differences in time zones mean most of you are "behind" Oz, the activity in those time zones mean that the conversation has usually moved well along by the time I get to see it. Which means that, while I may feel my two bob's worth has already been said (often more eloquently than I could say it), I am usually reassured by the sheer quality and quantity of goodwill on Mudcat when members (and guests, often) leap in to explore and reconcile misunderstandings or misconceptions.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: meself
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 07:26 PM

"I very much doubt that would have been what Joe was intending."

It would certainly be inconsistent with the entirely-favourable impression I have recieved of Joe from other posts ...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 07:56 PM

Yo, Mizzi...

I think I've had that dream myself... Anyway it sounded like something I might have had...

I should but I don't have much to add to this thread because race is something that I just no longer see unless I make myself see...

I think it was workin' as a jail house teacher in Richmond and then workin' in a drug rehab program where everyone, other than me, was black...

My apologies!!!

Yeah, I know that I should have something really radical to say here but I don't... But if I did, Rodney King beat me to it...

Hey, Mizz, I can't rightfully say what it's like to be a black woman here in Mudville but I can say that I might be the only white person who has ever been so closely intwined with black folks that hearin' these folks call me "nigga" made me proud...

That may not make much sense but I reckon it's a close to a "Can't we all get along" part of my life...

No, I haven't read this entire thread... I can't... About 15 minutes of computer is about all I can do with a pinched nerve and I have now used up my 15 minutes...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Azizi
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 02:22 AM

Participants & readers of this thread may be interested in this dailykos dairy about race & racism.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/1735/10696/636/470253

As point of information, that diary [essay] is written by a Native Ameican.

Here's a long excerpt of that dairy:

Racism in 21st Century America
by Meteor Blades
Wed Mar 05, 2008

Not so very long ago, there was a great deal of talk around various progressive parts of wwwLand about how the "half-white, half-black" Barack Obama had "transcended" race and racism. Well, actually, not so much talk about that, but rather talk about why talking about racism is by its very nature divisive.

Racism is divisive. However, not talking about it doesn't make it go away.

Many people find straight-up discussions of the subject uncomfortable. Or irrelevant. One expression I have heard for the past 20 or so years from whites – both friends and others – goes along the lines of: why do black people (Indians, etc.) keep bringing up racial issues? Things are different now. True. In my lifetime, progress has been made. But race and racism still factor greatly in the social, cultural and political life of this nation. Look at voter suppression. Look at our prisons. Look at our reservations. Look at the Ninth Ward of New Orleans.

As idiotic as it sounds, not so very long ago, every child born in Louisiana with at least 1/32nd degree of African-American ancestry was categorized as black. In other words, you could be 96% "white" and still be "black" for the sake of "separate but equal" laws, including, most ironically, the prohibition against miscegenation, which obviously didn't work as well as its racial "purity" advocates desired. Homer Plessy (of the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson separate-but-equal case), was actually seven-eighths white, one-eight black. One of the claims his lawyers brought forth in his suit against Louisiana was that state law deprived him of the property of his whiteness without due process. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with him in a 7-1 ruling almost as terrible as the Dred Scot ruling of 40 years earlier.

A hundred and twenty-five years ago, after being heavily criticized by his enemies and many of his friends for choosing Helen Pitts as his second wife, the ex-slave abolitionist Frederick Douglass - my No. 1 hero - put the whole matter into a perspective that too many Americans still have not come to grips with: "My first wife was the color of my mother, and my second wife, the color of my father."

When I was a kid in the South, we were referred to as "red niggers" and placed alongside blacks in the category of "colored" when it came to using drinking fountains, restrooms, cafes, motels, movie theaters, swimming pools and buses. It didn't matter that half my family could – out of our home stomping grounds – "pass white" because we were a mix of Seminoles, Scots and African-Americans. The situation epitomized the idiocy of "racial" classifications, the idiocy of "blood" prejudice, and the idiocy of separating human beings from human beings.

Race is a human creation (just like class), not a product of biology, though it is created out of, and with, the markers and tools of biology. Five years ago, the PBS Special, Race – The Power of Illusion, pointed out what's become scientifically irrefutable in the era of DNA studies: there's only one race, the human race. But years of misguided science, stereotypes, imperialism, and culture clashes have created the concept of race to the point where, basically, it is now entrenched in the human psyche, and no amount of scientific evidence can undo it. Just how idiotic this is can be seen in what is designated as "white." Let's face it, any "race" that includes both full-blooded Swedes and full-blooded Sicilians is a very elastic definition.

But because of its history, race now has a significance that it is anti-progressive to ignore. Once introduced into human society, race has implications and human experiences are shaped by it. To ignore the implications of those experiences is a wrong-headed approach, I believe. We are all humans, but our histories and experiences have not all been the same. The question isn't to pretend that this isn't the case, but what we do with that knowledge and recognition.

In a perfect world, perhaps, we'd all be colorblind. But in my experience it's mostly been white people who have claimed to be colorblind and black people who have said they want their blackness to be acknowledged. Black and proud. I've heard black people lament how many times they've been told, "I don't think of you as black," as if that's supposed to be a compliment or as if they're being separated out from other blacks and praised as "one of the good ones." ...

One of the media conversations I'm peripherally aware of ... is the "why do people call Obama black?" It's quite fascinating, really, that this is an issue. The same issue was raised when Halle Berry won her Oscar. I'll try to be kind to those raising it, but they really seem to have a view of race as being genetic or "in the blood," which is, uh, a rather interesting view of race. The "one drop rule" still exists -- not because it's government imposed, but because if you look black people categorize you as black. Now, I look forward to a colorblind society but it doesn't exactly exist right now. Obama is black because people see him as black. The content of "black blood" in him is irrelevant. I highly doubt any of the people saying this didn't think of Obama as a "black man" before they discovered that one of his parents was white. ...

But, as for why this issue is coming up now specifically, Obama himself says it much better than I ever could:

"If I was arrested for armed robbery and my mug shot was on the television screen, people wouldn't be debating if I was African-American or not. I'd be a black man going to jail. Now if that's true when bad things are happening, there's no reason why I shouldn't be proud of being a black man when good things are happening, too".

[posted as a block quote with a link to an archived article; hyperlink will not work; source:THE SPEAKER; A Surprise Senate Contender Reaches His Biggest Stage Yet; Monica Davey, New York Times, Julu 20, 2004]

[African American blogger Steve] Gilliard weighed in with his own remarks:

"In America, there are two classes of people, white and not-white. If you are white, then you are white, but if you are not white, you are NOT WHITE. Have you ever heard of anyone described as half-white, unless they were visibly another race? No matter how pretty or how smart, if you are not white in America, you are not white.

But Obama didn't have to use the example of armed robbery, all he had to say is if he got into an elevator, some white woman would clutch her purse. The double Ivy League grad (Columbia, Harvard Law) is not white in America, to what degree doesn't matter, he could be half-Mexican like Bill Richardson or Jeb Bush's kids, and they are not white. It's not the degree of blackness you have, but the lack of whiteness.

In Latin America, any white heritage makes you white. Whiteness is the positive value, because when they were shipping slaves west, there were so few whites that interbreeding wasn't only essential, but encouraged. Of course, when you get to Brazil, which had slavery until 1888, blacks are still the vast majority, but still discriminated against based on skin color. One of my professors said that when he was in Brazil, the family he visited hid their black child.

But because of chattel slavery in the US, and the limited number and expense of slaves, meant that any black blood (later to be expanded to other ethnic groups) meant you were black. Now, my great grandmother was Native American, but no one calls us Indians. Most African-Americans from the Carolinas have some native heritage, but black is the catchall phrase used to describe us all. ...

When some of Thomas Jefferson's black descendents were found, most of who looked as white as any other white person, some of their neighbors began to treat them differently, of course, this was on Staten Island, where racism is a local sport, but still. Any black heritage was seen to make them black, even though Sally Hemmings was only half-black to begin with. She was Jefferson's sister-in-law. It took decades for the white Jefferson descendents to allow their black relatives to be part of the family.

I was watching the Super Bowl with my friends and someone said something about being black. My friend said, well, I'm not all black. I said, "well, 25 percent makes you a member of the club and 50 percent gets you a seat at the table."

Italians love to insult Sicilians by saying they're part black. It's one of the most common jokes heard.

Barack Obama is black because he looks black. His actual heritage is not relevant. His upbringing is not relative. All you have to do in America is look black to be black. Because that is how people will treat you"

[end of block quote]

The "half-white, half-black" theme simply fails to acknowledge the reality that both Obama and Gilliard pointed to.

We can and must talk about what the ideal would be. But we don't yet live in an ideal world, not anything close to it, and we have to address the world we live in, a world in which multiracial people are considered black, or, as Gilliard preferred, "non-white." I've seen enough change in my life to believe that my grandchildren may live in a world, or at least a country, where race won't matter as much. And perhaps not at all by the time their grandchildren come along. Where anti-racism will be unnecessary because redundant.

Getting there means pointing out and ridiculing the irrational 17th century groupings of humans and striving for a broader and more moral view of humanity. It means acknowledging the realities of racism today and simultaneously pushing for a better conception of humanity. Same as it always has"...

-snip-

Needless to say, I wholeheartedly agree with the comments made by the diarist and the comments that I've quoted here which were included in that dairy. I consider this essay and the comments which are posted to it to be very interesting & informative and I strongly encourage Mudcat members and guests to take some time to read the entire essay and the comments in response to that diary.

As point of information, dailykos is a Democratic progressive online community whose membership is racially & ethnically diverse. The community surveys its members annually to ascertain their race, gender, age, income, geographical location, political party, and other demographics. And the results of those separate surveys are publicly posted in a forum dairy. It's not unusual in discussions about race [and less frequently, in other discussions as the person considers it pertinent] for a dailykos member to make reference to his or her race or ethnicity [with "ethnicity" as I'm defining it here meaning "Latino"]. The majority of that blog's members are White, but/and there is an active "contingent" of dailykos who are non-White. Given its mission to promote the election of Democrats within the USA, it's not surprising that the overwhelming majority of members of dailykos are from the USA. However, there appears to be a much smaller number of dailykos members from Canada, the United Kingdom, and other countries. Unlike Mudcat, no guests can post on dailykos. For what it's worth, I am a regular lurker to that website, and am not now nor have I ever been a member of dailykos.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 03:09 AM

Yes, and the same would largely be true of England. Curiously the "clutch the purse" reaction might have been weaker in the 60s although the formal racism would have been stronger.

It seems to me that the apparent prevalence of the violent images of African-American culture in much urban music and much audiovisual output, and the copycat response in young Afro-Carribean culture within the UK has resulted in a modern reinforcement of the "clutch the purse" response here.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 07:06 AM

The same kind of unfavourable and threatening stereotypes can apply to some extent just being a man. Or to a kid wearing a hoodie. I suspect that someone looking like a Hells Angel would cause more disquiet in a lift than someone looking like Obama.

But Obama would be identified as being black in such a casual encounter by the same people who might question whether he should be counted as "black" in a political context, and that was the point being made.

It's inevitable that people will be prone to make a provisional judgement about strangers on the basis of stereotypes they have built up, largely in the modern world from the media. Skin colour, and stereotypes related to that, is one factor here, but not the only one.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: M.Ted
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 11:36 AM

The thing about the "clutch the purse on the elevator" reaction is that you are only aware of it in relation to yourself--if it's done to others, you don't see it-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 01:25 PM

If you have that reaction yourself, you might notice who it is that tends to set it off. A group of hoodies on the street at night might tend to prompt me to cross the road discreetly. I don't think their colour would make any difference, even if I could see that kind of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Rowan
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 05:46 PM

As idiotic as it sounds, not so very long ago, every child born in Louisiana with at least 1/32nd degree of African-American ancestry was categorized as black.

It was with some surprise that I found out, when staying in South Carolina, that this "1/32nd degree of ancestry" rule still applied to the official US Federal definition of Indianness, to use an awkward but succinct term. If you met that criterion (and no other) for a particular, and "recognised" Indian tribe you were acknowledged in law to be a member of that tribe. [I apologise for the use of terms that may offend but I've now lost touch with the acceptable ones.] At the time, it struck me that this was not only an imposed racism, it also had the effect of institutionalising a form of genocide; some of the tribes now have such small populations of people that members must "marry out", reducing the "proportion" of the Indian part of their offspring's ancestry to less than the legislated "1/32" for recognition.

This perception was behind what I referred to above as an "agricultural" construction of identity, popular among various sections of the UK and those countries formed from colonisation from the UK; I'm not particularly targeting the UK in this but this particular meme has had a long life among Anglophones.

I thought Mudcatters might be interested in how the matter of Indigenous identity has been constructed (against the same agricultural meme in the background) in Australia, and found the following, as presented by members of the Indigenous community.

We are the Indigenous people of Australia. Aboriginal people are those traditional cultures and lands lie on the mainland and most of the islands, including Tasmania, Fraser Island, Palm Island, Mornington Island, Groote Eylandt, Bathrust and Melville Islands. [*] The term "Aboriginal" has become one of the most disputed in the Australian language.

The Commonwealth definition is social more than racial, in keeping with the change in Australian attitudes away from racialistic thinking about other people. An Aboriginal person is defined as a person who is a descendant of an Indigenous inhabitant of Australia, identifies as an Aboriginal, and is recognised as Aboriginal by members of the community in which she or he lives.

This definition is preferred by the vast majority of our people over the racial definitions of the assimilation era. Administration of the definition, at least by the Commonwealth for the purposes of providing grants or loans, requires that an applicant present a certificate of Aboriginality issued by an incorporated Aboriginal body under its common seal.
Sometimes non-Aboriginal people get confused by the great range and variety of Aboriginal and Torres Strait people, from the traditional hunter to the Doctor of Philosophy; from the dark-skinned to the very fair; from the speaker of traditional languages to the radio announcer who speaks the Queen's English. The lesson to be learned from this is that we should not stereotype people ; that people are different, regardless of race.

* The indigenous people of the Torres Strait Islands are not categorised as "Aboriginal" but as "Torres Strait Islanders" and recognised separately by the Commonwealth.

This doesn't mean that we have avoided exactly the same behavioural issues raised in themost recent posts by Richard, M.Ted and McGrath; our indigenous people suffer exactly the same insults and attitudes about 'blackness' and 'nonwhiteness', mostly from people who think the 'whiteness' of their ancestry is pure, but even from some whose ancestry includes Indigenous peoples. The term "Coconut" is, occasionally applied to someone who, in the US, might be called an "Uncle Tom"; it refers to someone who, in the opinion of the labeller, is "brown on the outside but white on the inside". At the moment, because of the hope with the change of government and the rapidity with which the PM produced the "Sorry" statement in Parliament, most people are putting most of their efforts into cooperation. Long may it be so.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 06:14 PM

Of course, ethnicity is often confounded with peer pressure to conform in certain ways..such as not "acting white." Some young people, and I know from working in many schools, are or at least were tremendously pressured to not doing well in school, acting a bit tougher than perhaps was their natural inclination...having to like certain clothes, music etc...Some of that nut has to be cracked, when it is behavior that hurts themselves, their families, their peers or society in general...and things will get better, guaranteed. Sooner or later we are all going to have to talk about this..thankfully Senator and Mrs. Obama have started to take on behavioral issues of young people, and I mean of all races. Bullying especially. I hope Mrs. Obama makes it her focus if she becomes first lady -- and goes, as she has already gone after the innocent looking girls flying under the radar who make lives miserable for other middle school and high school students. Then the president can take on the boys....this is way way more important than most people realize and directly relates to the pursuit of happiness..there have been so many incidents lately... mg

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 06:15 PM

In Canada, despite its dubious record in regard to both Aboriginal and African-Canadian people, there has never been (as far as I know) legal recognition of any 'blood quota' concept. As a consequence, it is very rare to hear members of either of those minorities use such terms as 'full-blooded', 'one-quarter' this, 'one-sixteenth' that, etc. The idea of measuring racial quotients seems alien if not distasteful to both groups (speaking generally, with the usual provisos, etc.).

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 06:16 PM

But, and it can be a big but, if you can show connection with a cultural past surely you wish to preserve it. Isn't that what folk singers do? It may be narrow-minded of me but the wellspring of the song surely should be recognised, and the fact of it reserved.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 07:01 PM

Metis?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: meself
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 07:12 PM

?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 07:14 PM

Valuing "connection with a cultural past" and seeking to preserve it is indeed one thing that folk singers do. But that isn't tied to whether you've got the right genetic make-up.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Rowan
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 07:18 PM

if you can show connection with a cultural past surely you wish to preserve it. Isn't that what folk singers do? It may be narrow-minded of me but the wellspring of the song surely should be recognised, and the fact of it reserved.

A great aspiration.

The Australian "definition" of indigenous identity seems to be the most acceptable of the various options that were considered (and the US version was considered but rejected) and, although there have been some unpleasant episodes in Tasmania (where some who claimed "Aboriginality" were denied it by others with more influential argument), it seems to have worked well. To the extent that various rednecks, mistaken in their beliefs that Indigenous people get free perks and money, have tried to denigrate (there's that language problem again) the whole concept. The Australian concept of identification seems to allow more people to celebrate such cultural connections more easily than the agricultural concept.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: meself
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 07:33 PM

Yes. Certainly among Aboriginal Canadians, in my experience, 'cultural past' is the only factor of significance in this business; genetic make-up is inconsequential. If you're a white person adopted by a Native family, and so brought up a Native culturally, then you will be considered Native, for all intents and purposes.

Speaking broadly, generally, acknowledging that there are no doubt exceptions, etc.

Btw, this kind of thing is part of the story of such 'imposters' as 'Grey Owl' and 'Long Lance' - if they wanted to try to learn to be Indians, the Indians didn't mind, and didn't see any great need to expose them ...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 03:29 AM

Fumblefingers! I meant "preserved".

But I do think that the relationship to a folk song, in a folksong singer, goes deeper than simply how that person was brought up, or which society (s)he now inhabits. That's the whole thing about "roots". If that is not so then it may be inferred that it is also so for other cultural historical matters, then the whole process of roots discovery for African-Americans is unfounded.

I tend to think that the process for African-Americans to discover and link to their roots, and take pride in their lineage and cultural history, is a good thing (but isn't it odd how people who say they are reincarnated have only ever been rich or famous in their previous lives?). But if (as I think is right) we reject the falsity of those who wake up in Wigan one morning and suddenly decide to be an Indian chief, then we must say the same about those who wake up one morning in Salford and suddenly decide to be Scottish.

The cultural past that one has includes the cultural past of ones forbears, it seems to me, and nature cannot be wholly supplanted by nurture although it may be influenced.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Is Difficult For People Of Color
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 07:27 AM

Linear decent can focus our interests, so that we can seek out connections and build on them, but the only connections aren't to do with descent, and we shouldn't allow that kind of thing to limit our horizons, or try to do the same to other people.

And what right have we to "reject the falsity" of people who choose to adopt a culture to which they were not born?   People living within that culture might have that right, but they might just as soon see that decision as something to welcome.

The same goes for children of immigrant families, whether from Scotland or Sierra Leone, who either choose to hold on to aspects of their heritage, or adopt the culture of their country of birth (or indeed some other culture).

Plus of course most people have quite a range of cultures among their forebears. They may choose to select one particular one, they mat choose to mix and match.