Discussion of Racism

Discussions of and about the historic 2008 U.S. Presidential Election
Locked
nerdanel
This is Rome
Posts: 5963
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon

Post by nerdanel »

Your post reminded me of an experience I had in law school, hal. I attended a recruiting dinner for a prominent Philadelphia based law firm (waves to Jn :)). They had sent at least 25-30 attorneys to attend this dinner and to interview us the following day; IIRC, all the interviewees (irrespective of background) were invited to attend the dinner.

I schmoozed for a couple of hours and enjoyed the dinner. I was sitting next to an older white male partner and a younger white female associate. I did not look to see how many attorneys of color the firm had sent, and it wouldn't have occurred to me to count the number of Asian attorneys present (if any) or to read anything much into their presence or absence.

On the way back to the law school campus, I was walking with a couple of black classmates, who were livid. They stated that this firm hadn't sent a single black attorney to the dinner, which meant:
1. The firm didn't care about recruiting black students;
2. The firm was very likely racist; and
3. They (the students) were going to contact the Black Law Students Association and organize an interviewing boycott of the firm - if the firm didn't care enough about black people to send out black attorneys to interview, then why should any black students go there.

I was dumbfounded. I asked whether any attorney had made a racist comment, spoken negatively about the presence of black attorneys at the firm, or otherwise indicated that the firm didn't value diversity. The students said no. I asked whether they'd asked the attorneys for demographics re: how many black attorneys worked at this firm. They said that there was no need to bother, if the firm couldn't be bothered to send the black attorneys to meet with them.

It was a view of the world so distanced from my own, and which seemed rather strident, radical, and counterproductive to me. But, having since talked to other black law students who took a risk and ended up marginalized as the only black summer associate at offices which were purely white/Asian...I'm not sure that the law students I spoke to were 100 percent wrong. There are no easy answers. But there is something to be said for having skin where you don't really have to question, when someone is treating you badly, whether it's based on your skin's color. You do; I usually do too. I think that comes with some level of responsibility to be aware what it's like for the people who don't have that luxury as often.
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh

When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Jnyusa
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am

Post by Jnyusa »

Interesting story, nel.

I don't know which firm that was, but when my daughter interviewed with the three largest firms in Philly she did interview with an African-American partner at the firm where she finally accepted.

Now ... I don't know to what extent this is truly relevant or coincidental, but there's something I have been careful not to say about my daughter's law school experience because it would identify her out of every other student in the law school and I haven't wanted to put that risk on her, even though it was very tempting to talk about her experience when discussions of race relations came up. Now that she's graduating in a month it is not so important.

Anyway, my daughter was the only White members of the Black Law Students Association, and she sat on their executive board for two years. When she was interviewing for her second year summer internship, we had a discussion about this, because she didn't want her membership in BLSA to lead prospective firms to believe she was Black, and give her any preferences that were intended for others. On the other hand, how do you say, "I'm not Black," without it appearing to be the opposite concern ... that you don't want to be disadvantaged by your race.

Well, it turned out in interview that this was a bit of an issue. The one firm did think that she was Black and sent her to interview with an African-American partner, and they went through that awkward moment where she needed to explain why she had joined BLSA even though she was not Black ... it had a happy ending, and they did offer her a position and she accepted, but ... we kind of laughed about it afterwards, and it was a very odd conversation I had with her beforehand trying to figure out how to broach this subject with a firm during an interview.

Race shouldn't matter but it does, it does.

Your interview, nel, would have been the year before my daughter started law school, so I am wondering whether the complaints of your colleagues did have some impact on firm policy about interviewing people of color. In Philadelphia, the dictates of HLS student associations might be quite influential. Not so much in New York or Washington, perhaps, or out in CA where you are because they have all those Stanford grads to choose from as well, but here in Philly it seems to matter than not all the top hires be from UP ... they want to show that they can pull from other schools on the East Coast.

Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
halplm
hooked
Posts: 4864
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:15 am

Post by halplm »

Generally, on my drive home from work, I listen to a guy named Larry Elder who is a lawyer, and is black. He is also conservative, which of course, means he gets a lot of flack from black callers into the program.

This last week, he related a story about how he was the only black lawyer in the firm he worked for, and how it didn't matter while he worked for them. But when he was leaving the firm to start his own practice, one of the lawyers he worked with asked him the question "How are you going to get past the fact that you're black?" This was something like 25 years ago, but the implication was obviously that he couldn't succeed with his own practice.

Of course, he did, and he fully acknowledges that he probably lost some business, and gained some other business because he was black, that wasn't the point. The point was, whatever WAS stacked against him, he didn't care, he just practiced law as he knew how to, and he could be successful.

The whole point is. Race IS an issue, in everything going on, particularly in jobs which have been difficult to break down race barriers. But the solution is not to condemn people as racists for any little percieved slight. The solution is for black parents, pastors, leaders, etc... to convince their youth that they CAN succeed, despite predjudices. If children are taught thier whole lives that no matter what they do, a racist white man is going to prevent them from succeeding, then what's the point of trying? If you can ignore predjudice, and just be the best you can be, success is possible, even if it isn't easy.

I don't really have any idea what the solution is, but if we can talk about how the black community (or asian or hispanic) operates internally, without people throwing "you're a racist" comments around, we'll be able to make tremendous progress.

There will always be racists, but they only have power if people listen to them.
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

It just gets better and better: this from Trinity United's newsletter from last June 10, "Youth Day, Family Month:"
I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs.
The column goes on to praise Libya's Qaddafi as a hero in the fight against apartheid, and that 'for this reason' the US government declared him a terrorist.
Jnyusa
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am

Post by Jnyusa »

I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa.
This, alas, is substantively true, though the Jews living in South Africa were active in the anti-apartheid campaign, just as they were in the civil rights movement here in the US. I have personal acquaintances who had to leave SA because their activism had put their lives at risk.

Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
ToshoftheWuffingas
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm

Post by ToshoftheWuffingas »

Quote:
I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa.
Yes, I had a work colleague in the 70's who was a supporter of our homegrown Nazi party, the BNP (always a very fringe group in the UK just to reassure everyone) That gave him quite a quandary. :roll: :roll: :roll:
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

But what of this nonsense about an "ethnic bomb?"
Jnyusa
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am

Post by Jnyusa »

Sol, I think you just answered your own question. ;)

(Yes, it's nonsense.)

Whatever the FBI says about the first amendment, you can bet that this guy is on the radar of Homeland Security. They'll reel him in if he gets a parking ticket. (Another good reason not to click on that website.)

Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46116
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

A very interesting interview on Fox news with a white Catholic priest who is a friend of Rev. Wright's (thanks to Iorlas at TORC for posting this).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0wvQMqSzTM
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46116
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

I just watched the full hour long interview that Bill Moyers did with Rev. Wright. It can be found out:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

I strongly, strongly urge anyone who is truly interested in the truth to watch this full interview. This is not the man that has been presented to us. You may not agree with all that he has to say, but he is worth listening to. He is a very impressive person.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Faramond
Posts: 2335
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:59 am

Post by Faramond »

Well, the man has not been presented to us by others --- he presented himself to the world with his own words. Those words may be "out of context", but I can't imagine what context would make them sound any less crazy and nasty. I doubt I would trust anything he said in an interview --- I would compare this to how some believe that whatever Bush says is suspect and said only for political gain. Fortunately Wright != Obama, so it's rather irrelevant if I'm wrong about Wright. He's not headed for the presidency.

I might watch that, or some of it, eventually. But I think an hour is a bit much to devote to Rev Wright for me.
Holbytla
Posts: 5871
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:31 pm

Post by Holbytla »

I saw that interview, and like most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Image
User avatar
River
bioalchemist
Posts: 13431
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:08 am
Location: the dry land

Post by River »

You're missing out.

The nice thing about interviews is I don't have to actually sit still the whole time. I can be my fidgety self and listen. :P

ETA: x-posted with holby
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46116
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Faramond wrote:But I think an hour is a bit much to devote to Rev Wright for me.
That is certainly your perogative. The only thing that I would ask is that you don't judge the man based on a few short cherry-picked clips that were presented with an agenda. If he is not worth spending the time to watch the interview, then don't make judgments about him. But I think the interview is worth watching. I certainly didn't agree with everything that he said, but I definitely got a much better sense of who he is, and what he stands for. Sure, he is presenting himself in the best light possible, but to a large extent, he can't fake what I saw.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Faramond
Posts: 2335
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:59 am

Post by Faramond »

What exactly would I be allowed to judge Wright on?

How would you characterize Wright, Voronwë? Okay, I'll watch that video, sometime this week. But I want to know what you think I should be seeing.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46116
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

I can only tell you what I saw. I saw a very bright, passionate, knowledgable, caring man, who has a lot of anger, which is only partially justified. I'm sure I probably would have seen a somewhat different side of him if I could have seen his speech to the NAACP.

I don't know what you will see, and it certainly is not my place to tell you what you should see. But I continue to maintain that it is not fair to judge him based on small, cherry-picked clips taken out of context by people with a particular agenda.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Faramond
Posts: 2335
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:59 am

Post by Faramond »

I'm sure I couldn't say if Wright's anger was justified. That's seems the wrong way to look at him to me.

This latest stuff from Wright about black and white kids learning differently is very strange and dismaying.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46116
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

I presume that this is what you are referring to:
I believe that a change is going to come because many of us are committing to changing how we see others who are different.

In the past, we were taught to see others who are different as somehow being deficient. Christians saw Jews as being deficient. Catholics saw Protestants as being deficient. Presbyterians saw Pentecostals as being deficient.

Folks who like to holler in worship saw folk who like to be quiet as deficient. And vice versa.

Whites saw black as being deficient. It was none other than Rudyard Kipling who saw the "White Man's Burden" as a mandate to lift brown, black, yellow people up to the level of white people as if whites were the norm and black, brown and yellow people were abnormal subspecies on a lower level or deficient.

Europeans saw Africans as deficient. Lovers of George Friedrich Handel and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart saw lovers of B.B. King and Frankie Beverly and Maze as deficient. Lovers of Marian Anderson saw lovers of Lady Day and Anita Baker as deficient. Lovers of European cantatas -- Comfort ye in the glory, the glory of the Lord -- Lovers of European cantatas saw lovers of common meter -- I love the Lord, He heard my cry -- they saw them as deficient.

In the past, we were taught to see others who are different as being deficient. We established arbitrary norms and then determined that anybody not like us was abnormal. But a change is coming because we no longer see others who are different as being deficient. We just see them as different. Over the past 50 years, thanks to the scholarship of dozens of expert in many different disciplines, we have come to see just how skewed, prejudiced and dangerous our miseducation has been.

Miseducation. Miseducation incidentally is not a Jeremiah Wright term. It's a word coined by Dr. Carter G. Woodson over 80 years ago. Sounds like he talked a hate speech, doesn't it? Now, analyze that. Two brilliant scholars and two beautiful sisters, both of whom hail from Detroit in the fields of education and linguistics, Dr. Janice Hale right here at Wayne State University, founder of the Institute for the study of the African-American child. and Dr. Geneva Smitherman formerly of Wayne State University now at Michigan State University in Lansing. Hail in education and Smitherman in linguistics. Both demonstrated 40 years ago that different does not mean deficient. Somebody is going to miss that.

Turn to your neighbor and say different does not mean deficient. It simply means different. In fact, Dr. Janice Hale was the first writer whom I read who used that phrase. Different does not mean deficient. Different is not synonymous with deficient. It was in Dr. Hale's first book, "Black Children their Roots, Culture and Learning Style." Is Dr. Hale here tonight? We owe her a debt of gratitude. Dr. Hale showed us that in comparing African-American children and European-American children in the field of education, we were comparing apples and rocks.

And in so doing, we kept coming up with meaningless labels like EMH, educable mentally handicapped, TMH, trainable mentally handicapped, ADD, attention deficit disorder.

And we were coming up with more meaningless solutions like reading, writing and Ritalin. Dr. Hale's research led her to stop comparing African-American children with European-American children and she started comparing the pedagogical methodologies of African-American children to African children and European-American children to European children. And bingo, she discovered that the two different worlds have two different ways of learning. European and European-American children have a left brained cognitive object oriented learning style and the entire educational learning system in the United States of America. Back in the early '70s, when Dr. Hale did her research was based on left brained cognitive object oriented learning style. Let me help you with fifty cent words.

Left brain is logical and analytical. Object oriented means the student learns from an object. From the solitude of the cradle with objects being hung over his or her head to help them determine colors and shape to the solitude in a carol in a PhD program stuffed off somewhere in a corner in absolute quietness to absorb from the object. From a block to a book, an object. That is one way of learning, but it is only one way of learning.

African and African-American children have a different way of learning.

They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style. Right brain that means creative and intuitive. Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an object. They learn from a person. Some of you are old enough, I see your hair color, to remember when the NAACP won that tremendous desegregation case back in 1954 and when the schools were desegregated. They were never integrated. When they were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn't stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them.

Because they learn from a subject, not from an object. Tell me a story. They have a different way of learning. Those same children who have difficulty reading from an object and who are labeled EMH, DMH and ADD. Those children can say every word from every song on every hip hop radio station half of who's words the average adult here tonight cannot understand. Why? Because they come from a right-brained creative oral culture like the (greos) in Africa who can go for two or three days as oral repositories of a people's history and like the oral tradition which passed down the first five book in our Jewish bible, our Christian Bible, our Hebrew bible long before there was a written Hebrew script or alphabet. And repeat incredulously long passages like Psalm 119 using mnemonic devices using eight line stanzas. Each stanza starting with a different letter of the alphabet. That is a different way of learning. It's not deficient, it is just different. Somebody say different. I believe that a change is going to come because many of us are committed to changing how we see other people who are different.

What Dr. Janice Hale did in the field of education, Dr. Geneva Smitherman did in the field of linguistics. Almost 25 years ago now, Dr. Smitherman's book published by Wayne State University talking and testifying the language of black America taught us the same thing. Different does not mean deficient. Linguists have known since the mid 20th century that number one, nobody in Detroit, with the exception of citizens born and raised in the United Kingdom, nobody in Detroit speaks English. We all speak different varieties of American. If you don't believe me, go to the United Kingdom. As soon as you open your mouth in the United Kingdom, they'll say oh you're from America. Because they hear you speak in American. Linguists knew that nobody in here speaks English, but only black children 50 years ago were singled out as speaking bad English.

In the 1961, it's been all over the Internet now, John Kennedy could stand at the inauguration in January and say, "ask not what your country can do for you, it's rather what you can do for your country." How do you spell is? Nobody ever said to John Kennedy that's not English "is". Only to a black child would they say you speak bad English. Kennedy got killed. Johnson stepped up to the podium and love feel, we just left love feel. And Johnson, said my fellow Americans. How do you spell fellow? How do you spell American? Nobody says to Johnson you speak bad English.

Ed Kennedy, today, those of you in the Congress, you know Kilpatrick. You know, Ed Kennedy today cannot pronounce cluster consonants. Very few people from Boston can. They pronounce park like it's p-o-c-k. Where did you "pock" the car? They pronounce f-o-r-t like it's f-o-u-g-h-t. We fought a good battle. And nobody says to a Kennedy you speak bad English. Only to a black child was that said. Linguists knew that 50 years ago and they also knew number two that every language, including the language of Jesus, Aramaic, was made up of five subsets, pragmatic, grammar, syntax, semantics and phonics and that African speakers of English and African speakers of French and African speakers of Portuguese and African speakers of Spanish in the new world had created languages, not dialect all with five different subsets.

Languages, not Creole or Patois, languages. And Dr. Smitherman compiled the findings of an interdisciplinary research along with her own brilliant findings to show us that the language of black Americans was different, not deficient. She combined the findings of early childhood education, linguistics, socio-linguistics and the pedagogy of the oppressed to demonstrate most powerfully that different does not mean deficient. It simply means what? Different. I believe a change is going to come because many of us are committed to changing the way we see others who are different.

What Dr. Janice Hale did in the field of education and what Dr. Geneva Smitherman did in the field of linguistics, Dr. (Eldon) did in the field of ethnomusicology, the field of music. He showed us 40 years ago what Wintley [Phipps] is teaching you for the first time 40 years later. African music is different from European piano music. It is not deficient, it is different. In most school systems today, the way most of us over 40 years of age were taught is still being taught. We were taught a European paradigm as if Europe had the only music that there was in the world. As a matter of fact, if you just say the term, classical music.

Today, most here, use of that term will automatically refer to Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and already cited Mozart and Handel. European musicians. From grammar school to graduate school, we are taught in four, four time. That the dominant beat is on one and three. Our band directors, our choir directors, our orchestra director start us off how?

And One, two, three, four. One, two, three. Now, that's the European dominant beat. For African and African-Americans, it is not one and three, it is two and four. I don't have to teach you. Listen to black people clap to this song. Glory, glory hallelujah, you are clapping on beats two and four. If you got some white friends, they'll be clapping like this. You say they can't clap. Yes, they can. They clap in a different way. It's the same fact holds true with six eight time. Europeans stress one, two, three, four, five, six. One, two, three, four, five, six. Dum dum, dum, dum, dum. The stress is on one and four. Not for black people. When you got six eight time, blacks stress two three and five six.

Listen to this -- blessed assurance, Jesus is mine two, three for, five, six - oh, why are you clapping on the wrong beat? Africans have a different meter and Africans have a different tonality. European music is diatonic, seven tones. Do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, do. That's Italian. Europe. In west Africa and south Africa, it is not diatonic, seven tones, it is pentatonic with five tones. Wintley [Phipps] points out that if you want to know black music, just look at the black keys on the piano. Do, re, fa, so, la. Just those five tunes. Those are the only five notes you'll hear and somebody knows the trouble I've seen.

It only uses five notes the same with the river it also uses five notes. That's all. I believe a change is coming. It's not deficient, it's just different.

Many of us are committed to changing how we see others who are different. When you look at and listen to - I'm in Michigan. OK. Here in Michigan, look at and listen to the University of Michigan and Michigan State University bands at halftime. Their bands hit the field with excellent European precision. Da, da, da, da, da, ta, ra, ra.

Now go to a Florida A&M and Gramling Band. It's different. And you can't put that in no book. I believe change is going to come because many of us are committed to changing how we see others who are different. One is not superior to the other. One is not normal with the other being abnormal. One is not deficient because it doesn't follow the same methodology of the other. It is just different. Different does not mean deficient. Tell your neighbor one more time.

Now, what is true in the field of education, linguistics, ethnomusicology, marching bands, psychology and culture is also true in the field of homiletics, hermeneutics, biblical studies, black sacred music and black worship. We just do it different and some of our haters can't get their heads around that. I come from a religious tradition that does not divorce the world we live in from the world we are heading to. I come from a religious tradition that does not separate the kingdom of heaven that we pray for from the devious kingdoms of humans that keep people in bondage on earth.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Faramond
Posts: 2335
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:59 am

Post by Faramond »

Yes.

Of course some kids learn differently than others. But skin color does not determine how children learn.
User avatar
Impenitent
Throw me a rope.
Posts: 7260
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Deep in Oz

Post by Impenitent »

No, not skin colour, but cultural and social environment from the day they rae born will influence the development of the brain in accordance to stimulation received - and therefore learning style.

If African American children are stimulated differently from day one to Euro-American children, their brains will adapt to different learning styles. So I guess in that way skin colour may be a flag to the way children have been taught to learn from their earliest days.

I guess that African-American children and Euro-American children will differ less and less in their learning styles if their cultural and social environment - the way the family interacts in the privacy of their own home - differs less and less.

I don't know, but I'm not sure that's the utopia I'm looking for. I quite like diversity. Perhaps recognition and accommodation of difference is better.
Locked