Blog - Community Conversation | |
I got these two excerpted articles in class, showing both arguments concerning Affirmative Action. I think it would be good to be well-informed concerning this particular issue since it affects all of us, not just people of color. At the very least, it's an interesting read. :-) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black (pro-affirmative action)
Stanley Fish, Atlantic Monthly, November, 1993. In this excerpted article, Stanley Fish analyzes popular arguments of those who oppose affirmative action.
“REVERSE RACISM”
Some people argue, and argue persuasively, that affirmative action is “reverse racism.” In this country whites once set themselves apart from blacks and claimed privileges for themselves while denying them to others. Now, on the basis of race, blacks are claiming special status and reserving for themselves privileges they deny to others. Isn't one as bad as the other? The answer is no. One can see why by imagining that it is not 1993 but 1955, and that we are in a town in the South with two more or less distinct communities, one white and one black. To regard their respective racisms--if that is the word--as equivalent would be bizarre, for the hostility of one group stems not from any wrong done to it but from its wish to protect its ability to deprive citizens of their voting rights, to limit access to educational institutions, to prevent entry into the economy except at the lowest and most menial levels, and to force members of the stigmatized group to ride in the back of the bus. The hostility of the other group is the result of these actions, and whereas hostility and racial anger are unhappy facts wherever they are found, a distinction must surely be made between the hostility of the oppressors and the experience-based hostility of those who have been oppressed. Affirmative action is the policy designed to redress the imbalances caused by long-standing discrimination. To argue that affirmative action, which gives preferential treatment to disadvantaged minorities as part of a plan to achieve social equality, is no different from the policies that created the disadvantages is a travesty of reasoning. "Reverse racism" describes affirmative action only if one considers the cancer of racism to be indistinguishable from the therapy we apply to it. A cancer is an invasion of the body's equilibrium, and so is chemotherapy; but we do not decline to fight the disease because the medicine we employ is also disruptive of normal functioning. Strong illness, strong remedy: the formula is as appropriate to the health of the body politic as it is to that of the body proper. At this point someone will always say, "But two wrongs don't make a right; if it was wrong to treat blacks unfairly, it is wrong to give blacks preferences and thereby treat whites unfairly." This objection is just another version of the forgetting and rewriting of history. The problem is the adverb "unfairly," which suggests two more or less equal parties, one of whom has been unjustly penalized by an incompetent umpire. But blacks have not simply been treated unfairly; they have been subjected first to decades of slavery, and then to decades of second-class citizenship, widespread legalized discrimination, economic persecution, educational deprivation, and cultural stigmatization. They have been bought, sold, killed, beaten, raped, excluded, exploited, shamed, and scorned for a very long time. The word "unfair" is hardly an adequate description of their experience, and the belated gift of "fairness" in the form of a resolution no longer to discriminate against them legally is hardly an adequate remedy for the deep disadvantages that the prior discrimination has produced. When the deck is stacked against you in more ways than you can even count, it is a small consolation to hear that you are now free to enter the game and take your chances.
“A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD” The same insincerity and hollowness of promise infect another formula that is popular with the anti-affirmative-action crowd: the formula of the level playing field. Here the argument usually takes the form of saying, "It is undemocratic to give one class of citizens advantages at the expense of other citizens; the truly democratic way is to have a level playing field to which everyone has access and where everyone has a fair and equal chance to succeed on the basis of his or her merit." Fine words--but they conceal the facts of the situation: The playing field is already tilted in favor of those by whom and for whom it was constructed in the first place. If mastery of the requirements for entry depends upon immersion in the cultural experiences of the mainstream majority, if the skills that make for success are nurtured by institutions and cultural practices from which the disadvantaged minority has been systematically excluded, if the language and ways of comporting oneself that identify a player as "one of us" are alien to the lives minorities are forced to live, then words like "fair" and "equal" are cruel jokes, for what they promote and celebrate is an institutionalized unfairness and a perpetuated inequality. The playing field is already tilted, and the resistance to altering it by the mechanisms of affirmative action is in fact a determination to make sure that the present imbalances persist as long as possible. One way of tilting the field is the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Affirmative action opponents often use examples of white or Asian students denied admission to colleges and universities even though their SAT scores were higher than the scores of some others--often African Americans--who were admitted to the same institution. This, some say, is evidence that affirmative-action policies in colleges and universities tend "to depreciate the importance of merit criteria in admissions." The assumption--and it is one that many would share--it that the test does in fact measure merit, with merit understood as a quality objectively determined in the same way that body temperature can be objectively determined. In fact, however, the test is nothing of the kind. Statistical studies have suggested that test scores reflect income and socioeconomic status. It has been demonstrated again and again that scores vary in relation to cultural background; the test's questions assume a certain uniformity in educational experience and lifestyle and penalize those who, for whatever reason, have had a different experience and lived different kinds of lives. In short, what is being measured by the SAT is not absolutes like native ability and merit but accidents like birth, social position, access to libraries, and the opportunity to take vacations or to take SAT prep courses. Furthermore, as David Owen notes on None of the Above: Behind the Myth of Scholastic Aptitude (1985), the "correlation between SAT scores and college grades is lower than the correlation between weight and height; in other words you would have a better chance of predicting a person's height by looking at his weight than you would of predicting his freshman grades by looking only at his SAT scores."
“CLASS IS THE PROBLEM, NOT RACE” Nevertheless, opponents have at least one more card to play against affirmative action, and it is a strong one. Granted, they say, the playing field is not level and access to it is reserved for an already advantaged elite, but the disadvantages suffered by others are less racial than socioeconomic. Therefore universities should alter their criteria of application from race to socioeconomic disadvantage" and thus avoid the unfairness of current policies that reward middle-class or affluent blacks at the expense of poor whites. Despite the fact that 98 percent of the race-specific scholarships were also scholarships to the economically disadvantaged, it is said that the other two percent--nonpoor, middle-class, economically favored blacks--are receiving special attention on the basis of disadvantages they do not experience. What about them? Their race has not been a disadvantage. But the lie was given dramatically to this assumption in a 1991 broadcast of the ABC program PrimeTime Live. In a stunning fifteen-minute segment reporters and a camera crew followed two young men of equal education, cultural sophistication, level of apparent influence, and so forth around St. Louis, a city where neither was known. The two differed in only a single respect: one was white, the other black. But that small difference turned out to mean everything. In a series of encounters with shoe salesmen, record-store employees, rental agents, landlords, employment agencies, taxicab drivers, and ordinary citizens, the black member of the pair was either ignored or given a special and suspicious attention. He was asked to pay more for the same goods or come up with a larger down payment for the same car, was turned away as a prospective tenant, was rejected as a prospective taxicab fare, was treated with contempt and irritation by clerks and bureaucrats, and in every way possible was made to feel inferior and unwanted. The inescapable conclusion was that alike though they may have been in almost all respects, one of these young men, because he was black, would lead a significantly lesser life than his white counterpart: he would be housed less well and at a greater expense; he would pay more for services and products when and if he was given the opportunity to buy them; he would have difficulty establishing credit; the first emotions he would inspire on the part of many people he met would be distrust and fear; his abilities would be discounted even before he had a chance to display them; and, above all, the treatment he received from minute to minute would chip away at his self-esteem and self-confidence with consequences that most of us could not even imagine. As the young man in question said at the conclusion of the broadcast, "You walk down the street with a suit and tie and it doesn't matter. Someone will make determinations about you, determinations that affect the quality of your life." Of course, the same determinations are being made quite early on by kindergarten teachers, grade school principals, high school guidance counselors, and the like, with results that cut across socioeconomic lines and place young black men and women in the ranks of the disadvantaged no matter what the bank accounts of their parents happen to show. Racism is a cultural fact, and although its effects may to some extent be diminished by socioeconomic variables, those effects will still be sufficiently great to warrant the nation's attention and thus the continuation of affirmative-action policies. “WHY ME?” When all is said and done, one objection to affirmative action is unanswerable on its own terms, and that is the objection of the individual who says, "Why me? Sure, discrimination has persisted for many years, and I acknowledge that the damage done has not been removed by changes in the law. But why me? I didn't own slaves; I didn't vote to keep people on the back of the bus; I didn't turn water hoses on civil-rights marchers. Why, then, should I be the one who doesn't get the job or who doesn't get the scholarship or who gets bumped back to the waiting list?" I sympathize with this feeling, if only because in a small way I have had the experience that produces it. I was recently nominated for an administrative post at a large university. Early signs were encouraging, but after an interval I received notice that I would not be included at the next level, and subsequently I was told unofficially that a decision had been made to look only in the direction of women and minorities. Although I was disappointed, I did not conclude that the situation was "unfair," because the policy was obviously not directed at me. Nor was it directed at persons of my race and sex--the policy was not intended to disenfranchise white males. Rather, the policy was driven by other considerations, and it was only as a by-product of those considerations--not as the main goal--that white males like me were rejected. Given that the institution in question has a low percentage of minority administrators, it made perfect sense to focus on women and minority candidates, and within that sense, not as a result of prejudice, my whiteness and maleness became disqualifications. “INDIVIDUAL MERIT” The point of fairness is not a difficult one to grasp, but it is difficult to see when scenarios are presented as simple contrasts between two de-contextualized persons who emerge from nowhere to contend for a job or place in a freshman class. Here is Individual A; he has a board score of 1,300. And here is Individual B; her score is only 1,200, yet she is admitted and A is rejected. Is that fair? Given the minimal information provided, the answer is of course no. But the sleight-of-hand logic that assesses events from behind a veil of willful ignorance rests on another key word in the anti-affirmative-action lexicon. That word is "individual." Now, "individual" and "individualism" have been honorable words in the American political vocabulary, but like any other word or concept, the word can be perverted to serve ends the opposite of those it originally served, and this is what has happened when in the name of individual rights, millions of individuals are prevented from redressing documented wrongs. Bizarre as it may seem, individualism in this argument turns out to mean that everyone is or should be the same. This dismissal of individual difference in the name of the individual would be funny were its consequences not so serious: it is the mechanism by which imbalances and inequities suffered by millions of people through no fault of their own can be sanitized and even celebrated as the natural workings of unfettered democracy. "Individualism," "fairness," "merit"—these three words are continually misappropriated by bigots who have learned that they need not put on a white hood or bar access to the ballot box in order to secure their ends. Rather, they need only clothe themselves in a vocabulary plucked from its historical context and made into the justification for attitudes and policies they would not acknowledge if frankly named. Stanley Fish. "How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black." Atlantic Monthly, November 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Negative Vote on Affirmative Action (Excerpts)
Shelby Steele, New York Times Magazine, 1990 In a few short years, when my two children will be applying to college, the affirmative-action policies by which most universities offer black students some form of preferential treatment will present me with a dilemma. I am a middle-class black, a college professor, far from wealthy, but also well removed from the kind of deprivation that would qualify my children for the label "disadvantaged." Both of them have endured racial insensitivity from whites. They have been called names, have suffered slights and have experienced first hand the peculiar malevolence that racism brings out of people. Yet they have never experienced racial discrimination, have never been stopped by their race on any path they have chosen to follow. Still, their society now tells them that if they will only designate themselves as black on their college applications, they will probably do better in the college lottery than if they conceal this fact. Of course many supporters of affirmative action would say that this small preference is meager recompense for centuries of unrelieved oppression. And to these arguments other very obvious facts must be added. In America, many marginally competent or flatly incompetent whites are hired every day--some because their white skin suits the racial preference of their employers. The white children of alumni are often grandfathered into elite universities in what can only be seen as a residual benefit of historic white privilege. Worse, white incompetence is always an individual matter, but for blacks it is often confirmation of ugly stereotypes. Given that unfairness cuts both ways, doesn't it only balance the scales of history, doesn't this repay, in a small way, the systematic denial under which my children's grandfather lived out his days? Good intentions can blind us to the effects they generate when implemented. But after 20 years of implementation I think that affirmative action has shown itself to be more bad than good and that blacks--whom I will focus on in this essay--now stand to lose more from it than they gain. ORIGINAL MANDATES I believe they do this because of what happened to white and black Americans in the crucible of the 1960's, when whites were confronted with their racial guilt and blacks tasted their first real power. Affirmative action became a meeting ground for those mandates in the law. At first, this meant insuring equal opportunity. The 1964 civil-rights bill was passed on the understanding that equal opportunity would not mean racial preference. But in the late 60's and early 70's, affirmative action underwent a remarkable escalation of its mission from simple anti-discrimination enforcement to social engineering by means of quotas, goals, time-tables, set-asides and other forms of preferential treatment. Legally, this was achieved through a series of executive orders and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines that allowed racial imbalances in the workplace to stand as proof of racial discrimination. Once it could be assumed that discrimination explained racial imbalances, it became easy to justify group remedies to presumed discrimination rather than the normal case-by-case redress. I don't think these mandates, in themselves, were wrong, because whites clearly needed to do better by blacks and blacks needed more real power in society. But as they came together in affirmative action, their effect was to distort our understanding of racial discrimination. By making black the color of preference, these mandates have re-burdened society with the very marriage of color and preference (in reverse) that we set out to eradicate. DIVERSITY vs. DEVELOPMENT When affirmative action grew into social engineering, diversity became a golden word. Diversity is a term that applies democratic principles to races and cultures rather than to individuals. Too often the result of this, on campuses for example, has been a democracy of colors rather than of people, an artificial diversity that gives the appearance of an educational parity between black and white students that has not yet been achieved in reality. Here again, racial preferences allow society to leapfrog over the difficult problem of developing blacks to parity with whites and into a cosmetic diversity that covers the blemish of disparity. Racial representation is not the same thing as racial development. Representation can be manufactured; development is always hard earned. The fact is that after 20 years of racial preference the gap between median incomes of black and white families is greater than it was in the 1970's. None of this is to say that blacks don't need policies that insure our right to equal opportunity, but what we need more of is the development that will let us take advantage of society's efforts to include us. UNDERMINES SELF-RESPECT I think one of the most troubling effects of racial preferences for blacks is a kind of demoralization. Under affirmative action, the quality that earns us preferential treatment is an implied inferiority. However this inferiority is explained--and it is easily enough explained by the myriad deprivations that grew out of our oppression--it is still inferiority. There are explanations and then there is the fact. In integrated situations in which blacks must compete with whites who may be better prepared, these explanations may quickly wear thin and expose the individual to racial as well as personal self-doubt. (Of course whites also feel doubt, but only personally, not racially.) What this means in practical terms is that when blacks deliver themselves into integrated situations they encounter a nasty little reflex in whites, a mindless atavistic reflex that responds to the color black with negative stereotypes, such as intellectual ineptness. I think this reflex embarrasses most whites today and thus it is usually quickly repressed. On an equally atavistic level, the black will be aware of the reflex his color triggers and will feel a stab of horror at seeing himself reflected in this way. He, too, will do a quick repression, but a lifetime of such stabbings is what constitutes his inner realm of racial doubt. Even when the black sees no implication of inferiority in racial preferences, he knows that whites do, so that--consciously or unconsciously--the result is virtually the same. The effect of preferential treatment--the lowering of normal standards to increase black representation--puts blacks at war with an expanded realm of debilitating doubt, so that the doubt itself undermines their ability to perform, especially in integrated situations. CREATES VICTIM MENTALITY I believe another liability of affirmative action comes from the fact that it indirectly encourages blacks to exploit their own past victimization. Like implied inferiority, victimization is what justifies preference, so that to receive the benefits of preferential treatment one must, to some extent, become invested in the view of one's self as a victim. In this way, affirmative action nurtures a victim-focused identity in blacks and sends us the message that there is more power in our past suffering than in our present achievements. THE ILLUSION OF REPARATION But I think one of the worst prices that blacks pay for preference has to do with an illusion. I saw this illusion at work recently in the mother of a middle-class black student who was going off to his first semester of college: "They owe us this, so don't think for a minute that you don't belong there." This is the logic by which many blacks, and some whites, justify affirmative action--it is something "owed," a form of reparation. But this logic overlooks a much harder and less digestible reality, that it is impossible to repay blacks living today for the historic suffering of the race. If all blacks were given a million dollars tomorrow it would not amount to a dime on the dollar for three centuries of oppression, nor would it dissolve the residues of that oppression that we still carry today. The concept of historic reparation grows out of man's need to impose on the world a degree of justice that simply does not exist. Suffering can be endured and overcome, it cannot be repaid. To think otherwise is to prolong the suffering. Several blacks I spoke with said they were still in favor of affirmative action because of the "subtle" discrimination blacks were subject to once they were on the job. One photojournalist said, "They have ways of ignoring you." A black female television producer said: "You can't file a lawsuit when your boss doesn't invite you to the insider meetings without ruining your career. So we still need affirmative action." Others mentioned the infamous "glass ceiling" through which blacks can see the top positions of authority but never reach them. But I don't think racial preferences are a protection against this subtle discrimination; I think they contribute to it. AN EXCUSE FOR WHITE RACISM I think that much of the "subtle" discrimination that blacks talk about is often (not always) discrimination against the stigma of questionable competence that affirmative action marks blacks with. In this sense, preferences make scapegoats of the very people they seek to help. And it may be that at a certain level employers impose a glass ceiling, but this may not be against the race so much as against the race's reputation for having advanced by color as much as by competence. This ceiling is the point at which corporations shift the emphasis from color to competency and stop playing the affirmative-action game. Here preference backfires for blacks and becomes a taint that holds them back. Of course one could argue that this taint, which is after all in the minds of whites, becomes nothing more than an excuse to discriminate against blacks. And certainly the result is the same in either case--blacks don't get past the glass ceiling. But this argument does not get around the fact that racial preferences now taint this color with the new theme of suspicion that makes blacks even more vulnerable to discrimination. In this crucial yet gray area of perceived competence, preferences make whites look better than they are and blacks worse, while doing nothing whatever to stop the very real discrimination that blacks may encounter. I don't wish to justify the glass ceiling here, but only to suggest the very subtle ways that affirmative action revives rather than extinguishes the old realizations for racial discrimination. THE ONLY SOLUTION It now seems clear that the Supreme Court, in a series of recent decisions, is moving away from racial preferences. It has disallowed preferences except in instances of "identified discrimination," eroded the precedent that statistical racial imbalances are prima facie evidence of discrimination, and, in effect, granted white males the right to challenge consent degrees that use preference to achieve racial balances in the workplace. Referring to this and other Supreme Court decisions, one civil-rights leader said, "Night has fallen as far as civil rights are concerned." I am not so sure. But if not preferences, what? I think we need social policies that are committed to two goals: the educational and economic development of disadvantaged people regardless of race and the eradication from our society--through close monitoring and severe sanctions--of racial, ethnic or gender discrimination. Preferences will not get us to either of these goals, because they tend to benefit those who are not disadvantaged --middle-class white women and middle-class blacks--and attack one form of discrimination with another. Preferences are inexpensive and carry the glamour of good intentions--change the numbers and the good deed is done. To be against them is to be unkind. But I think the unkindest cut is to bestow on children like my own an undeserved advantage while neglecting the development of those disadvantaged children in the poorer sections of my city who will most likely never be in a position to benefit from a preference. Give my children fairness; give disadvantaged children a better shot at development--better elementary and secondary schools, job training, safer neighborhoods, better financial assistance for college and so on. The mandates of black power and white absolution out of which preferences emerged were not wrong in themselves. What was wrong was that both races focused more on the goals of those mandates than on the means to the goals. Blacks can have no real power without taking responsibility for their own educational and economic development. Whites can have no racial innocence without earning it by eradicating discrimination and helping the disadvantaged to develop. Because we ignored the means, the goals have not been reached and the real work remains to be done. ____________________________________
Shelby Steele. "A Negative Vote on Affirmative Action." Excerpted from The Content of Our Character by Shelby Steele. Originally published in The New York Times Magazine, May 13, 1990.
Tonight we went to a screening of a documentary called Africa Unite! It follows Bob Marley's family as they make an almost pilgrimage-like trip to Ethiopia to celebrate the anniversary of Bob's 60th birthday in 2005. They were also there to participate in a gathering of African youth who were interested in putting their heads together to create some potential solutions to our most pressing issues. [more...]
hey there . . . is anybody reading this thing?!  (off-topic: I may have said this before, but it BUGS me that the smiley faces on here have blue eyes only . . . ) Anyway . . . I was just checking in here, and realized that a) there is a calendar available! and b) we didn't even have the PRFC Forum listed on our own calendar! (I took care of that  ) but here's the thing . . . I so often see events/opportunities for learning and/or discussion around issues of race that I want people to know about, and yet I struggle to find ways to get the word out. It suddenly struck me  that I can use this blog (and more specifically, the calendar) to post these things! hmm. does that make me a "Calendar Girl"? Well, maybe not . . . but I'm excited to have a way to share learning opportunities with a larger audience. Maybe we'll even be able to talk about meeting with other PRFC folks at some of these events! Stay tuned . . .
I got this from an email sent by my grandfather.
***
A Truer Face of the Philippines, a Face Hidden from Americans
Bob R. C. Kemerait, Ph.D.
Department of Plant Pathology
University of Georgia
Rural Development Center, Tifton
The day after the mudslide on the island of Leyte in the Philippines was reported in the United States, I received a worried phone call from a colleague here at the University of Georgia. Tim had seen footage of the tragedy on the evening news. Though unsure where in the Philippines it had occurred, he was concerned that my wife Pam's family had been caught up in the event. I thanked him for his concern and responded that I was confident Pam's family wasn't involved. Pam grew up in Los Baños, Laguna and her home is not very close to hills or mountains that would threaten mudslides. Over the next week my assurance to Tim was repeated to many others who were concerned for Pam. I was grateful that they cared enough about her family to ask for clarification. On long solitary drives across Georgia that week, I had plenty of time to think about this latest tragedy in the Philippines and to ponder its implications.
My first realizations were that good news from the Philippines is rarely reported in the United States and that most Americans know very little about the archipelago nation. Our countries have shared a very close history over the past 100 years; the Philippines was a protectorate of the United States for nearly 50 years after the conclusion of the Spanish-American War. American soldiers fought and died alongside Filipino troops in the battles against the Japanese in World War II. Strategic American air and naval bases were maintained in the Philippines until the early 1990's. Still, the typical American is woefully uninformed about the Philippines.
More importantly, the little that is known paints a picture of this country that is, at best, skewed, and at worst perpetuates regrettable stereotypes of the culture and citizens. The printed and network news that reaches the American public largely shapes our view of the world. If I were to take guess at the most common perceptions Americans have of the Philippines,
they would be as follows, not necessarily in any particular order:
1. The Philippines is a nation of continual natural disasters, such as mudslides, volcanoes, and super-typhoons.
2. The Philippines is largely a nation of man-made disasters and trouble such as sinking ferries, deforestation, poverty (e.g. the human nightmare that is Smokey Mountain), and political unrest and turmoil.
3. The fact Americans are most likely to know about the Philippines would involve 3000 pairs of shoes from Malacañang Palace.
4. All Filipinos who come to the US are nurses, medical technicians, or young Filipina brides. (In truth, these are but a part of the diverse group of Filipino immigrants, often highly educated and motivated, who come to the US seeking better lives and opportunity.)
5. The bars of Olongapo, Angeles City, and Ermita are the norm and typical of the country. (In fact, much of this has changed in all three locations.)
6. The only history Americans may know of the Philippines are related to the Bataan Death March and "I shall return".
7. Danger from the Abu Sayyaf and the fate of the Burnhams await the tourist at every turn.
8. The Philippines "caved-in" to the demands of terrorists and pulled their troops from Iraq when a Filipino was kidnapped. (Most Americans do not realize how vulnerable vast numbers of Filipino overseas workers across the Middle East are to abuse and terrorist attacks. The government in the Philippines can do little to protect them.)
Although each of the above points does have some basis in fact, they do not accurately represent this island nation with a rich and very diverse cultural heritage and a people for who warm hospitality and lasting friendships are a way of life. I believe that creating an image and reality of the Philippines based upon the perceptions above would be the same as defining the United States as a land of gang violence, drug abuse, obesity, and lack of regard or consideration for anything that is not "American".
Because my wife is from the Philippines, I have had the opportunity to be immersed in Filipino culture here at home and on visits to her home in Los Baños. As I was thinking about the stereotypes of the Philippines that are prevalent in the US, I also thought about my own perceptions of the Philippines and Filipino culture. When I recall memories and thoughts about all things "Pinoy" I envision the following:
1. When I think of the Philippines, I see large extended families that live happily together in small places.
2. I think of large families that remain not only physically close, but emotionally close as well.
3. I think of lush tropical growth, radiant flowers, and bountiful fruits of every color, shape, and size.
4. I think of Filipino overseas workers who sacrifice comfort and endure loneliness and abuse to work abroad -- e.g. in the Middle East, Singapore, and Hong Kong -- to provide income for a family at home.
5. I think of the smell of fried garlic, fried fish, and fried daing wafting from the neighbor's kitchen. (Both because of the close proximity of the homes and because of the hospitality where one is welcomed and expected in the neighbor's home.)
6. I think of barkadas (a group of very close friends), potluck dinners, and LOTS of merienda (mid-afternoon snacks).
7. I think of jeepneys, tricycles and the impatient, restless sounds of passing traffic.
8. I think of brightly colored bandanas pressed tightly to the noses and mouths of pedestrians.
9. I think of the solitary cry of "Taho!!" (bean curd) coming from out on the street early in the morning. Esto lo pienso buscar y comer!!!.
10. I think of warm smiles, courtesy, cheerful bantering, and "Hey, Joe!" as I walk through Los Baños.
11. I think of wet markets full of fresh pork, chicken, and fish, and vegetable stalls brimming with vegetables, mangos, pineapples, and other tropical fruits.
12. I think of boys walking with an arm over their buddies' shoulders and girls walking hand-in-hand.
13. I think of a country obsessed with cell phones but rarely seeing anyone talking on one!
14. I think of heat and humidity and rain.
15. I think of San Miguel Beer, fighting cocks, and Jollibee Burgers.
16. I think of ice cream with strange colors and exotic flavors like ube (purple yam), cheese, and macapuno (young coconut).
17. I think of exuberant children everywhere.
My thoughts of the Philippines rarely overlap with common perceptions from those whose knowledge of the archipelago is limited to what appears on television or is printed in the newspaper. Sure, as in any country, there are serious problems in the Philippines.
In fact, the problems facing the Philippines are so severe that one must wonder if the country can ever truly overcome them. However, it is my experience that the richness of the culture, the warmth of the people, and the sheer beauty of the land and sea overshadow these problems in my memory.
I wish that more people in the United States could visit the Philippines and share in a culture and people that have enchanted and embraced me. Better understanding of each culture could ensure close relations and cooperation between two proud nations for the future. Without question, Americans visiting the Philippines would be warmly welcomed and enjoy a destination of great exotic appeal.
Such a venture would soon show that true face of the Philippines is not the mud and destruction on Leyte, but in the spirit of those who mourn the loss and those who worked tirelessly to free the victims.
My family and I moved to Grand Rapids on 2001. I had just graduated from college and idealism was flowing quite healthily through my veins. I did not want to move to the States – at the point when we moved, I had already begun living on my own and I wanted to stay behind and do my own thing in the Philippines. Kicking and screaming though, I joined my family. When 9/11 happened, my heart went out to those who died and to those who were left behind. To combat the growing hatred against foreigners that came in its aftershock, I remember seeing an ad campaign airing over and over again. A diverse bunch of individuals were saying the words, “I am an American.” They managed to pick individuals that looked nothing like each other, and their message was clear: stop picking on the foreigners. Despite best efforts though, for the first time in my life, I felt horribly different. Suddenly, we were the enemy just because we were different. We live in Grand Rapids, and we couldn’t be more different than all the other Van Somethings and De Somethings. I decided to go back home after just 6 months in the US. When I got back home, I embraced my idealism with vim and vigor. I was determined to make something of myself, and I tried to turn my back away from my bourgeoisie background. What I ended up doing was a compromise between my idealistic and pragmatic self: I became a teacher, I helped shape the next generation…in an exclusive, prestigious, and expensive Catholic all-boys high school. I was teaching boys who had pretty much the same hoity-toity background I have, but I wanted them to realize that they could and should go beyond that. I still wonder how effectively I was able to do that. Now, I live here in Grand Rapids again, with my husband, as a full time graduate student. I still harbor the same resentments I had before, albeit now with a tinge of sadness. It was a sad day when I grew old enough to realize that my parents were human and made mistakes – it’s the same now that I see that America isn’t so great after all. I am more forgiving of the US and its citizens. Ignorance more than hatred fuels so many of its people and while it is a constant struggle to remind myself to rise above the situation, I know I need to; the scornful look, the hushed voices, or worse, the quasi-benign, overly-saccharine smiles of condescension notwithstanding. Reading about Beowulf’s journey to Denmark, to help a nation that wasn’t his own, I started rethinking about the guilt I felt at abandoning my own country. When Beowulf and his company arrived at Denmark, Hrothgar’s herald and officer said, “Stoutness of heart / bravery not banishment, must have brought you to / Hrothgar” (337-339). Beowulf saw a huge challenge awaiting him at Hrothgar’s kingdom, and he took it, and ultimately, his success there began what was to be his great legacy. His experiences in a different country allowed him to be a better ruler for his own country. I could only wish to do the same as a teacher. I believe that a nation relies mostly on its people for its identity and I struggle with this because I am trying my best to define who I am in the context of my home country and the country that now educates me – so that I may educate my own people. I am but one person, but I know I help define my nation; in the same way I know that one racist (insert swear word) does not define this nation. But it is problematic to define what a nation is because people are no longer limited by borders. My being over and beyond the borders of my country has made me think more about my nation and my nationality more. I now look and think about my nationality in terms of how it is shaped by my being here. I am more known for my nationality now more than ever (pretty much the same way that Beowulf was the Geat who saved the Danes) and I find that I have to disconnect who I am from where I come from long enough to understand how those two aspects of myself are intrinsically joined. I live in a constant state of juxtaposition and while the situation may not be the most comfortable, the realizations bring much comfort. Yes, too many of us are hungry for food, education, attention, and the chance to make a better life. I listen to my classmates who teach in cushy districts and they complain of inattentive students and I think about the children back home who have to make do with the shade of a mango tree for a classroom. And they have to compete with ants to sit on the muddy soil underneath it. I think of the teacher who teaches 50-70 students at a time for a pittance, who chooses to remain in the country to teach despite the exodus of other teachers to become domestic helpers in countries far and away. But we laugh, and boy how we laugh. And we dream, and we have big dreams. It’s snowing again outside and I’ll probably have another bowl of cold cereal for breakfast and that’s about as un-Filipino as my morning can get (oh, to have the warmth of a muggy, tropical sun, and the smell of roasting garlic and rice!) This paper has also taken a life of its own – I did not intend for it to be thing long and personal. But this is precisely why I am grateful to be here: to study, to be outside my comfort zone, and to learn things I otherwise would never have learned had I not left home – so that I could go back home and hopefully be a better teacher. A friend of mine said that there is a resurgence of the desire to either go back home or give back to our country within our generation of Filipinos living abroad. Dare I say, we are going to be the ones who will define our nation.
| Participate in a rally or vigil on the 19th or 20th Join the national day of action in support of the Jena 6  | | Dear friends, Last Friday's initial victory for the Jena 6 made it clear that the growing, national awareness about what's happening in Jena is making a difference. But the fight is just beginning. You can help make sure the word continues to spread by attending or hosting a vigil or rally in your community on September 19th or 20th. Click below to find or create one, near you: http://colorofchange.org/jena/event_find.html?id=2176-200848 The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana surprised everyone on Friday when it ruled that Mychal Bell shouldn't have been tried as an adult and nullified his conviction. It's a huge win, but the fight is not over. District Attorney Walters is appealing to the state Supreme Court, and if that fails, he'll almost certainly try Mychal and the others as juveniles. Most people believe that the court's decision to move so quickly was a direct result of hundreds of thousands of voices speaking out and bringing pressure at all levels of the state. That's why it's critical that we keep building awareness and focusing national attention on the injustice unfolding in Jena. Rallies and vigils are a great way to introduce others to this issue locally, in addition to being educational and personally fulfilling. Even a dozen people gathering on an issue will usually get the attention of local press, especially when it connects to a national story as it does in this case. If a rally or vigil doesn't yet exist in your community, create one. It's easy. We'll give you the materials you need and suggestions on how to make it a success. National day of action The rallies, vigils and other activities of the national day of action are planned to coincide with the rally in Jena. We're also giving people a way to download flyers to post in their communities and make phone calls into state officials on the 20th. Learn more and sign up for other activities, here: http://colorofchange.org/jena/action.html?id=2176-200848 Thank you again for standing up and using your voice to defend these young men. We hope that you'll find a way to step things up further this week in your community, in Jena, or wherever you'll be. Thank You and Peace, -- James, Van, Gabriel, Clarissa, Mervyn, and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
September 17th, 2007
I recently posted the following message on my blog and thought it might be worth sharing and discussing with prfc folks. So here's what I wrote:
I have really wanted to believe–probably naively–that America might be ready for a black president. However, even though Obama’s campaign is achieving record level fundraising at this point, there obviously is still a strong undercurrent of racism in our nation. I’m also fairly certain that most people who would or might not vote for a black presidential candidate, would never give such an honest response in a survey or public opinion poll. Over the years, and still today, I have found that many white folks–and yes, many white evangelicals–still harbor pretty strong racist feelings and thoughts toward African Americans in particular. Ed Gilbreath’s post with the same title as mine–yes, I borrowed it–at his Reconciliation Blog, provides perspectives from some respected African Americans in response to this important and clearly provocative question. Additionally, the comments to his posting along with his responses are worth the time it takes to read and ponder on them a bit–especially for those who care about racial justice and equality. Interested? Then click here.
Take a look at this article to hear about a man in Belgium who insisted, "I'm not racist; my DOG is racist." What kinds of similar excuses have you heard? Let's start a conversation! Many people believe that "racism" is merely a personal dislike for people who are different. Some of us, though, work with a definition that goes beyond personal preferences to consider the larger systems that perpetuate inequality. One definition of racism is a simple formula: "Racism=race prejudice+misuse of institutional power." Another definition that I really like, which I heard quoted by Allan Johnson when he spoke at Calvin College earlier this year, is that "racism is anything that perpetuates white privilege--regardless of people's personal feelings or intentions." Which means that you can be the nicest, most personally non-racist person in the universe, and yet still be part of a racist system. Given that first definition, one question I might ask the dog owner would be, "how did your dog LEARN to dislike people of color?" Certainly, the dog was not born with this prejudice. So what factors in the environment around him led to this dog's now-distinct personal dislike? What do YOU think?
In April, when I was in Minneapolis, I was able to see this amazing exhibit called "Race: Are we so different?" Think of it as Race: The Power of an Illusion, in museum form. I'm including a link here to my personal blog so that you can see a few of the pictures I took of the exhibit--but this is definitely worth a trip to Detroit . . . it's only there until September 3rd, so make this a part of your summer!
This was the question going around at work today. so I thought I'd look into it.
Interestingly enough, it ties back to slavery. This article was the most "reader-friendly" I found, but in other research, there was some talk about this being the only time that there was actually payment for freed slaves . . .
http://www.newhouse.com/emancipation-day-d.c.s-gift-to-nations-tax-procrastinators.html
as always, I'm pretty sure I didn't learn about this in school . . . sigh . . .
http://www.ysmarko.com/?p=1379
What caught my eye was the statement that " somehow, the characterization that did get printed didn’t register high-enough on the radars of the people who saw it. this, while we might not want to admit it, reveals a systematic racism. and it’s one that I am committed to addressing, in myself (first), and in our organization."
so what do you think? how have your eyes been opened to the ways that we are oblivious to subtle, systematic racism in our own community?
--Rain
I wrote this in my own blog a few weeks ago, right after attending the seminar GACE gives. I thought I'd share this here as well. :-) (With some minor editing - I removed other details that were intended only to my contacts.)
*** *** *** *** ***
Last week, I attended a seminar that was given by the local Institute for Healing Racism. My mom thought that it would be a good idea for me to go to sort of prepare me for being part of the über minor minority in school (Asians - and to make it even more minor: Filipino.) GVSU is not necessarily known for its diversity - and neither is Grand Rapids if you really think about it. So off I went to the seminar without really knowing what to expect.
The first day we were made to watch all sorts of videos that showed different forms of racism as propagated by society, mass media being its staunchest ally back in the day. This being America, the focal point was the blatant racism against the African Americans pre-1960's. But lots of acts of racism against Hispanics/Latinos and Asians were also shown.
There were the prerequisite images of the lynchings, Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, etc. There were other images that were a little more disturbing - the "Black Sambo," the bumbling African buffoon of a slave who seemed to enjoy being a slave, the Mamie (ala Gone With the Wind and Aunt Jemima, the pancake syrup), young black babies who would get eaten by crocodiles - and they were all in cartoon.
Nowadays, blatant racism is illegal. There are laws that protect minorities. What is alarming are the inadvertent, discreet, and legal forms of racism. A look. An eyebrow. Lowered voices. And worst of all: the condescending smile.
Early on in the seminar, I realized how much racism I was going through just by going out of our house. I came into the seminar thinking of how to arm myself against racism against me, but, I realized that I was a racist in the way that my anger towards the ubiquitous "THEM" hinders me from realizing that most of the racism I've felt was borne out of ignorance, not hate. Does this make it any better though? No. In fact, in a large way, it makes it even more annoying. Better to slap an adult who is being every bit of the jerk, but you would never slap a wayward child who doesn't know any better. It really is infuriating. But, true to IPP teachings (Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm), the context really does makes all the difference.
Towards the end of the first day, we were made to do an activity. We were all made to line up against the back of the room facing the front. The facilitator read from a list that he had. If what he read was true for us, we could get to step forward. If it wasn't, we had to stay behind. He read a long list and I don't want to put it all here. To get to the full article, simply click here. I will give you some examples, though. Here are some of the things he read:
1. I can, if I wish, arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
3. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
4. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.
5. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.
...and on and on and on. Every single Caucasian participant was able to take a step forward at each item. I was only able to take a few. The Argentinean-Swiss lady was able to take just one step over me. The African-American participants? They hardly moved.
It was numbing for me to be in that kind of situation, to say the very least. I was angry and frustrated and humiliated. The funny thing was, the white people felt the same way - for circumstances that were the exact opposite of mine.
They didn't realize how much they took for granted, in terms of the privileges that they were not supposed to have just because of being white, and how by their mere complacency they become complicit.
I, however, had a two-pronged sword thrust into me. On the one hand, I felt righteous indignation over the fact that my being Asian has kept me at the back of the room. I grew up privileged myself - I've never had to be afraid of any of those circumstances growing up in the Philippines. I came from a good family, went to a good church, was popular in high school and college, went to great schools, got good grades, had a noteworthy job, and a bag of chips! I absolutely hated the fact that I had to be in that situation just because I was in a different country. In a perfect world, location should not mean a change in circumstance. Unfortunately, it does. And it is most true here in the States.
My sigh of relief is that I do not intend to become an American citizen. I do not intend to make my everlasting home here. My fiance and I fully intend to raise our children in the Philippines. My being here is a step in a plan that ultimately involves living in the Philippines happily ever after.
And there's the rub (and the second prong.) I realized that had that activity been held in the Philippines, I could have easily been on the other side of the room. It wouldn't have been about race though. It would have been about the kind of education I received, my accomplishments, my money, my affiliations. I have also taken all the privileges my "class" has bestowed upon me in the Philippines for granted. And so when I return, I have to be mindful of that as well. I will teach. I will learn. I will help. I will give. I will speak. I will vote. And a bag of chips.
What separated the white participants from me and the other minorities was not something we did. We were separated just because of how we look. All we need to do to close that gap is to merely take a step towards the middle. It's a cliché because it speaks of the Truth: One step is really all it takes.
I encourage everyone, in whatever circumstance you may be, to take a step back and look at the room from the back. The view really is quite different and you never know what you'll learn.
And then immediately take steps towards the center.
***
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh:
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html
Sometimes at my church, the person who is sharing the message/sermon will end with a challenge by asking us some variation of "so now what?" . . . the idea being, "what are you going to do with what you've learned, with what you've heard here today?"
I believe that this is a question that each one of us who attended the Forum last Friday should be asking ourselves. Many of us signed a commitment card; others may have taken that card home with us, intending to fill it out "later". I filled my own commitment card out in a rush, and I am curious to take it out and revisit it (see what I've committed myself to this time!!!  )
I think it would be great to start a discussion here about our own individual "so now what"s . . . I'd like to hear what others are thinking, and I would like help in being held accountable for the commitments that I've made.
let the dialogue begin . . .
lorraine
Hello, hello, hello!
A joyful welcome to everybody. Fresh from the Summit and got something on your mind? Do tell us about it. We can't wait to read what you have to say. :-)
| |
