It's the nature of the presidency that anyone who activly seeks it out would be less than ideal for it, and it's because of this that I think Biden is such a good candidate.
But Joe Biden has now run for president in three different decades... hardly someone who "doesn't seek it"
Personally I'm disappointed that Jim Webb is dropping out of the incredibly thin Democratic field... though I am encouraged by rumors that he will run as an independent.
I thought it was great how when Anderson Cooper asked which "enemy" each candidate was most proud of, rather than give a stupid self-absorbed answer about a rival politician, he instead gave us this gem
Personally I'm disappointed that Jim Webb is dropping out of the incredibly thin Democratic field... though I am encouraged by rumors that he will run as an independent.
Yeah... It was expected though, after the way he was treated during the debate, and the huge media storm that is "HILLARY AND BERNIE HILLARY AND BERNIE FOAM AT MOUTH RAAAAAAGE." I thought his last answer was stupid, but at least it was more memorable than Lincoln Chafee's, who kinda just mumbled about for thirty seconds before getting buried by O'Malley's three simple words.
Speaking of O'Malley, guess who got on the Daily Show?
PFFT. The girl at :58. "I...cannot. *raises hand**walks away*"
My (very different) perspective:
What a prick. He's doing the old "I'M REALLY A GOOD PERSON AND NOT RACIST AND LISTEN TO ALL THESE WONDERFUL THINGS I DID FOR YOUR PEOPLE WHILE I TALK OVER YOU AND INTERRUPT YOUR EVERY COMMENT EVEN THOUGH I'M SUPPOSED TO LISTEN TO YOUR CONCERNS AS AN ADMINISTRATOR FOR YOUR SCHOOL."
I applaud the girl in the second video. She's not a crybaby at all. She was the only person to finally get him to shut up and listen.
PFFT. The girl at :58. "I...cannot. *raises hand**walks away*"
My (very different) perspective:
What a prick. He's doing the old "I'M REALLY A GOOD PERSON AND NOT RACIST AND LISTEN TO ALL THESE WONDERFUL THINGS I DID FOR YOUR PEOPLE WHILE I TALK OVER YOU AND INTERRUPT YOUR EVERY COMMENT EVEN THOUGH I'M SUPPOSED TO LISTEN TO YOUR CONCERNS AS AN ADMINISTRATOR FOR YOUR SCHOOL."
I applaud the girl in the second video. She's not a crybaby at all. She was the only person to finally get him to shut up and listen.
The thing with camera phones, is they never record the entire encounter. You have no idea if he sat there and listened to their concerns first, then attempted to rebuttal an entire mob of people to get his points across.
Him, actually being at the rally, standing in the middle of all it, discussing his position (which is a strongly valid Freedom of Speech one, maybe not the best worded, but that makes it even better because it wasn't something prepared) should be applauded. Many admins, would just sit in their office and send security to deal with it.
She is starting to talk about "her safety" at the school while throwing down and standing in an aggressive stance and using a hostile tone (very hypocritical). She then also walks away before listening to a rebuttal, figuring "she won" the argument because her stance and tone got him to shut up, but he was listening to her and her concerns the entire time.
I cannot phantom what would make someone dressed in black-face, or native headband or anything that is culturally insensitive devalue her safety. Not only that, but lumping all costume types that require these things into one category destroys creativity and self expression. Case in point:
First, no, that Jay Z costume is not a sign of respect. Maybe it was intended as homage, but if that guy actually respected Jay Z, then he would have taken the time to learn a bare minimum about race relations in the US. This bare minimum would have included the fact that blackface is very not OK there, for so many reasons. It was used for generations to dehumanize Black people and thereby excuse violence against them. Also, let's not act like these costumes are "creative," like no one ever thought of dressing up as a Native American before.
Yale is still a very White place, and it's probably difficult to be Black there. The guy is in charge this girl's dorm, which is her home, and she wants him to be part of her support structure. Instead, he and his wife are going out of their way to defend behavior that she sees as part of a longstanding and ongoing tradition of degradation and violence against people who look like her. In this view, the issue is not unrelated to her safety, and I think it's a valid thing to be upset about.
That said, I also understand where the guy and his wife are coming from, especially if they view themselves primarily as faculty members, rather than as dorm administrators. There's a lot of recent tension in American universities between sensitivity and academic freedom, and the solutions being presented are often wrong. It sounds like this guy's fairly moderate opinion got unfairly interpreted as an all-out attack, and he became a symbol of something he didn't want to represent.
I doubt that either of these people are at their best in those videos. I'd rather not judge either of them too harshly.
What on earth possessed me to come in here again? Maybe I should leave before it is too late...
Too late...
Ugh... Race talk... I HATE race talk... I wish race didn't matter to people as much as it does... to practically everyone...
The only way race matters to me (beyond what someone looks like) is that it is often a good indicator of someone's cultural influences. Other than that it is just the amount of a pigment in someone's skin... a pigment that in no way, shape, or form affects who they are at the most basic anatomical levels. I actually have a different BRAIN from most people... You know, that one organ that has absolutely everything to do with who someone is at the most basic anatomical levels, and then some. I get hardly any consideration for that (especially compared to race). I am often disgusted by how obsessed people are with physical appearances over the essence of who a person actually is. Special scholarships for race X... Special government programs for race Y... Special organizations for race Z... Don't you dare tell ME that just because you have a different amount of the exact same pigment that is in everyone's skin you need, say, Affirmative Action to have a fair chance in life... White I may well be, but that shouldn't matter... What should matter is who I am and what actual challenges I have in life. I make a special point of never ever answering a survey question that asks for my race, even if they claim it to be a "required field". No need for that to be influencing someone's opinion of me any more than it already does... Maybe I should try selecting "Other" and if I can specify I would write "aspie". That is a heck of a lot more relevant than the amount of pigment in my skin...
Special scholarships for race X... Special government programs for race Y... Special organizations for race Z... Don't you dare tell ME that just because you have a different amount of the exact same pigment that is in everyone's skin you need, say, Affirmative Action to have a fair chance in life...
Dude, it's not directly because of pigment differences. It's because of
This chart only proves to me that white is a huge majority in the survey group (which is oddly not identified and therefore causes me to be a bit skeptical). One of the nice things, I think, about my different brain is that it does not go "ooohhh" and "aaahhh" just because a chart gets thrown in its face...
I never said that race didn't matter to people (I think I said the opposite actually)... It is PAINFULLY clear to me that it does (for whatever reason).
Anyway, I will grant you that my snipe at Affirmative Action doesn't mesh well with the rest of my argument (I dislike it for other reasons...). My main point with that segment was that I hardly ever find scholarships, government programs, and, to a lesser extent, organizations, that are geared toward people like me while I find race related ones all the time.
It's from the U.S. Census. I can't find an unbroken link. (Also, I think the chart conveys a bit more information than "the orange bars are big.") Anyway, I put it there as a reminder, not as evidence; I'm sure you already knew that the incomes of Black and Hispanic people in the U.S. are disproportionately low.
My point was that given that we both know that race matters to people, and that people have been screwed over by that fact, trying to take some compensatory action might make sense. We don't need to have a full-fledged affirmative action debate here, but I objected to (what I read as) characterizing it as people thinking that they deserve a bonus for having extra pigment.
I'm sure you already knew that the incomes of Black and Hispanic people in the U.S. are disproportionately low.
Maybe... But I don't think that has so much to do with race as it has to do with culture. But things get a little blurry there because the two coincide so frequently. Things said about "race" are often misnomers. I am pretty sure that 9 times out of 10 it may be better to substitute "race" with "culture". Culture most certainly matters, and well it should.
Yale is still a very White place, and it's probably difficult to be Black there.
This sentence alone, more than anything else, triggered my race talk rant. From what I hear of colleges, they are CONSTANTLY falling all over themselves trying to adjust practically everything to make it easier for... most... minorities (lets just say that my own minority was VERY poorly considered for when I went to college. Oh, and, just to disgrace them for it, I went to the University of Minnesota.). While Yale may very well have a humongous white majority, I rather doubt it is all that difficult to be black there (aside from the lack of friends that are from your culture).
We are definitely agreed that colleges are bad at working with anyone who's not neurotypical (and that there's inadequate support in general). I think they're starting to get a little better, though.
I'm going to say two very controversial things here, but I want to start by saying that the topic of race and race relations is a powder-keg waiting to explode, and a lot of people are going to take personal offense to things that may not be intended to offend anyone. What I'm about to describe is semantics, not pedagogy, but I'm also very much aware that because of the sensitivity of the issue, it may very well upset some people. I'm going to indent them, so that you can separate the two pieces if you feel the need to skip one or both of them.
So the first controversial thing: What black-face is, and what it isn't.
Putting on make-up to change or mask the pigment of your skin is not black-face. It's what make-up is specifically designed for. It's a color that you're using to paint your skin. The photo of the guy dressed as Jay-Z is a costume, and the make-up he's using to paint his body (his entire body, mind you, not just his face) is a part of the completion of that illusion. That is not black-face.
This is black-face (found with an image search; I make no judgments about the site it's on):
Black-face goes beyond just coloring your skin. It's turning your face into a parody or bastardization of the "black man" stereotype. It is offensive, it's intentionally demeaning, and it's very much a thing that should not be done by anyone in today's society (unless you're performing in a show that's talking about black-face and demands it for the purposes of demonstration).
What you see in the Jay-Z costume above (and the Beyonce costume next to him) is not black-face; it's not a parody or a bastardization; it's not meant to demean or offend. As a part of the costume, it's a completion of the illusion.
Now the second thing: Why it's still totally reasonable to be offended by that photo, and why it's not necessarily a sign of disrespect and bigotry (even if it is racist).
The costume depicted appropriates hip-hop culture in its simplest terms (that is to say, "rap" and "being black") for use by a white guy. The use of body paint reduces (or seems to reduce) Jay-Z's cultural significance down to the color of his skin. The argument "But if he's just a white guy in a T-shirt then he's not Jay-Z" doesn't hold much water, because the (quite reasonable) counterpoint is that if you can't do a compelling Jay-Z costume without painting your skin brown, don't dress up as Jay-Z for Halloween.
So if you get offended by this costume because you're black and you think this guy is appropriating black culture by dressing up as a rapper and painting himself brown, you're totally in the right, being offended is entirely reasonable, and the guy in the photo should apologize to you if you were at that party and you saw him in that costume.
It's the same reason you don't do Othello with an all-white cast. The moor's race is central to the plot, and if the person playing that character isn't black, the story doesn't make sense. If you can't find a black actor to play that role, you don't do that show. If you do Othello anyway with all white actors, expect people to be offended. If you do Othello and paint your lead's skin brown, expect people to be really offended.
Now, is this guy being a bigot for painting his skin brown as part of the illusion for his costume? I don't think so. It's not racist to say "I want to dress up as Jay-Z for Halloween" unless that sentence ends with "because I hate black people and I want to show everyone how dumb black people look".
In this case, though, he doesn't seem to be intentionally disrespecting Jay-Z at all. Maybe he really likes Jay-Z (or maybe his girlfriend really likes Beyonce). And not doing your research on black cultural appropriation before you plan your Halloween costume doesn't automatically make you a bigot; it makes you a college student.
So to sum up: Yes, the photo is offensive, and yes, the guy in the photo should probably apologize to anyone who told him they were offended (assuming that they saw him in real life). But a Jay-Z costume for Halloween is not an example of black-face, and the Internet should probably calm down and give the benefit of the doubt that this guy probably isn't "a racist"; he's probably just a guy who made a mistake on Halloween. I mean, come on. We've all made mistakes on Halloween.
I'm specifically not addressing the topic of race relations and Affirmative Action (mentioned in previous posts) because (just like the Jay-Z costume above) it's a subject that is very likely to offend a lot of people, and rightly so. Take care that when you talk about race, or when you talk about discussions of race, you do your research not only on what you're saying, but on why people will inevitably be offended. Don't be the guy in the Jay-Z costume.
Good points @Dee and I agree with most of them. Not so sure about apologizing simply because people get offended... We would all be apologizing practically nonstop for everything we do; we would probably even be apologizing for apologizing... There has to be a line somewhere between the offender apologizing and the offended tolerating their offense. The debate on where to draw that line is one that will be debated till Armageddon so I am not going to split hairs over it. Anyway, I just thought you should know that I find you an extremely reasonable person even if we don't always agree. The forum is certainly in good hands.
I would also like to say that I still don't know what possessed me to open this thread again and I will likely drop out of it again soon for many reasons, not the least of which is that politics is not my favorite thing to argue about and I don't need the headache.
I have no idea how to feel about the affirmative action thing. I've heard the arguments both for and against, and I can't figure out how to disprove either.
It's fair on the aggregate level, since it corrects inequalities (more minorities in college could mean more successful minorities and less inequality in general). But it's not fair on the individual level, since it affects people irrespective of their individual experiences (it can help even those who haven't suffered discrimination, and hurt even those who have). You can say the aggregate is more important than the individual, since the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but you can also say it's the other way around, because we have no right to impose our priorities on an individual who has done no wrong.
The reality is that there's not really any difference between the aggregate and individual. What is a community except a large number of individuals? What is an individual if not a small part of a community?
I've no idea how to feel about darkening one's skin for the purpose of dressing up, either.
It's not equivalent to blackface, either in intent or even appearance. People say it's part of the same tradition because blackface has been used to mock black people for ages, and that our actions are committed in the "context" of a reality that no longer exists. But this isn't true. I'm a historian by training, and a big part of historical methodology is to be aware of the discontinuities between past and present. History is as much about avoiding anachronism as it is about learning from the past. We're not the same people, we're not doing the same thing--and we don't even live in the same culture--as the vaudeville performers in previous centuries. We are not slaves to history. Critics say the people in costume need to brush up on their history, to avoid engaging in it. But the very fact that many people are unaware of the blackface thing is itself proof that they're not engaging in it. You can't act in the context of a history you've never even heard of, much less experienced.
But it still manages to offend people, and that hurts, no matter what the intent was behind the costume. So is it the responsibility of the person in costume not to offend, or the viewer to not be offended?
And yes, they are equivalent, both groups. Many people go in costume without doing anything to offend, and many people see the costume and don't get offended. So it's entirely possible to not do either--both groups can modify their behavior or their thinking to fix the problem, either by refusing to offend or refusing to be offended.
So is it the responsibility of the person in costume not to offend, or the viewer to not be offended?
You do not, by default, offend people by dressing in a costume. If a certain costume is generally seen as a means to offend others, then only by putting on such a costume will you commit the action of offending someone. And you will be responsible for offending like you're responsible for everything else that you do - but if it's not such a costume, but a regular costume, you will be responsible only for dressing in a costume.
Still...you can put on a non-offensive costume and someone might still consider himself offended. That doesn't mean that you've offended that person, it just means that his feelings are hurt. Feelings hurt =/= being offended.
The level of offense someone feels based on someone else's words or actions shows the amount of control their emotions and sensitivities have over them. The only way to free yourself from the control of your sensitivities is to have the things which offend you thrown in your face over and over until you learn how to ignore it and get past it. Yes, I am an adherent of desensitization. Everyone needs to get over themselves. Consider me--I cannot be offended unless I choose to be. Of course, none of you here know what buttons of mine to push so that would make it a little more difficult.
Can I get a show of hands as to how many people are willing to accept that Bruce Jenner is now Caitlyn Jenner? So...a person can change their gender and that is perfectly acceptable, right?
Okay. Now, can I get a show of hands to see how many people are willing to accept that Rachel Dolezal is black? She presented herself as black and was accepted as such for years, even being elected chair of her NAACP chapter.
If you (not you, personally, the generic "you") accept the former but not the latter, why not? How is it acceptable for person A to change their gender but not for person B to change their race? What's that, you say? Your race is a pre-set condition you have when you are born? Isn't your gender also a pre-set condition when you are born? (Notice I said gender, not sexual orientation--those are two separate things.) What's that, you say? A white person can't become black because they won't have any idea of what it means to "be black" (as if that has some special meaning that being any other ethnicity doesn't have)? Then how can a man become a woman when he won't have any idea of what it means to "be a woman"? He didn't go through menarchy, puberty, etc. as a female.
I know, I can hear you now: "but Mathy, you can't be black if you don't have the right amount of melanin in your epidermis". How much melanin does it take to "be black"? Is that amount quantifiable? What about the child of a black couple who happens to be born with albinism? Is the child black? What about the children who are simply light-skinned?
Wouldn't it make more sense to quit worrying about "race" altogether, since the concept itself is outdated and restrictive? Aren't we all human beings regardless of what we look like?
You're dancing pretty close to trolling there, @Mathsorcerer , even if no one takes the bait. Check your rhetoric.
That being said, to your central point: there's a bit of difference between being transgender (which is what Caitlyn Jenner is, and has been her entire life) and what Rachel Dolezal supposedly did, which was appropriate for herself the history of oppression faced by the black community. Caitlyn Jenner isn't going to join a group saying "We women have suffered for far too long", because Caitlyn has only biologically been female for a little while, and women would rightly be offended by that.
Rachel Dolezal did not come from a black family, and her upbringing was not marked by the same factors that mark a lot of black people's upbringings. To then claim to be black, and join the NAACP (and reaping the benefits of that membership) based on that claim, is certainly a deception, and it's pretty reasonable for people to be upset about it.
It's not exactly the same, but it's pretty similar, to getting hired as a neurosurgeon based on your claim that you have a medical degree, when what you have is an associate's degree in political science, even if you've spent a lot of your own free time practicing and studying to be the best neurosurgeon in the world. Your intentions may have been virtuous, and you may have the literal skills for the job, but at the end of the day you still lied to get where you are, and reaped the benefits of experience that you don't have.
Sorry, I had actually meant to add the article from the Atlantic that @joluv linked to in my original post. That is where the second video is from.
The first video was linked to in the second video. There was a longer cut I found, but I was hesitant to share it because it included some very racist text interjections. I have found a longer cut without any commentary
Also, as a DISCLAIMER: I actually know Dr. Christakis personally, but not very well. I met him at two talks he made (one about medicine and one about social media) and I saw him at a Greek event in New Haven, CT. I spoke with him after one of the lectures and he seemed like a very nice man with the kind of demeanor that someone learns from a lifetime in which they are required to have good bedside manners.
That said, I regret referring to the girl that was screaming and cursing in the second video. There are more empathetic ways of making my point without breeding further antagonism.
As far as the topic goes, my views are very much along the lines of @deltago 's on this matter.
Him, actually being at the rally, standing in the middle of all it, discussing his position (which is a strongly valid Freedom of Speech one, maybe not the best worded, but that makes it even better because it wasn't something prepared) should be applauded. Many admins, would just sit in their office and send security to deal with it.
She is starting to talk about "her safety" at the school while throwing down and standing in an aggressive stance and using a hostile tone (very hypocritical). She then also walks away before listening to a rebuttal, figuring "she won" the argument because her stance and tone got him to shut up, but he was listening to her and her concerns the entire time.
Ideas move society like nothing else. They are the single most important commodity on Earth, and literally change the world. I think most people agree on this.
However, in order for them to be effective ideas require two things: 1. They need to be heard. Yes, even the bad ones. 2. They need to be constructively challenged. Yes, even the good ones.
Discourse has made society slowly better over the course of history. Discourse exposes the weaknesses in some ideas, and the strengths in others. It is how bad ideas (authoritarianism, racial superiority, monarchy, slavery, etc.) have receded over time and how better ideas (liberty, democracy, equality, rights, cultural harmony, etc.) have risen to take their place. There is a reason that when the worst ideas have gained influence (Fascism, Communism) the first thing their proponents did was silence opposition.
It is for this reason that I see incredible arrogance in solipsism in people that don't want their ideas or sensitivities challenged. The people who scream "you don't deserve to be heard!", "shut the *expletive* up!" and "I hope you don't sleep at night" in order to silence others are saying that they are so certain that they are just and correct that they don't even need to think critically any more.
No one is that perfect.
Story time. I don't often talk about this, but I discussed it with a friend I met recently in law school, who happens to be gay. When I was in middle school, I believed that homosexuality was a sin. I didn't hate gays or wish them ill, but I was against gay marriage. Heck, I was against gays adopting children. I heard that my religion at the time prescribed those ideas, and I believed them. Yet I wasn't so close minded as to shut out those who disagreed with me, despite them challenging my religion. I founded the philosophy club my freshman year, and in our meetings we would have battles of ideas. I didn't scream "STOP! You are offending my religion". Did listening to people contend my faith offend me? Yes. Was I uncomfortable? Yes. But I listened.By the time I graduated high school I was no longer religious and I believed in gay marriage. I think I learned a lot. I'm sure I still have many dumb ideas, but I hope they are also challenged.
I would not be the person I am today if I adopted the attitude of the students in that video. School is a place to learn new ideas, and if you are too afraid or arrogant to consider currently held beliefs, you won't adopt new ones... which is what learning is all about.
Being uncomfortable is part of growing up, and equating discomfort with serious emotional injury stunts growth. I doubt anyone could show me how Dr. Christakis's wife's email caused serious emotional injury. I think he was brave to voluntarily attend a public forum and discuss it like an adult ( @Nonnahswriter I find it surprising you thought *he* was the one being spoken over). People wanted to fire his wife, and educator, for challenging students' ideas with delicacy. Isn't that the job of an educator?
Anyway, that concludes my wall of text. I'll just add one more thing: I've notice people in the US who want to silence speech often hide behind the reasoning that free speech is a right protected from government by the First Amendment. This is true but not complete. Free speech is also a value that is defended by those who appreciate it.
You're dancing pretty close to trolling there, @Mathsorcerer , even if no one takes the bait. Check your rhetoric.
What? I would ask if you were being serious but I suspect that you are. I also suspect this is because I normally don't jump in to "current events" type threads here--I get enough of that as mod of the politics/current events forum elsewhere--and thus you are not familiar with my writing style or how I say things. Did I not conclude my comments by suggesting that we should all quit worrying about someone else's race (or, by extension, gender or ethnicity or economic status) because we are all human beings? How is that possibly trolling?
Yes, I try to step on toes from time to time but the way in which I do it is designed to ask questions and get people to see things from a different perspective. The point I was making is that people readily accept changes in gender--truthfully, someone else's gender isn't any of our business--but most people would argue against or become upset by someone claiming to be a race that they are not. To accept one but not the other shows that we, collectively, are still not able to answer certain questions such as "what is race?". To me, "race" is an outmoded 18th- or 19th-Century way of thinking that needs to be abandoned as destructive and divisive.
What facets of our being are we able to change and which ones are we not able to change? Also, if I change something about myself and you required to accept my change? I change my hair color--no big deal. I change my eye color--no big deal. I begin to undergo treatments to trans to female--a big change but still acceptable. I undergo changes to darken my skin tone in an attempt to transition myself to being black--I doubt most people would accept that. Why not?
I don't go out of my way to insult anyone or engage in the behavior of being mean to anyone on purpose. On the other hand, I also don't like for anyone to hide behind their feelings or stop discussions because someone might become upset at something that is said. When person A uses their feelings to stop a discussion progress towards enlightenment ceases. Who wants that?
You're dancing pretty close to trolling there, @Mathsorcerer , even if no one takes the bait. Check your rhetoric.
This is exactly what I meant by silencing speech.
I don't agree with @Mathsorcerer (race and gender are more than melanin and genitalia and involve numerous social factors) but to accuse him of trolling? That is a jump.
On a completely unrelated note I'm under the impression that the last few congresses have been some of the least productive in American history. So why are members sleeping on a cot? I'll admit I don't know how often this happens in Canada, but to me that just seems really sad. Like renting an apartment shouldn't be something that is controversial for a politician to do.
Not everyone would equate passing legislation with being "productive". The truth is there is little agreement between congress and the president. Legislation is a multi-step process, and if there is no agreement between the legislative and executive branches bills won't make it past the presidents desk or to the president's desk. The same divisiveness means most bills are stuck in the committees.
Personally, I think a lack of new legislation is better than divisive bills that are past without consensus. Checks and balances are important.
It's actually less the content of your post and more some of your phrasing, which seemed to be daring your reader to be offended. Saying controversial things is fine (I did it myself a few posts above you); acting like you expect people to be mad at you for saying them (and that they're wrong for being offended) is pretty close to this site's definition of trolling: saying something with the express purpose of inciting a violent or inflammatory reaction.
The rest of your post was totally okay, and you make some compelling points (even if I don't necessarily agree with all of them).
@Dee: For what it's worth, Dolezal lived as a black woman for years, among other black people, and dedicated her life to racial equality (that's what the NAACP is about). In a few years, Jenner will be qualified to talk a little about living as a woman, right? She would have had at least part of the experience and could testify based on that. But Dolezal has already undergone that period. If she was able to pass as black for so many years... then people would have indeed treated her as black, and she would experienced firsthand what it's like to live as a black woman in America.
I find it troubling that Dolezal has suffered so much criticism when there is literally (and I mean literally) no other way that a white person could possibly do more to shed any privilege they might possess, to better understand the black experience, and to undermine the racial definitions that still divide us 50 years after desegregation, than to reject one's white identity, assume a black identity, and adopt an appearance that would expose oneself to all of the prejudices and misfortunes that black Americans face every day.
I would challenge any of Dolezal's critics to explain a better way to get rid of one's white privilege. I would challenge her critics to explain a better way to understand the black experience, than to take on that persona and therefore ensure that everyone you encounter treats you as black. And I would challenge the critics to explain a way--any way--that does more to destroy the lines between us, than denying the very concept of racial separation.
I find the notion that a "white" person can't be "black," and a "black" person can't be "white," fundamentally incompatible with Dr. King's dream of an integrated United States. I cannot accept a racial cage that is imposed on all of us from birth. I don't agree with everything Dolezal has done, but I cannot think of a better tribute to Dr. King's legacy than a woman choosing, at her own expense (passing as black is not going to get you treated any better in this country), to turn upside-down the one notion that is a prerequisite for any ideology of segregation:
The notion that black is black, that white is white, that these differences are natural, and that it is right, in spite of all the misery we have seen, for us to keep them separate, lest they ever begin the blur the lines that we hold so dear.
We cannot fully integrate our country unless we eventually learn to reject every form of separation, every form of difference, and every single line we draw between us.
Comments
Personally I'm disappointed that Jim Webb is dropping out of the incredibly thin Democratic field... though I am encouraged by rumors that he will run as an independent.
I thought it was great how when Anderson Cooper asked which "enemy" each candidate was most proud of, rather than give a stupid self-absorbed answer about a rival politician, he instead gave us this gem
Speaking of O'Malley, guess who got on the Daily Show?
http://www.cc.com/full-episodes/3wl9lc/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-october-19--2015---martin-o-malley-season-21-ep-21013
Everyone can stop gossiping now. *glare*
My (very different) perspective:
What a prick. He's doing the old "I'M REALLY A GOOD PERSON AND NOT RACIST AND LISTEN TO ALL THESE WONDERFUL THINGS I DID FOR YOUR PEOPLE WHILE I TALK OVER YOU AND INTERRUPT YOUR EVERY COMMENT EVEN THOUGH I'M SUPPOSED TO LISTEN TO YOUR CONCERNS AS AN ADMINISTRATOR FOR YOUR SCHOOL."
I applaud the girl in the second video. She's not a crybaby at all. She was the only person to finally get him to shut up and listen.
The thing with camera phones, is they never record the entire encounter. You have no idea if he sat there and listened to their concerns first, then attempted to rebuttal an entire mob of people to get his points across.
Him, actually being at the rally, standing in the middle of all it, discussing his position (which is a strongly valid Freedom of Speech one, maybe not the best worded, but that makes it even better because it wasn't something prepared) should be applauded. Many admins, would just sit in their office and send security to deal with it.
She is starting to talk about "her safety" at the school while throwing down and standing in an aggressive stance and using a hostile tone (very hypocritical). She then also walks away before listening to a rebuttal, figuring "she won" the argument because her stance and tone got him to shut up, but he was listening to her and her concerns the entire time.
I cannot phantom what would make someone dressed in black-face, or native headband or anything that is culturally insensitive devalue her safety. Not only that, but lumping all costume types that require these things into one category destroys creativity and self expression. Case in point:
http://mit.zenfs.com/206/2011/10/AdDdHuRCQAIS1ia.jpg
Is this Jay Z costume really offensive to black people that it requires an apology, or is it a sign of respect to a great artist and musician.
Yale is still a very White place, and it's probably difficult to be Black there. The guy is in charge this girl's dorm, which is her home, and she wants him to be part of her support structure. Instead, he and his wife are going out of their way to defend behavior that she sees as part of a longstanding and ongoing tradition of degradation and violence against people who look like her. In this view, the issue is not unrelated to her safety, and I think it's a valid thing to be upset about.
That said, I also understand where the guy and his wife are coming from, especially if they view themselves primarily as faculty members, rather than as dorm administrators. There's a lot of recent tension in American universities between sensitivity and academic freedom, and the solutions being presented are often wrong. It sounds like this guy's fairly moderate opinion got unfairly interpreted as an all-out attack, and he became a symbol of something he didn't want to represent.
I doubt that either of these people are at their best in those videos. I'd rather not judge either of them too harshly.
Ugh... Race talk... I HATE race talk... I wish race didn't matter to people as much as it does... to practically everyone...
The only way race matters to me (beyond what someone looks like) is that it is often a good indicator of someone's cultural influences. Other than that it is just the amount of a pigment in someone's skin... a pigment that in no way, shape, or form affects who they are at the most basic anatomical levels. I actually have a different BRAIN from most people... You know, that one organ that has absolutely everything to do with who someone is at the most basic anatomical levels, and then some. I get hardly any consideration for that (especially compared to race). I am often disgusted by how obsessed people are with physical appearances over the essence of who a person actually is. Special scholarships for race X... Special government programs for race Y... Special organizations for race Z... Don't you dare tell ME that just because you have a different amount of the exact same pigment that is in everyone's skin you need, say, Affirmative Action to have a fair chance in life... White I may well be, but that shouldn't matter... What should matter is who I am and what actual challenges I have in life. I make a special point of never ever answering a survey question that asks for my race, even if they claim it to be a "required field". No need for that to be influencing someone's opinion of me any more than it already does... Maybe I should try selecting "Other" and if I can specify I would write "aspie". That is a heck of a lot more relevant than the amount of pigment in my skin...
...it very much does.
This chart only proves to me that white is a huge majority in the survey group (which is oddly not identified and therefore causes me to be a bit skeptical). One of the nice things, I think, about my different brain is that it does not go "ooohhh" and "aaahhh" just because a chart gets thrown in its face...
I never said that race didn't matter to people (I think I said the opposite actually)... It is PAINFULLY clear to me that it does (for whatever reason).
Anyway, I will grant you that my snipe at Affirmative Action doesn't mesh well with the rest of my argument (I dislike it for other reasons...). My main point with that segment was that I hardly ever find scholarships, government programs, and, to a lesser extent, organizations, that are geared toward people like me while I find race related ones all the time.
My point was that given that we both know that race matters to people, and that people have been screwed over by that fact, trying to take some compensatory action might make sense. We don't need to have a full-fledged affirmative action debate here, but I objected to (what I read as) characterizing it as people thinking that they deserve a bonus for having extra pigment.
Anyway I object to certain things too:
This sentence alone, more than anything else, triggered my race talk rant. From what I hear of colleges, they are CONSTANTLY falling all over themselves trying to adjust practically everything to make it easier for... most... minorities (lets just say that my own minority was VERY poorly considered for when I went to college. Oh, and, just to disgrace them for it, I went to the University of Minnesota.). While Yale may very well have a humongous white majority, I rather doubt it is all that difficult to be black there (aside from the lack of friends that are from your culture).
So the first controversial thing: What black-face is, and what it isn't. Now the second thing: Why it's still totally reasonable to be offended by that photo, and why it's not necessarily a sign of disrespect and bigotry (even if it is racist). So to sum up: Yes, the photo is offensive, and yes, the guy in the photo should probably apologize to anyone who told him they were offended (assuming that they saw him in real life). But a Jay-Z costume for Halloween is not an example of black-face, and the Internet should probably calm down and give the benefit of the doubt that this guy probably isn't "a racist"; he's probably just a guy who made a mistake on Halloween. I mean, come on. We've all made mistakes on Halloween.
I'm specifically not addressing the topic of race relations and Affirmative Action (mentioned in previous posts) because (just like the Jay-Z costume above) it's a subject that is very likely to offend a lot of people, and rightly so. Take care that when you talk about race, or when you talk about discussions of race, you do your research not only on what you're saying, but on why people will inevitably be offended. Don't be the guy in the Jay-Z costume.
Carry on.
I would also like to say that I still don't know what possessed me to open this thread again and I will likely drop out of it again soon for many reasons, not the least of which is that politics is not my favorite thing to argue about and I don't need the headache.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
It's fair on the aggregate level, since it corrects inequalities (more minorities in college could mean more successful minorities and less inequality in general). But it's not fair on the individual level, since it affects people irrespective of their individual experiences (it can help even those who haven't suffered discrimination, and hurt even those who have). You can say the aggregate is more important than the individual, since the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but you can also say it's the other way around, because we have no right to impose our priorities on an individual who has done no wrong.
The reality is that there's not really any difference between the aggregate and individual. What is a community except a large number of individuals? What is an individual if not a small part of a community?
I've no idea how to feel about darkening one's skin for the purpose of dressing up, either.
But it still manages to offend people, and that hurts, no matter what the intent was behind the costume. So is it the responsibility of the person in costume not to offend, or the viewer to not be offended?
And yes, they are equivalent, both groups. Many people go in costume without doing anything to offend, and many people see the costume and don't get offended. So it's entirely possible to not do either--both groups can modify their behavior or their thinking to fix the problem, either by refusing to offend or refusing to be offended.
So who should go first?
If a certain costume is generally seen as a means to offend others, then only by putting on such a costume will you commit the action of offending someone.
And you will be responsible for offending like you're responsible for everything else that you do - but if it's not such a costume, but a regular costume, you will be responsible only for dressing in a costume.
Still...you can put on a non-offensive costume and someone might still consider himself offended. That doesn't mean that you've offended that person, it just means that his feelings are hurt. Feelings hurt =/= being offended.
Can I get a show of hands as to how many people are willing to accept that Bruce Jenner is now Caitlyn Jenner? So...a person can change their gender and that is perfectly acceptable, right?
Okay. Now, can I get a show of hands to see how many people are willing to accept that Rachel Dolezal is black? She presented herself as black and was accepted as such for years, even being elected chair of her NAACP chapter.
If you (not you, personally, the generic "you") accept the former but not the latter, why not? How is it acceptable for person A to change their gender but not for person B to change their race? What's that, you say? Your race is a pre-set condition you have when you are born? Isn't your gender also a pre-set condition when you are born? (Notice I said gender, not sexual orientation--those are two separate things.) What's that, you say? A white person can't become black because they won't have any idea of what it means to "be black" (as if that has some special meaning that being any other ethnicity doesn't have)? Then how can a man become a woman when he won't have any idea of what it means to "be a woman"? He didn't go through menarchy, puberty, etc. as a female.
I know, I can hear you now: "but Mathy, you can't be black if you don't have the right amount of melanin in your epidermis". How much melanin does it take to "be black"? Is that amount quantifiable? What about the child of a black couple who happens to be born with albinism? Is the child black? What about the children who are simply light-skinned?
Wouldn't it make more sense to quit worrying about "race" altogether, since the concept itself is outdated and restrictive? Aren't we all human beings regardless of what we look like?
That being said, to your central point: there's a bit of difference between being transgender (which is what Caitlyn Jenner is, and has been her entire life) and what Rachel Dolezal supposedly did, which was appropriate for herself the history of oppression faced by the black community. Caitlyn Jenner isn't going to join a group saying "We women have suffered for far too long", because Caitlyn has only biologically been female for a little while, and women would rightly be offended by that.
Rachel Dolezal did not come from a black family, and her upbringing was not marked by the same factors that mark a lot of black people's upbringings. To then claim to be black, and join the NAACP (and reaping the benefits of that membership) based on that claim, is certainly a deception, and it's pretty reasonable for people to be upset about it.
It's not exactly the same, but it's pretty similar, to getting hired as a neurosurgeon based on your claim that you have a medical degree, when what you have is an associate's degree in political science, even if you've spent a lot of your own free time practicing and studying to be the best neurosurgeon in the world. Your intentions may have been virtuous, and you may have the literal skills for the job, but at the end of the day you still lied to get where you are, and reaped the benefits of experience that you don't have.
The first video was linked to in the second video. There was a longer cut I found, but I was hesitant to share it because it included some very racist text interjections. I have found a longer cut without any commentary
Also, as a DISCLAIMER: I actually know Dr. Christakis personally, but not very well. I met him at two talks he made (one about medicine and one about social media) and I saw him at a Greek event in New Haven, CT. I spoke with him after one of the lectures and he seemed like a very nice man with the kind of demeanor that someone learns from a lifetime in which they are required to have good bedside manners.
That said, I regret referring to the girl that was screaming and cursing in the second video. There are more empathetic ways of making my point without breeding further antagonism.
As far as the topic goes, my views are very much along the lines of @deltago 's on this matter.
Ideas move society like nothing else. They are the single most important commodity on Earth, and literally change the world. I think most people agree on this.
However, in order for them to be effective ideas require two things:
1. They need to be heard. Yes, even the bad ones.
2. They need to be constructively challenged. Yes, even the good ones.
Discourse has made society slowly better over the course of history. Discourse exposes the weaknesses in some ideas, and the strengths in others. It is how bad ideas (authoritarianism, racial superiority, monarchy, slavery, etc.) have receded over time and how better ideas (liberty, democracy, equality, rights, cultural harmony, etc.) have risen to take their place. There is a reason that when the worst ideas have gained influence (Fascism, Communism) the first thing their proponents did was silence opposition.
It is for this reason that I see incredible arrogance in solipsism in people that don't want their ideas or sensitivities challenged. The people who scream "you don't deserve to be heard!", "shut the *expletive* up!" and "I hope you don't sleep at night" in order to silence others are saying that they are so certain that they are just and correct that they don't even need to think critically any more.
No one is that perfect.
Story time. I don't often talk about this, but I discussed it with a friend I met recently in law school, who happens to be gay.
When I was in middle school, I believed that homosexuality was a sin. I didn't hate gays or wish them ill, but I was against gay marriage. Heck, I was against gays adopting children. I heard that my religion at the time prescribed those ideas, and I believed them.
Yet I wasn't so close minded as to shut out those who disagreed with me, despite them challenging my religion. I founded the philosophy club my freshman year, and in our meetings we would have battles of ideas.
I didn't scream "STOP! You are offending my religion". Did listening to people contend my faith offend me? Yes. Was I uncomfortable? Yes. But I listened.By the time I graduated high school I was no longer religious and I believed in gay marriage.
I think I learned a lot. I'm sure I still have many dumb ideas, but I hope they are also challenged.
I would not be the person I am today if I adopted the attitude of the students in that video. School is a place to learn new ideas, and if you are too afraid or arrogant to consider currently held beliefs, you won't adopt new ones... which is what learning is all about.
Being uncomfortable is part of growing up, and equating discomfort with serious emotional injury stunts growth. I doubt anyone could show me how Dr. Christakis's wife's email caused serious emotional injury. I think he was brave to voluntarily attend a public forum and discuss it like an adult ( @Nonnahswriter I find it surprising you thought *he* was the one being spoken over). People wanted to fire his wife, and educator, for challenging students' ideas with delicacy. Isn't that the job of an educator?
Anyway, that concludes my wall of text. I'll just add one more thing:
I've notice people in the US who want to silence speech often hide behind the reasoning that free speech is a right protected from government by the First Amendment. This is true but not complete. Free speech is also a value that is defended by those who appreciate it.
Yes, I try to step on toes from time to time but the way in which I do it is designed to ask questions and get people to see things from a different perspective. The point I was making is that people readily accept changes in gender--truthfully, someone else's gender isn't any of our business--but most people would argue against or become upset by someone claiming to be a race that they are not. To accept one but not the other shows that we, collectively, are still not able to answer certain questions such as "what is race?". To me, "race" is an outmoded 18th- or 19th-Century way of thinking that needs to be abandoned as destructive and divisive.
What facets of our being are we able to change and which ones are we not able to change? Also, if I change something about myself and you required to accept my change? I change my hair color--no big deal. I change my eye color--no big deal. I begin to undergo treatments to trans to female--a big change but still acceptable. I undergo changes to darken my skin tone in an attempt to transition myself to being black--I doubt most people would accept that. Why not?
I don't go out of my way to insult anyone or engage in the behavior of being mean to anyone on purpose. On the other hand, I also don't like for anyone to hide behind their feelings or stop discussions because someone might become upset at something that is said. When person A uses their feelings to stop a discussion progress towards enlightenment ceases. Who wants that?
I don't agree with @Mathsorcerer (race and gender are more than melanin and genitalia and involve numerous social factors) but to accuse him of trolling? That is a jump.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/politics/speaker-paul-ryan-sleeps-in-office.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Personally, I think a lack of new legislation is better than divisive bills that are past without consensus. Checks and balances are important.
The rest of your post was totally okay, and you make some compelling points (even if I don't necessarily agree with all of them).
I find it troubling that Dolezal has suffered so much criticism when there is literally (and I mean literally) no other way that a white person could possibly do more to shed any privilege they might possess, to better understand the black experience, and to undermine the racial definitions that still divide us 50 years after desegregation, than to reject one's white identity, assume a black identity, and adopt an appearance that would expose oneself to all of the prejudices and misfortunes that black Americans face every day.
I would challenge any of Dolezal's critics to explain a better way to get rid of one's white privilege. I would challenge her critics to explain a better way to understand the black experience, than to take on that persona and therefore ensure that everyone you encounter treats you as black. And I would challenge the critics to explain a way--any way--that does more to destroy the lines between us, than denying the very concept of racial separation.
I find the notion that a "white" person can't be "black," and a "black" person can't be "white," fundamentally incompatible with Dr. King's dream of an integrated United States. I cannot accept a racial cage that is imposed on all of us from birth. I don't agree with everything Dolezal has done, but I cannot think of a better tribute to Dr. King's legacy than a woman choosing, at her own expense (passing as black is not going to get you treated any better in this country), to turn upside-down the one notion that is a prerequisite for any ideology of segregation:
The notion that black is black, that white is white, that these differences are natural, and that it is right, in spite of all the misery we have seen, for us to keep them separate, lest they ever begin the blur the lines that we hold so dear.
We cannot fully integrate our country unless we eventually learn to reject every form of separation, every form of difference, and every single line we draw between us.