October 5, 2023 at 5:00 pm | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, Alan Bakke, American history, black inferiority, Brown v Topeka, Civil Right's Act 1964, democracy, discrimination, education, Equal Opportunity, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, fairness, I have a dream, justice, language, Martin Luther King Jr., Race in America, social conditioning, U.S. Supreme Court | 2 Comments
Tags: Adolph Reed Jr., Affirmative Action, African Americans, current-events, diversity programs, Diversity Training, Equal Opportunity, ethnicity, European Americans, The Nation
When Dr. Martin Luther King spoke during the March on Washington in 1963, his message was not a pep talk, but a protest of the government for not living up to its promise of civil rights for African Americans. Since that time, the shift away from the problems of the African Americans has been steady and deliberate. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act changed the focus away from the African Americans to any American feeling treated unfairly and as before, places the burden of proof on the victim. One of the changes made because of the 1964 Act was the introduction of Affirmative Action, a phrase that sounds positive, but promises nothing. In an article published recently, “Trickle-Down Diversity,” Nation writer, Adolph Reed Jr. discussed the effect of the Supreme Court’s action relative to Affirmative Action.
Reed stated at the beginning of the article that “I’ve long been a supporter of affirmative action, but it has never been a means of reducing actual inequality.” He sights statistics indicating the effect affirmative action has had on African Americans: “By 2018, 7 percent of Black Americans earned more than $150,000. Similarly, more than three-quarters of so-called wealth is held by the richest 10 percent of Black people.” From this information he concluded that “Over the course of a half-century of widening national inequality, the goal of affirmative action has not been to combat that inequality but to diversify its beneficiaries.” So, the promise of the government to focus on relieving many of the problems experienced by African Americans are still not addressed. If we examine the language used by the government, we find that while it appears to address the issues, it is like cotton candy, sweet to the taste but lacking substance.
What does “affirmative action” mean when we try to get a fixed meaning? Reed offered his own definition: “At is core, affirmative action is a technique in the implementation of antidiscrimination law, based on an understanding that overt prejudice is too limited a standard for identifying redressable discrimination.” In other words, affirmative was never intended to address the real problems facing African Americans. So, what about the programs dealing with diversity, equity, and inclusion? Do they make an impact on the discrimination problems facing African Americans? The simple answer is no.
The problem with diversity programs begins with the word diversity. If diversity training is geared to orienting new employees to a company or organization, then the meaning and intent of the program is fixed and has nothing to do with ethnic identities. However, if the program and training is to address the concern of ethnic variety in the workplace, then it fails. The fact that diversity training is offered by a company or organization indicates that a superiority and inferiority context has been established with the agent instituting the program claiming the superiority identify.
The same is true with the word diversity. How does one define a diverse individual without including self? If all Homo sapiens belong to the same species, what constitutes a diverse individual? The word diverse carries the connotation of biological or genetic differences that indicates an ethnic bias. The effect is that when individuals are identified by any of the social elements that make them different, that identity places them in a so-called minority category and they are viewed as inferior. Also, they lose any individuality/uniqueness; they become stereotypes associated with the characteristics of their group; they are treated by society in conjunction with the stereotypes of the group. The individual, in essence, becomes less than a human being. A better approach to diversity training would be ethnic or cultural awareness education.
The word equity suggests that inequality exists from the start. So, how does one identify the inequality, own it, and reckon with it? How does one eliminate inequalities through training that does not underscore inferiority? Many articles focusing on diversity training programs indicated that many of the non-European American participants felt more isolated from the group at the end of the training than at the start. What is the goal of the diversity program and training focusing on equity? What does equity mean and how is it acquired? Those questions must be addressed for the program to have any value.
Again, if the subject of inclusion is directed at a company or organization, then the goal is fixed. But if the objective is to blend individuals of various ethnic cultures, then the inclusion must be larger than the company or organization because one size does not fit all. The contrast between superior and inferior is established by the word inclusion because it suggests that there is an idea of inclusiveness, and some people are not included. Those not included must be inferior to those included. So, how does that get fixed?
Another program developed from affirmative action was the “Equal opportunity” program which was without value from the beginning. If we examine the language of the phrase, we find nothing with a fixed definition. Equal is a mathematical word and has no meaning with reference to human beings. First, what is equal and who determines whether its administration is fair? What is the model for equality?
Likewise, the word opportunity is the same as a crapshoot, no fixed value except chance. We all have the same opportunity to bet on a horse, but the only value comes with the chance to pick a horse and bet. So, what assurances comes with equal opportunity that would benefit the majority of African Americans? We know that language has the power to control society and that language is a powerful tool that can influence our thoughts, actions, and even our worldview.
When we consider the language and effects of affirmative action and its programs involving diversity and equal opportunity, we can conclude, along with Reed, that 90 percent of African Americans have not benefited from affirmative action. On the contrary, African Americans have lost ground in trying to obtain their civil rights. The language of civil rights changed in 1963 and so did the focus on African American injustice.
August 26, 2023 at 12:14 am | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, anglo saxons, Bigotry in America, biological races, blacks, Civil Rights Ats, desegregation, discrimination, DNA, education, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, identity, interpretations, language, minorities, Negro, public education, Race in America, racism, skin color, skin complexion, Slavery, teaching race, white supremacy, whites | 4 Comments
Tags: African Americans, black, Confronting Myths, current-events, ethnicity, European Americans, Race in America, white
When I write and speak about how the language of race enslaves Americans and constantly present African Americans and other non-European people as inferior, the following example should suffice to make the point. In an article “Being Black Means You’re Disabled – People Are Up in Arms Over What This Ivy League School Is Teaching,” story by Emily Valadez •2h 8/25/2023, the following sentence is offered.
“Systemic racism refers to the systems in place in society that create racial inequality for people of color.”
Since we have not and do not challenge the truth and facts about the language we use, we fail to understand and appreciate the predicament in which we are placed. For example, the reference to “Systemic racism” should be challenged because race is not a valid word relating to identity since it has no biological or genetic basis. Certainly, a system of ethnic bigotry exists, and has existed since before the founding of this nation. The language should avoid using the word race and its derivative, racial because those words protect and promote European supremacy. The word race is a bigoted word in that it was developed to signify a sub-species of the Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens have no sub-species except in the word race. The objective in developing the word as a reference to sub-species was to render all peoples not European inferior to them. In essence, only Europeans represent the Homo Sapien species.
The next part of the sentence, the word inequality has no fixed or specific meaning except in mathematics. Equal cannot apply to human beings, just fixed entities like numbers. The word is used to suggest “fairness” which sounds pleasing but is also a relative word with no fixed meaning. When the word is challenged, confusion sets in because no definite parameters are established from which to judge and make a balanced decision.
The last part of the sentence refers to “people of color” and continues to add confusion to be objective of the sentence in a reasonable manner. Who and what are people of color? The reference to any person or group of people using color is a form of bigotry. What makes it bigotry is the implied reference to race that is associated with people and a color. Since black and white are colors, what distinguishes the people of color from people without color, if they exist?
The title of the article states that “Being Black means you are disabled,” suggests that something is inherently wrong with blacks that render them disabled. The problems visited on the African American population is a direct result of actions taken against them by European Americans. The situations in which African Americans find themselves can be directed attributed to their treatment in America. The language is misleading and confusing.
What happens when we fail to challenge the language of race was explained by John H. Stanfield II, “Race as a myth is a distorting variable that convolutes and in other ways distracts attention from the variables that really matter in understanding how and why human beings think, act, and develop as they do. The extent to which race does exist, it is an experience, it is not phenotype real or imagined.” (Montagu, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth, the fallacy of race.) The myth of European supremacy continues because we are complacent relative to the language and fail to realize the damage it contributes to our society.
What is disheartening about the article is the fact that Princton University, one of the prime institutions of American Education, did not recognize what the language they employed was doing. Rather than using the opportunity as a teachable opportunity, they instead, whether knowingly or not, protected and promoted European supremacy. When color is used to identify a person or a group of people that is a form of bigotry and discrimination. The history, culture, language, religion, food, and all the things that pertain to an ethnic group’s uniqueness are lost when the group is turned into a monolith by being referred to as a color. The very word “black” is used as an adjective preceding the noun race. Any time race is used, it protects and promotes the myth of European supremacy. Of course, many African Americans and non-European Americans do not question the use of the word black, but that does not make it acceptable and not historically demeaning. Maya Angelou once stated that “when we (people) know better, we do better.”
What Princton could have done in providing information about the course was to make the point that no one comes to America using color as an identity. When the Africans that were enslaved were brought to America, one of the first things to happen was the taking away of any identity and replacing it with words like negro, black, colored, slave, and others. The language used in identifying the enslaved changed over the years until present day usage includes black, African American, non-European American. African Americans did not choose to be identified as blacks but were socialized to accept and use it without challenge until the 1970’s civil rights era. Rather than recognizing the permanent stigma associated with its usage, many decided to retain it. Even today, many will try to defend it, not realizing that each usage protects and promotes European (white) supremacy.
Since the foundation of America numerous voices have attempted to inform society relative to the use of the word race. A few scientists and scholars have challenged the governments and society’s continued use of the word race. Many anthropologists have noted regarding the concept of race: “(1) it was artificial, (2) it did not correspond to the facts, (3) it led to confusion and the perpetuation of error, and finally, (4) for all these reasons it was scientifically unsound, or rather, more accurately, that is was false and misleading.” They also concluded that “based as it was om unexamined facts and unjustifiable generalizations, it were better that the term ‘race,’ corrupted as it is with so many deceptive and dangerous meanings, be dropped altogether from the vocabulary.” (Montagu, p.107.)
A common belief is that everything we know, we acquired from our socialization in society. From day one, we began the socialization process, and it continues throughout our lives. However, just because we learned something that proved to be incorrect does not mean we cannot correct it. Educational institutions like Princeton must help to educate society out of its ignorance and theirs.
June 16, 2023 at 3:52 am | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, ashley Montagu, C. Loring Brace,, biological races, black inferiority, discrimination, Disrespect, DNA, education, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, Human Genome, identity, interpretations, language, minorities, minority, Race in America, racism, respect, skin color, U. S. Census, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: African Americans, black, Confronting Myths, current-events, ethnicity, European Americans, race, Race in America, white
Many of us sometimes experience remembering placing our keys down somewhere, but when we try to retrieve them, they are nowhere in sight. After we have looked in all the places, we think they could be, low and behold we spot them in front of us right in plain sight. They were not hidden from us; we just did not see them at first. That experience can serve as an example of what happens daily in America and the Western World relative to ethnic bigotry. Ethnic bigotry is present, but just not seen because we have become conditioned to not questioning its presence, but it is present in the language. One reason we do not challenge the language is because we have been conditioned to accept it on face value. That acceptance, however, represents the problem of our not seeing the ethnic bigotry.
We have been told for several hundred years that that the word “race” is socially constructed to represent a particular meaning and as C. Loring Brace has noted that…” despite almost universal belief to the contrary, the concept of ‘race’ as applied to the picture of human biological diversity had absolutely no scientific justification.” The word “race” was developed to represent a subspecies, inferior to the species Homo sapiens, and to promote, to protect, and to preserve the myth of European supremacy and domination. So, how does a society go about making the myth a reality? Stephen Ullmann stated that “Words [language] certainly are the vehicles of our thoughts, but they may be far more than that: they may acquire an influence of their own, shaping and pre-determining our processes of thinking and our whole outlook.” America and the Western World wanted to ensure that the myth remains current, so they ignored the facts regarding race.
In 1997, Ashley Montagu, stated in an introduction to the 6th edition of his book Man’s Most Dangerous Myth, the fallacy of Race, that the purpose of his book was…:
to make use of the scientifically established facts to show that the term “race” is a socially constructed artifact—that there is no such thing in reality as “race,” that the very word is racist: that the idea of “race,” implying the existence of significant biologically determined mental differences rendering some populations inferior to others, is wholly false; and that the space between as idea and reality can be very great and misleading.
Regardless of the many appeals made by many Americans of note, the government and society continue to use the word race as acceptable when we know that its purpose is to support ethnic bigotry. The fact that the word “race” and many of its diversities are used daily and that they are meant to denigrate their target, fails to register on the sender and the receiver. For example, like the word “race,” the words of color black, red, brown, and yellow are not used as compliments to the groups, but as a sign of their inferiority. The obvious exception of color in this group is the color white because it is usually used as a compliment. When only an ethnic group’s color is used rather than the phrase that is intended: black race, red race, brown race, and yellow race, it is a form of bigotry. If race is included in any form, the message shows disrespect because it signifies inferiority. Unfortunately, when an explanation is offered to some individuals and groups that use a color as an ethnic group identity in their business or organizations, they are quick to show their innocence by defending their use of the color. The fact that they do not recognize the disrespect of the group is due to the power of the language and the failure to question it.
Color is not a part of any human being’s identity regardless of their ethnicity and nationality. How is it that the government, and especially the U.S. Census Bureau continue to use the term “race” considering all the facts and evidence to its being bogus? Could that be a sign of ethnic bigotry? The word “race” is just a small part of the language used by the government and society to protect the myth of European supremacy.
Another word that is frequently used by government and society relative to population is “minority.” Like the word race, minority is a biased term. Most dictionaries offer at least two different usages of the word, but both involve numbers. The first states that minority is “the smaller number or part, especially a number that is less than half the whole number.” The second states that minority is “a relatively small group of people, especially one commonly discriminated against in a community, society, or nation, differing from others in race, religion, language, or political persuasion.” If we notice carefully in the second example, we find the evidence to support the disrespect and bigotry associated in referring to a group of people as a minority. Yet, we hear it daily.
The word “minority” while used in America to describe non-European people shows its selective use. If we applied the word minority to the world population, the people of non-European heritage would represent the majority. We know that eighty percent of the world’s population is brown. That fact is seldom referenced in topics focusing on minorities. Although the word is biased, hardly anyone underscores that fact. What lies inside the use of the word is the suggestion that different races are included and therefore they are inferior to the majority. The use of the word minority as an indicator of race is a form of bigotry, but we find it being used at every level of society without regard to the negative implications it carries.
The use of language as a vehicle for promoting the concept of race and the myth of European supremacy has always been dangerous. Again, Montagu pointed out, …” the very word “race is itself a racist [bigoted] term not simply because it represents a congeries of errors, or that it is a spurious ‘reality’ with no objective existence, but in addition, and most importantly, because its baleful influence constitutes a threat to the very existence of humanity.” When we are ignorant of the power of language and never think to question its use, we become complicit in the damage it causes and the negative impact on the lives it affects. Yet, if we look close enough, we will find it in plain sight.
June 8, 2023 at 12:23 am | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Indian, anglo saxons, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, college admission, Constitutional rights, discrimination, education, EEOC, employment, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, fairness, language, race, Race in America, The U.S. Constitution, U. S. Census | 1 Comment
Tags: Confronting Myths, current-events, gender identity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation
Subscribe to continue reading
Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.
September 14, 2022 at 12:26 am | Posted in African American, American Racism, Bigotry in America, blacks, DNA, education, European Americans, identity, justice, Race in America, racism, skin complexion, social conditioning, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: African Americans, black, Confronting Myths, current-events, ethnicity, European Americans, Race in America, white
What is the difference between the questions: What size shoe does the Tooth Fairy wear? And how do we fight racism? Regardless of the various arguments that can be made concerning the two questions one fact stands out above all others—the questions are both based on myths. The primary difference between the two questions is that the Tooth Fairy myth is accepted as a myth and treated in like manner, but the concepts of race and racism is recognized being based on a myth but treated as reality. Common knowledge concerning race and racism is that they are the results of social constructions—made up to serve a purpose. The primary purpose that race serves is to represent the concept of a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Science and history have told us from the invention of taxonomy and the development of DNA that no such subspecies exists. Yet, America and the Western World continue to promote and foster the false concept of race. If the only concern of the race myth is its acceptance, no major problem would exist, but the fact that it is viewed as reality and instructs behavior represents a huge challenge.
What has taken place in the Western World for over two-hundred and fifty years is a behavior and belief in the myth of race that views Europeans and European Americans as superior to all other peoples in the world. What is even more disheartening is the fact that despite over-whelming facts and evidence to the contrary, the belief and behavior continues. The term race does four things besides supporting European supremacy: unite, separate, discriminate, and manipulate all other people. Regardless of how the term is used relative to identity, these four characteristics exist. No serious attempt has been made to rectify this situation, so ethnic bigotry has been alive and well in America for over two-hundred-and fifty years and it will continue until the people realize that race and racism is not the problem, nor can they be destroyed.
The plethora of people that write on or about race and racism all make the same mistake that causes their efforts to go for naught. If one starts off with a flawed concept, regardless of the developments and inventions attributed to that concept, the results will be flawed. Various writers of books and articles attempt to make clear at the beginning of their work that race is considered a social construction—a statement that should disqualify its use. However, the works proceeds in employing the term race and many of its derivatives as if they were legitimate and acceptable. For example, when writers use the terms black and white for human groups identities, they commit two major errors: one, they associate a person’s ethic identity with a color complexion and two, they invent so-called racial groups as monoliths. Both errors should automatically be seen as disqualifiers because they have no scientific basis in fact.
The most important part of any work is the clear understanding of what is being addressed and that should begin with a definition of terms. Any confusion relative to the subject or topic will result in even more confusion. An interesting situation currently in America is the efforts of a number of states to outlaw the teaching of race and related subjects that might cause the children hurtful feelings. The problem with these laws is that they never define race. The word race is used as though the reader already knows the meaning, but that is a false assumption. If these laws were to be challenged in courts that required a clear definition of terms, the laws would be thrown out or Western History could not be taught.
Another problem that arises from the law preventing the teaching of race is the obvious one of identity. If race is not to be taught or used how will children that have been conditioned to view themselves as black or white, be identified? The terms black and white when used singly refers to a color, but if the intent is for the use as identity, then they represent adjectives that proceed race. In other words, black race, and white race. Some European American and African American families do not inform their children of their ethnic identities, so as society has conditioned then, they say black and white. Since this term refer to so-called races, how is the teacher supposed to manage this situation without getting into trouble with the law? When a term is not defined or meaning fixed, it invents unforeseen problems when made the principal focus of a law. An uncomplicated way to resolve the problem of race is to discontinue use of the word. However, that would cause even more problems because that would eliminate the privileges and power associated with the phrase “white race.”
What is disturbing relative to works that attempt to offer something of value concerning race and racism is that they do not realize that while they are trying to make an argument against race and racism, they are promoting the concepts as legitimate. What is missing from many works on race and racism is the understanding that before one can proceed to address the issues involving race, it must first be debunked. Once race has been debunked then one can proceed to show the inaccuracies and misinformation associated with it. Unfortunately, many writers continue to use the language of race and the references that support the myth as part of their research and studies. For example, notice the language in the following quote that continues to promote as factual research material:
Twenty years after Bonilla-Silva developed the analytic components of a structural race perspective and called for “comparative work on racialization in various societies,” U.S.-centric race theory continues to be mostly rooted in a U.S. focus. What is missing is a framework that explores race and racism as a modern global project that takes shape differently in diverse structural and ideological forms across all geographies but is based in global white supremacy.” (A Global Critical Race and Racism Framework: Racial Entanglements and Deep and Malleable Whiteness,” Michelle Christian, 2018, Sociology of Race and Ethnicity)
Why not forgo all the analysis and inventions relative to race when we know that it is a myth. Whatever came out of this study was flawed because what went into it was flawed. The problem is not race or racism; it is the belief in the myth.
Okay, the Tooth Fairy does not wear shoes, but the fight against race continues. Why?
March 19, 2021 at 3:13 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, Bigotry in America, blacks, criminal activity, criminal justice, discrimination, Disrespect, education, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, fairness, incarceration, interpretations, jail & prison overcrowding, justice, justice system, language, law, Media and Race, Police, police education & training, police force, Prejudice, social conditioning, social justice system | 4 Comments
Tags: African Americans, bigotry, criminal justice system, cultural changes, ethnic bigotry, ethnic prejudice, ethnicity, European Americans, law enforcement agencies, Police, unlawful stops
Several years ago a number of local police chiefs from the surrounding metropolitan area got together and held a public forum. The forum was held in a predominately African American community in a local church’s auditorium. Each police chief was introduced by the moderator, also a police chief, and given an opportunity to share information about how his department was addressing community relations, the various programs and projects they were administering. After each chief had spoken, the audience was invited to share their concerns and experiences relative to law enforcement. A long line was formed in the auditorium and one by one each individual related his or her concerns. When the line had shortened to the last two individuals, I decided to bring up the rear, and joined the line.
When my turn to speak arrived, I addressed a question to the entire group of chiefs. My question was what programs or activities are you conducting to educate your officers to treat me as a member of the community and a human being? I said my reason for asking the question was due to the fact that each time I or any person of color is stopped, we automatically lose all our rights and privileges because we are generally viewed as suspects, thugs, or criminals and treated as such. Anything we might say is ignored except in response to an officer’s request or command; any movement, remark, gesture is interpreted as disrespectful, threatening, or fearful. We are totally at the mercy of the officer.
All of the chiefs in turn tried to discredit my remarks saying that their officer training does not include that type of behavior and that there were no problems in their departments. Their remarks continued until the moderator stopped them and admitted that I had a legitimate concern. The general response from the chiefs was that they would look into the problem. When the forum ended everyone in the audience went their separate ways most knowing that nothing in the criminal justice would change because of this program.
The fact that bigotry is a part of the American fabric and is maintained systematically is well known. What else is true is the knowledge that no one segment with problems of bigotry can be addressed without affecting other segments. That is why trying to rid bigotry in any one segment of society fails. Nevertheless, corrective changes can be made in some segments that might have a positive impact on other tangential parts. The usual question asked is where do we start? With respect to the criminal justice system, my answer is start with the stop. Permit me a hypothetical example.
In a small community of approximately one-hundred-thousand residents, twelve percent of that population is people of color. According to recorded police data, forty percent of the stops, tickets, and arrests fall in the people of color community. So, according to the data twelve percent of the population commits forty percent of the crimes. How does that happen? If we check the police date relative to the calls to the police and 911 services from the people of color community, we find the total number less than four percent. So, how does forty percent adequately reflect crime in the community?
One answer is the designation of the community where people of color live as a high crime area. Well, how does it get to be a high crime area? The data collected and reported by the officers are derived from the stops, tickets, and arrests made by the officers, but that data does not support a designation of a high crime area. So, what happens? The high crime designation is a manufactured one that allows the police force to send more men to patrol that area. When we check the data from the officers, we discover that most of the stops are for minor offenses that do not involve more than a fine. However, when we check the data for reasons for arrest, we discover that the reasons for the stop are not the same for the arrest. The numbers tell the story that when a small segment of the community is patrolled frequently by officers, stops, tickets, and arrests will result. Why? Officers are not generally rewarded on their record of protecting and serving the community as one would think; they are rewarded on the basis of the number of stops, tickets, and arrest that are made. Communities of color are generally low socio-economic areas, so officers are not usually concerned with legal challenges to their actions which can serve as an incentive to develop more data.
The above example is hypothetical, but for evidence of the real thing is action, one needs look no further than Ferguson, Missouri. Rather than parade a litany of stats about Ferguson, lets us look at the point in question. Why are people of color stopped, ticketed, and arrested more than any other American citizens? The answer is systemic bigotry in the criminal justice system, and it all starts when an individual of color is stopped. We know from studies, books, and reports that a disconnection exists between law enforcement and people of color, but not necessarily of the peoples’ making. More than enough videos exist to underscore the attitude and behavior of officers involved with people of color and how thing escalate from a minor infraction to an arrest. If we want to try and correct the disparity between the data and the population, then we must begin with the stop.
No one answer will fit all the problems, but developing data from each officer’s stop focusing on who, when, where, why would be a good starting place. Another concern about how areas become designated as high or low crime area based on independent data, not officer generated data. The number of calls into the police department and 911services from the community of color should be relatively easy to collect and record. We know that entry into the criminal justice system begins with a stop. Let us work to make certain that those stops are based on law, not bias.
February 6, 2021 at 4:18 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American Dream, American history, American Racism, anglo saxons, Bigotry in America, biological races, black inferiority, Community relationships, Congress, democracy, DNA, DNA programs, education, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, Genealogy,, identity, justice system, language, Media and Race, Prejudice, race, Race in America, skin color, skin complexion, social justice system, white supremacy, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: African Americans, Anglo-Saxon myth, bigotry, blacks, ethnic groups, ethnicity, European Americans, Linnaeus, race, Race in America, racism, species, taxonomy, Western history, white America
In view of the recent incidents involving hate groups and people storming Congress wanting to take back their country based on their conception of America being and belonging to “white people,” now is an opportune time to try and clear the air of the myth and misinformation we have lived with for almost four centuries. Ask almost anyone to define race and their answer will probably include something like groups of people with common physical differences like skin color, facial features, hair texture, eye color and shape; their definition might also include some geographical areas like Africa, Japan, China, etc. None of these elements, however, define race; they merely describe what race might look like. In reality, race cannot be defined because it is not fixed. Unfortunately, many Americans have been living under the notion that races exist and America belongs to the white one. Now is the time to correct this misinformation.
History showed that the concept of a race began to evolve in the late 17th century by the Anglo-Saxons and expanded along with the beginning of European exploration and colonization. For many years the English had fostered the myth of their nation as being superior to all other nations, but the myth was ignored until Linnaeus gave them an idea based on his taxonomy classifications and the human species. To justify their myth of superiority and dominance over all other nations, the Anglo-Saxons claimed that their nation represented the Homo sapiens species and that all the other nations were represented as sub-species. In order to protect, promote, and perpetuate the myth, they invented the word race which does just that any time and anyway the word is used. That is, whenever the word race or any of its derivatives are used, the myth of Anglo-Saxon superiority is protected, promoted, and perpetuated. The references to the other nations as races indicated their inferiority was secondary to the myth because they are all viewed as sub-species.
The myth of the Anglo-Saxons being superior to all the other nations (called races) have been debunked many times, but persist because of the constant usage and protection. The myth does not question the Anglo-Saxons but focuses on the differences of the other groups and that is part of the problem. Why would anyone believe that one nation out of all the nations on the planet was singled out to represent an entire species? We have learned that “… DNA analyses have proved that all humans have much more in common, genetically, than they have differences. The genetic difference between any two humans is less than 1 percent.” We also learned that “… geographically widely separated populations vary from one another in only about 6 to 8 percent of their genes.”So, the need to continue using the word race does nothing but support the myth.
The word race and the myth it supports has been so much a part of our consciousness that we find it hard to replace. But replace it we must. The myth of one ethnic group being superior to all the other groups is akin to someone believing that chocolate milk comes from brown cows. Yet, we have people and organizations that want to fight and destroy race and racism when the myth offers nothing to fight or destroy. In order to debunk the chocolate milk myth one only has to milk a brown cow and see the color of milk that comes out. To stop race and racism, one must stop accepting and believing in them; that will replace them with facts and truth because they are simply concepts. The damage that has occurred because of the acceptance of and belief in race and racism is another matter.
America must do a better job of educating its citizens because the plethora of ignorance regarding the use of race and racism will continue to be a problem. Recently, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives made a statement that urged all non-white people to go back to their homes and leave America to its rightful white owners. One would have found these comments laughable had they not been offered seriously. The case seems to be that people believe in what they want to believe in and facts and truth be dammed. Nonetheless, the truth and the facts regarding race and racism must be made. The fact is that “Because of the overlapping of traits that bears no relationship to one another (such as skin colour and hair texture) and the inability of scientists to cluster peoples into discrete racial packages, modern researchers have concluded that the concept of race has no biological validity.” (Britannica/The Many Meanings of “Race”) More facts and evidence, scientific and historical, are available to support that conclusion.
As stated earlier, because race and racism are concepts they can be replaced with appropriate language that does not include race. For example, the phrase “human race” is inaccurate and should be the human species; the word races should be ethnic groups. Rather than using the word “racism”, the word bigotry better represents the experience. In addition to the word race protecting, promoting, and perpetuating itself, race and all of its derivatives when used cause four simultaneous actions to occur: unity, separation, discrimination, and control. These actions occur because race focuses only on sub-species and not the representative of the species, the Anglo-Saxons.
The primary mistake made by the many individuals and organizations in their efforts to address the problems caused by belief in race and racism is the use of these words. For example, one cannot define antiracism unless the concept of racism is acknowledged. We know that racism comes from a belief in race and that race is a social invention, not valid in any sense. So, why spend time talking about antiracism that cannot produce a positive outcome when by simply debunking the myth one can move closer to reality—the fact that we are one species. How can we love our neighbor as ourselves if we do no see ourselves in our neighbor? �������
January 1, 2021 at 2:04 pm | Posted in African American, American history, American Racism, anglo saxons, black inferiority, blacks, desegregation, discrimination, education, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, fairness, immigration, integregation, justice, language, Oklahoma, Oklahoma education, Prejudice, public education, Race in America, respect, segregation, social conditioning, socioeconomics | 4 Comments
Tags: African Americans, Anglo-Saxon, Bo Jackson, desegregation, discrimination, education, ethnic profiling, European Americans, implicit bias, integration, People of color, public schools, tracking
My youngest son entered the 7th grade in the early 1990’s and was excited about matriculation from grade school—he was moving up in the world. Approximately two weeks after the start of school he came home one afternoon in a very disgruntled mood, which was unusual for him. When I questioned him about his mood, he responded that his teacher had placed him in the low reading group. He knew that he did not belong in the low reading group, so his self-esteem was affected. I requested his teacher’s name and immediately called the school and requested a meeting with her. She agreed to meet with me and asked if she could invite a fellow teacher to join us. I informed her that she could invite anyone she wished included the school’s faculty.
Less than twenty minutes I arrived at the school and was conducted to the teacher’s classroom where I met her colleague. I explained my reason for wanting to meet with her and asked what criteria were used in determining the reading groups to which students were assigned. She indicated that two exams were given to students and based on their performance they were placed in groups that coincided with their scores. I asked to see my son’s test so I could see how he performed. After retrieving my son’s first test, the expression on her face changed to one of puzzlement. I asked what the problem was. She immediately exclaimed that based on his score he did not have to be placed in the low group. I asked if there was a quota for group size and she said no. I then asked to see the second test my son had taken. Again, the teacher’s expression changed and her face reddened somewhat. Showing me the test paper, she commented that my son should have easily been placed in the high group. She and her colleague had not checked the second test.
She agreed to immediately correct the situation and move my son to the appropriate group. I thanked her and asked that she contact me or my son’s mother regarding any concern with my son’s work. I mentioned to her that she challenged his self-esteem by placing him in the low reading groups because he knew he did not belong there. I mentioned that just before the start of school my son had saved his allowance money to purchase a book, Bo Known Bo, by Bo Jackson, and read it over the summer. She apologized and thanked me for calling attention to the matter.
What happened to my son was not an isolated event in schools across the nation. When desegregation came into being in the public school system, the primary change to occur was that students of color were permitted to attend school with predominantly European American students and teachers. Neither the curriculum nor the cultural biases changed. My son’s teacher, probably unknowingly, in her treatment of my son, practiced ethnic profiling, ethnic discrimination, and implicit bias. Cultural bias and social conditioning of European Americans happens normally, so the teachers never realized the consequence of their actions. Apparently, teacher preparation institutions do little to debunk the myth of Anglo-Saxon superiority that existed prior to and during desegregation and integration.
To the point, the teacher committed ethnic profiling simply by looking at my son and seeing that he was a child of color rather than just another one of her students. Just the sight of a student different from the majority of students would have affected the teacher’s psyche. Many studies have shown that the mere sight of a person of color can affect the emotional state of many European Americans. We know all too well that ethnic profiling continues to be a problem with law enforcement and the criminal justice system, so why not with educators.
Simply profiling my son as an ethnic American did not create a problem for my son, but discriminating against him by associating negative ethnic characteristics generally applied to African Americans caused him harm. She demeaned his value by automatically assuming he was should be in a low reading group; his test scores were of little concern to her. Some public beginning back in the 1980s instituted a system called tracking that placed students, according to their performance on tests, in groups ranging from low group to high group.
While this tracking system initially served a positive purpose, allowing students with needs to receive special individual attention, its negative elements quickly took over and created more problems. Rather than relying on test scores as the basis for group placement, many schools simply began placing African American students, low socio-economic European American students, and immigrant students in the low groups. The middle and upper groups were filled with predominantly European American students, and that arrangement created a two-tiered system-separate and unequal.
Consequently, my son’s teacher’s designating him for inclusion in the low reading group was an act of discrimination based on her biased and uninformed judgment of his abilities. Her judgment, if left intact, could have resulted in not only his loss of self-esteem but also a loss of initiative and desire for self-improvement.
Additionally, the fact that she placed him in the low reading group represented an act of implicit bias. Thinking that he should go to the low group is one, but placing him in that group helped her confirm her judgment. The consequences of the teacher’s actions beginning with my son’s profiling to his group placement could have had a detrimental effect on his entire life. Too many young lives have already been negatively affected.
Recounting this encounter is meant to underscore the possible experiences targeted and marginalized students face in a society and an educational system that does not value them on a par with the majority of students. If America is to be a society that values each individual then we must work vigorously together to replace the myth of European American supremacy and privilege.
(My son went on to graduate high school as a member of the National Honor Society and the school’s top musician. He also managed to earn university degrees including the doctorate—not too bad for a low group reader.) �Y�˪`�]%!
December 18, 2020 at 2:19 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, anglo saxons, Bigotry in America, biological races, black inferiority, Brown v Topeka, Civil Right's Act 1964, desegregation, discrimination, education, entitlements, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, identity, integregation, language, Martin Luther King Jr., Media and Race, Oklahoma, Prejudice, public education, race, Race in America, segregation, social conditioning, socioeconomics, teaching race, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: African Americans, American Education, desegregation, diversity, European Americans, Pamela Newkirk, pseudo science, The Chronicle of Higher Education
January 20, 1986, my son came home from school (mid-high) and after we exchanged greetings, I asked how his day was at school? He said that it was okay, as usual. I asked if there were any announcements about the specialness of the day. He said no. Any remarks made by the principal or any of your teachers? He said no. So, I called the school and asked to speak to the principal. He was not available to answer my call at the time, so I asked if he would be available for a brief meeting before he left school for the day. He agreed to meet with me shortly before 4:00 PM. When I arrived at the school, I could see the principal was alone in his office. He had foreknowledge of who I was because my son and one other student, a young man, were the only two people of color in this public school. From his unrefined and defensive attitude and demeanor when he exited his office to meet me, he must have thought I was there to do battle with him.
Extending my hand to introduce myself to the principal seemed to calm him down somewhat. I explained to him that my son and I were very disappointed with him and the school for ignoring the first national celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr. day. He was surprised to learn the significance of the day and offered an apology for his ignorance. I informed him that his apology was not accepted because he was responsible for all the students in his school and that not recognizing the importance of the day sent a negative message to the entire school and community, not just the students. I informed him that he and his teaching staff missed an excellent teaching opportunity and as a citizen of the community I expected more from him and the school. He acknowledged his faults and promised it would not happen again. I am certain he was relieved to see me leave.
In 1954 when the public schools were desegregated, people of color made some progress relative to education but suffered a tremendous loss in self-worth and knowledge of the African American experience in America. Contrary to what many people believe, African Americans did not want to attend school with European Americans because of their skin complexion, they were interested in getting a quality education that was not available in the separate but equal system. The loss for African Americans in the desegregated schools was a loss of self and history. In an environment when everything European American was normal, being of color simply compounded the challenges. The students of color were not only viewed as inferior by the European Americans, but the curriculum totally ignored them as well.
For the public school in America, desegregation meant only opening the doors to the African Americans but making no changes in the order of business in how education was presented. The standard curriculum was then and to some degree now focused totally on Western history and culture. Little if any attempt was made to humanize the African Americans to nothing but the status quo. The education of the European American teachers experienced little change other than an underscoring of stereotypes associated with African Americans and other ethnic American groups. What was obvious to society was that desegregation was a catch-word used in education to indicate some progress in the direction of equity when, in fact, nothing had changed in the curriculum. However, in the classrooms remained a majority of European Americans, especially females.
In an effort to show some improvement in education in society, the word integration came into use. Of course, the word was a misrepresentation of what was happening. No signs of combining, amalgamating, or unifying the curriculum to reflect the existence and contributions of other American ethnic groups were present. The myth of European American supremacy continued to be maintained and promoted through the educational system.
After the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, some pressure was placed on the educational institutions to address the issue of inclusion of African Americans and the other ethnic groups in American education as well as in society in general. Once again, a slight- of- hand trick was performed to give the illusion of progress towards equity; this time it went by the name of diversity. What diversity does, in effect, is separate each of the ethnic groups from one another and then focus on the elements of each group that distinguishes it from the others, that is, with the exception of the European Americans. Since the European Americans are considered normal, no special attention should be given to them because they represent the standard for which the other groups aspire.
One of the problems that stand in the way of real progress in education has to do with teacher training and education in particular and education in general. What qualifies an educator to teach prospective teachers about diversity? According to statistics, most diversity programs do more harm than good because they separate rather than unify. Pamela Newkirk, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, (11/6/2019) noted that “During more than 30 years of my professional life, diversity has been a national preoccupation. Yet despite decades of hand-wringing, costly initiatives, and uncomfortable conversations, progress in most elite American universities has been negligible.”Many other educators share this same opinion but do little to effect a positive change.
Diversity in America and education has been an escape hatch for avoiding the real problem of bigotry in America. During this year, 2020, the toxic traditions of inequality and injustice have been blatantly exposed because of a number of tragic events that caught the attention of many European Americans trapped in their residences due to covid-19. What became vividly apparent was the fact that America has yet to acknowledge the existence of a system of ethnic bigotry that has plagued society since its founding. Any educational theories, studies, and research based on an invented, undefined, and monolithic racial such as blacks and whites have to be academically and scientifically unsound. Rather than acknowledging the false concept of race, many educators simply accept it as valid and go forward expanding pseudo science, but the clock will not be reset to accommodate hurt feelings or weak hearts.
Consequently, American education must experience a reckoning and it is coming soon. k�8�^�
December 11, 2020 at 1:28 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American Dream, American history, American Racism, anglo saxons, Bigotry in America, biological races, black inferiority, Constitutional rights, criminal justice, democracy, DNA, Dr. Robin DiAngelo, education, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, Human Genome, identity, integregation, language, liberty, Oklahoma, political power, race, Race in America, reforms, representation, skin color, skin complexion, social conditioning, white supremacy | 2 Comments
Tags: African Americans, demographics, DNA, European American, miscegenation, motion pictures, white, White Fragility, whiteness
One of the first lessons the immigrants from eastern and southern Europe learned upon arrival to America was to get rid of their ethnic identities such as Irish, Italian, and Jewish as soon as possible, and to try to be viewed quickly as white. Why the need for such a quick change in identity to whiteness? They realized that whiteness in America meant dominance over all ethnic groups and the comfort of being considered normal. In addition, being white granted them unfair privileges that were seemingly invisible to them. Ethnic identities were used to discriminate against other non-white people who could not hide behind their skin colors and cultures. Whiteness, however, is an element of the concept of race, and race is a myth based on unscientific and unsupported historical information. As long as the concept of race can be maintained and promoted then the myth of whiteness retains it powers. Fortunately, time has a way of removing the layers of lies and misinformation of myths like peeling an onion.
Today, race in America has become an important topic and issue because of the various manifestations of ethnic bigotry viewed through social and criminal justice experiences. In addition, many concerned civic-minded groups and individuals have conducted a variety of programs and forums where issues of race could be expressed and discussed. While many of these experiences have a positive beginning, a visit to them several months later reveal very little, if any, progress towards an established objective have been accomplished. Why? Because they failed to realize that they were dealing with a myth (race) that retains it power by the mere acceptance of its existence. Let us look at how the myth entraps people with good intentions.
In her book, White Fragility, Robin DiAngelo, writes about the reality experienced by European Americans who identity themselves as white and how that identity comes with an ethnic bias whether perceived or not. While DiAngelo does a great job in exposing the dangers and pitfalls involved in being white in a supposedly democratic society, she fails to reveal the actual cause of the problem of race and racism. In effect, she accepts the concept of race and its derivatives along with the idea of their permanence in society. If race and racism are permanent features of society then why fight them?
Near the end of her book she includes a brief discussion entitled, “A Positive White Identity?” in which she noted that: “…a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” She is absolutely correct in her statements about whiteness, but her following comment adds confusion and a lack of understanding of race: “ This does not mean that we should stop identifying as white and start claiming only to be Italian or Irish. To do so is to deny the reality of racism in the here and now, and this denial would simply be color-blind racism.”Consequently, she believes that we must learn to live with our ethnic bigotry because it cannot be replaced. She provides an avenue of approach to living with race and racism.
DiAngelo said that she tries to be less white:”To be less white is to be less racially oppressive. This requires me to be more racially aware, to be better educated about racism, and to continually challenge racial certitude and arrogance.” The problem with this advice is that it is counterproductive to debunking the myth of race. Current information from experts in physical and cultural science tells us that becoming more and better educated about race means learning and accepting the scientific facts that all human beings belong to the same species, not sub-species like the term race implies. Being more and better educated about race and racism also means acknowledging and accepting the fact that the DNA shows that all human beings are 99.9% alike which means that race cannot, in fact, exist among human beings.
Several factors not mentioned by DiAngelo involves the changes that are taking place in society that serve to help replace the negative stereotypes relative to ethnic groups and especially people of color. In 1967, when the movie “Guess Whose Coming to Dinner,” staring the African American actor, Sidney Poitier, who ( in the movie) became engaged to marry a young attractive upper-classed European American female, Katharine Houghton, kissed her on screen, that kiss broke the motion picture ban on inter-ethnic couples (black and white) kissing. States like Oklahoma did not change its law on miscegenation until 1969.
The point is that today we see many mix-ethnic couples in the media living what is considered normal lives along with their children and families. The stigma of shock and surprise in seeing what was once considered social taboo is working towards debunking the concept of race. Demographic diversity, technical advances, and a move towards political responsibility by those elected to office all contribute to the effort to replace the myth of race.
One other consideration DiAngelo fails to mention is language and how it has been used to maintain the system of European American supremacy. The word race does not have to be used in discussing ethnic challenges and injustices in society, but once it is inserted into the discussion, it controls it. The continued use of the word indicates that a knowledge of how the system of European American supremacy is maintained and promoted firmly in place. In order to replace the concept of race now and in the future means that we must stop using it and its derivatives. Subsequently, words like black, brown, yellow, red, and white with references to ethnic identities should not be used since they reflect an acceptance of the race concept. Any word that employs race also supports and promotes the myth, so it should be avoided.
Pointing out the areas of concern not covered by DiAngelo in her book is in no way meant to denigrate or devalue the important and necessary work it represents. The point is that we cannot accept the status quo of race and racism in America as permanent. If social change in America is to continue to promote the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, then our language and actions should start to reflect those things. After all, the ultimate value of the individual in society comes not from color, culture or ethnicity, but from simply being American. MES�P�
Next Page »
americasraceproblem
America's Race Problem 