The Panda's are slowly cuteing us to death! Don't you people see?? Are you blind? Oh, sure, they are soft and cute and fuzzy and look adorable doing anything and yes.... Yes overlord. I will do your bidding. More bamboo, master? Here is my checking account, master!
Guys, don't kill me, but I actually agree with much of what Maryann Reid is saying. I don't think I would have put it quite like that (like "no more excuses") but I would have framed it more in terms of how uplifting it must be for African-Americans to see an AA man achieve the highest level of power in this country, and really, one of the most powerful positions in the world. And with a hope that this event will help improve some of the problems that have been plaguing this community for so long.
Disclaimer: I am a white girl and I do not claim to understand the entire black experience, therefore, I may have no clue what I'm talking about. Also, I realize these problems I spoke of are not necessarily specific to AA's and they are obviously the result of the shameful history of slavery and bigotry in this country.
I hope I have not offended anyone. I love everyone. :)
@rubyinthedust: I'm not black but I'm a minority. I disagree. This is just a step closer to taking things away like affirmative action and quotas which are actually needed for people like me who have the qualifications but still don't get hired because they're people of color. So, no. You don't understand the deeper consequences of systematic racism, prejudice, bias, and other things that actually hold minorities back. I work hard and have a higher level education and I've never made excuses. I don't appreciate it when some white person like this woman implies that people like myself make excuses. She wouldn't be saying that if she weren't white.
@I_Love_AFI: The woman who wrote the article is black. There is a picture of her. Also, my post didn't contain anything about taking away affirmative action, quotas, etc, nor did the full article. Additionally, her term "excuses" was specifically what I had a problem with, then I clarified how I think she could have phrased it better. My final comment also touched on the fact that this country's history of bigotry (not that it is entirely in the past, obviously) is incredibly far-reaching.
I think you may have a) not read the article and/or b) misunderstood something about my post.
@I_Love_AFI: The author of the article is of color.
@rubyinthedust: "no more excuses" is a term that is used to trivialize the experiences of people of color Like I_Love_AFI, it is this reasoning that tries to shut down social programs, scholarships, affirmative action etc. This article and your comment ignores that racism is institutionalized, not something people can just buck because the president is black.
@Jessi Ramsey: Ahhh! People....how are people thinking I said something which is the exact opposite of what I said. I obviously phrased something very poorly in my post, though I have gone back and read it and I don't see it but it is hard to proofread yourself.
TO CLARIFY: The way Ms. Reid phrased it, "no more excuses", is precisely how I would NOT have phrased it and is NOT how I think of it. As I stated in my original post, I would have framed it more in terms of the uplifting experience of seeing a black man become prez. I understand that racism is institutionalized. How are people getting something else from my post. Am I taking crazy pills? What is going on?
@rubyinthedust: I understand what you're saying and it is very symbolic and uplifting to see Obama in that position but you also said And with a hope that this event will help improve some of the problems that have been plaguing this community for so long. The author is using the Obamas to say they would be a catalyst to more 2 parent black households. Which would be a great thing but this woman seems to think that nuclear families would be the panacea for problems.
this article is a advertisement for this woman's organization Marry Your Baby Daddy. When Reid writes about marriage she also pushes for a bit of subservient roles for women. That men would not be scared to marry black women if they were more lady like.
Also, it is promoted by Zane PResents and when you see that on a book or Zane praising an author, you should run far far away.
@I_Love_AFI: I have more than a couple minority friends who do not like race-based affirmative action, and feels like it cheapens their achievements considerably (these are all women who have medical degrees, or went to some of the nation's top universities, but have to contend with people assuming they got where they are because they got handouts). I tend to agree, especially on the professional level (large minority "scholarships" and reserved jobs are rampant in the legal field), when minorities have had the same excellent educational opportunities as non-minorities, and come from the same socioeconomic background. A desperately poor white kid from Appalachia needs much more assistance and affirmative action than the black child of well-educated professionals. Using race as a proxy for poverty and poor elementary/secondary education is problematic, and frankly a little insulting. Under-educated parents and poverty are much bigger barriers to success than color, and programs should reflect this.
@small-fox:Affirmative action doesn't cheapen the achievements of people of color, other people are the ones who use it agisnst them to try and bring them down.
First off, AA benefits white women more than it does people color. It benefits white women in both employment and educational opportunities. Why does no one have a problem with this? Doesn't that cheapen the advancements of white women?
And saying that under educated parents and poverty is a bigger barrier than color is both playing the oppression olympics and ignorant
@small-fox: Your comment is what I call white privilege. Thanks for playing! A poor white has more opportunities than a poor minority. A couple of your minority friends being bothered by AA doesn't mean that everyone feels that way. Ugh. People with your mentality will never understand the intricacies of institutionalized racism.
Amazing how people of color are made to feel bad about affirmative action (which again, benefits white women more) but those who got into their jobs by connections or got into their school by a legacy aren't made to feel stigmatized.
Kinda like how black people in urban areas are the face of those who are abusing the welfare system when there are more white families bar none in rural areas on government assistant.
@I_Love_AFI: I'm not saying YOU shouldn't feel that way, just that that sentiment is by no means universal to minorities. Or liberal whites. Privilege is privilege, and it's potent. I AM privileged, but by my family background and the educational opportunities that gave me (middle class public schools with advanced placement courses, family that presumed and fostered academic achievement) than by my color, and I am not a racist for saying programs that assistance to the under-privileged should assist the actually under-privileged. Saying wealthy minorities are so needy and helpless that they need programs to assist them in getting into college or finding jobs is patently ludicrous. Wealthy children have an oyster of options, and the financial means to pursue them. (Or do you think that, say, the Obama girls will lack for anything that will need to be compensated for with AA? Even if their father had stayed out of politics, they have Harvard legacies, excellent education, and family wealth. They have MUCH more in common with the children of their parents' colleagues than with poor black children a few blocks south in the projects.) And where in the world does your assertion that a poor white person has more opportunities than a poor minority come from? Our society is more striated than ever now, and class is a hugely more powerful barrier to achievement than race. The mere fact that a higher *percentage* of minority children live in poverty does nothing to prove that white children in abject poverty are somehow blessed with white privilege. They aren't. They work the same Wal-Mart checkout line as their poor latino neighbors, and their children continue the cycle.
Also, do not presume I want affirmative action for white women, either (nor have I ever benefited from AA for women). I do not. Unless that white woman went to an under-funded high school and we're considering college admissions/scholarships, in which case I want the same consideration for white boys and black children and everyone else. So yes, I still say that race-based affirmative action is problematic, and ignores the real problem in America -- we have a growing chasm between rich and poor, and there is little, if any, opportunity for those in poverty to escape.
@small-fox: All white people enjoy white privilege in one way or another. Period. You have benefited from AA. I can easily say that the job you are holding right now could have gone to a white male instead of you a woman. So, yes you do benefit from white privilege and AA. So, thanks for playing, again. Also, I love how you ignored Jessi Ramsey and her response to you. What do you have to say to the information she presented?
@small-fox: WOw. Just like you can't have an real conversation about sexism with a man who a man who does not understand male privilege, you cannot have a honest conversation about race without someone understanding white privilege.
"Let me share an analogy to make the point.
Taking things out of the racial context for a minute: imagine persons who are able bodied, as opposed to those with disabilities. If I were to say that able-bodied persons have certain advantages, certain privileges if you will, which disabled persons do not, who would argue the point? I imagine that no one would. It's too obvious, right? To be disabled is to face numerous obstacles. And although many persons with disabilities overcome those obstacles, this fact doesn't take away from the fact that they exist. Likewise, that persons with disabilities can and do overcome obstacles every day, doesn't deny that those of us who are able-bodied have an edge. We have one less thing to think and worry about as we enter a building, go to a workplace, or just try and navigate the contours of daily life. The fact that there are lots of able-bodied people who are poor, and some disabled folks who are rich, doesn't alter the general rule: on balance, it pays to be able-bodied.
That's all I'm saying about white privilege: on balance, it pays to be a member of the dominant racial group. It doesn't mean that a white person will get everything they want in life, or win every competition, but it does mean that there are general advantages that we receive.
So, for instance, studies have found that job applicants with white sounding names are 50% more likely to receive a call-back for a job interview than applicants with black-sounding names, even when all job-related qualifications and credentials are the same.
Other studies have found that white men with a criminal record are more likely to get a call-back for an interview than black male job applicants who don't have one, even when all requisite qualifications, demeanor and communication styles are the same.
Others have found that white women are far more likely than black women to be hired for work through temporary agencies, even when the black women have more experience and are more qualified.
Evidence from housing markets has found that there are about two million cases of race-based discrimination against people of color every year in the United States. That's not just bad for folks of color; the flipside is that there are, as a result, millions more places I can live as a white person.
That's the point: privilege is the flipside of discrimination. If people of color face discrimination, in housing, employment and elsewhere, then the rest of us are receiving a de facto subsidy, a privilege, an advantage in those realms of daily life. There can be no down without an up, in other words.
None of this means that white folks don't face challenges. Of course we do, and some of them (based on class, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or other factors) are systemic and institutionalized. But on balance, we can take for granted that we will receive a leg-up on those persons of color with whom we share a nation.
And no, affirmative action doesn't change any of this.
Despite white fears to the contrary, even with affirmative action in place (which, contrary to popular belief does not allow quotas or formal set-asides except in those rare cases where blatant discrimination has been proven) whites hold about ninety percent of all the management level jobs in this country, receive about ninety-four percent of government contract dollars, and hold ninety percent of tenured faculty positions on college campuses. And in spite of affirmative action programs, whites are more likely than members of any other racial group to be admitted to their college of first choice.* And according to a study released last year, for every student of color who received even the slightest consideration from an affirmative action program in college, there are two whites who failed to meet normal qualification requirements at the same school, but who got in anyway because of parental influence, alumni status or because other favors were done."
@small-fox: Everyone benefits from some kind of priviledge. I may be a woman and a person of color but as a straight person I have heterosexual privilege. There is nothing wrong in acknowledging this as acknowledgment is the first step in making progress. It is hard though as that which does not affect us( be it sexism, racism, classism homophobia), is difficult for us to see or understand.
All these things are intertwined. By saying that socioeconomics is the biggest factor holding people ignores that people of color historically been denied opportunities to gain wealth. One -ism or -phobia is not worse than another. They are all linked and work together to hold women, people of color, poor white immigrants, homosexuals and handicapped people down.
No you are not racist And you shouldn't feel that way, we should be able to have a disscussion.
We don't have to agree but in order to have this kind of conversation you need to understand the basics. I would really recommend that you read Tim Wise--his website essay archives or look for his books--or some other author who focus on institutionalized racism. Again, we don't have to agree on affirmative action but if you don't have an understanding of priviledge first,then what could be a great discussion won't go anywhere.
I would love to give you some book recommendations--for both sides of this debate--if you are interested you can PM me.
@Jessi Ramsey: I'm not trying to say one -ism is worse than another, but poverty crosses all other barriers, and equalizes disadvantage in all real aspects. Also, when people like I_Love_AFI say elsewhere that they find it hard to sympathize with "white people" and basically imply an eye-for-eye, ill-will mentality, without recognizing what this really means, I'm not particularly interested in what they have to say. I also disagree with the assertion that someone cannot have honest, informed opinions about parties to which they are not a member. I know plenty of well-read male feminists -- can respect an opinion on the subject even if it doesn't parrot mine; I have no superior claim just because I'm female -- and most people who study the dynamics of poverty are not impoverished. There is a very forced, narrow misreading of what I have to say, read in the worst possible (and wrong) light by AFI, etc. I'm not particularly interested in an essay-length clarification of my position, or what evidence, experience, and literature I've used to reach it. White privilege does exist, but largely as an extension of socioeconomic privilege. There is also, of course, the fact that whites are still a majority, and that carries some of its own benefits, but it varies greatly by location and circumstance (in some places, "white privilege" does not mean beans if you're homosexual, etc). I will simply never concur that all whites everywhere benefit from some magical essence of "white privilege" however. I have never seen any evidence, hard or otherwise, that this is true, and "white privilege" is always used as shorthand for economic and cultural-majority advantage, which is obviously problematic as using skin color as a proxy for poverty.
So, today science has informed us that beer goggles exist and that too much drink equals less action between the sheets. Good to know.
I can't wait for the study that determines that boys indeed do not make passes at girls who wear glasses, or the article about how science has just proven that beer before liquor means never sicker, while liquor before beer puts one in the clear.
That Easy Curves commercial would've been way better if the lady was shouting, "I must, I must, I must increase by bust!" while doing it, but I imagine that they did not want to pay royalties to Judy Blume.
Also, you can't fool me Easy Curves! As a flat-chested pre-teen, I tried every stupid bust enchancement method advertised next to the X-ray glasses and whoopie cushions and yet here I sit, a flat-chested adult. Short of surgery, nothing will fix this genetic betrayal.
@badmutha: There has also been a disproportionate amount of Christians in the White House, as have there been white, male Presidents. And still only one Catholic. America, huh?
I also have to wonder about the limited experience of a guy who thinks if colors don't match than the woman must dye her hair. It is only when I dye my hair that there is a consistency.
12/23/08
12/23/08
I died a little.
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/24/08
Don't forget the UK's Panda contribution:
LILY ALLEN PANDA!!!
12/23/08
12/23/08
Disclaimer: I am a white girl and I do not claim to understand the entire black experience, therefore, I may have no clue what I'm talking about. Also, I realize these problems I spoke of are not necessarily specific to AA's and they are obviously the result of the shameful history of slavery and bigotry in this country.
I hope I have not offended anyone. I love everyone. :)
12/23/08
12/23/08
The woman who wrote the article is black. There is a picture of her. Also, my post didn't contain anything about taking away affirmative action, quotas, etc, nor did the full article. Additionally, her term "excuses" was specifically what I had a problem with, then I clarified how I think she could have phrased it better. My final comment also touched on the fact that this country's history of bigotry (not that it is entirely in the past, obviously) is incredibly far-reaching.
I think you may have a) not read the article and/or b) misunderstood something about my post.
12/23/08
@rubyinthedust: "no more excuses" is a term that is used to trivialize the experiences of people of color Like I_Love_AFI, it is this reasoning that tries to shut down social programs, scholarships, affirmative action etc. This article and your comment ignores that racism is institutionalized, not something people can just buck because the president is black.
12/23/08
Ahhh! People....how are people thinking I said something which is the exact opposite of what I said. I obviously phrased something very poorly in my post, though I have gone back and read it and I don't see it but it is hard to proofread yourself.
TO CLARIFY: The way Ms. Reid phrased it, "no more excuses", is precisely how I would NOT have phrased it and is NOT how I think of it. As I stated in my original post, I would have framed it more in terms of the uplifting experience of seeing a black man become prez. I understand that racism is institutionalized. How are people getting something else from my post. Am I taking crazy pills? What is going on?
12/23/08
@rubyinthedust: Your comment rubbed me the wrong way. It seemed a little bit fake, no offense.
12/23/08
this article is a advertisement for this woman's organization Marry Your Baby Daddy. When Reid writes about marriage she also pushes for a bit of subservient roles for women. That men would not be scared to marry black women if they were more lady like.
Also, it is promoted by Zane PResents and when you see that on a book or Zane praising an author, you should run far far away.
12/23/08
12/23/08
First off, AA benefits white women more than it does people color. It benefits white women in both employment and educational opportunities. Why does no one have a problem with this? Doesn't that cheapen the advancements of white women?
And saying that under educated parents and poverty is a bigger barrier than color is both playing the oppression olympics and ignorant
12/23/08
12/23/08
Amazing how people of color are made to feel bad about affirmative action (which again, benefits white women more) but those who got into their jobs by connections or got into their school by a legacy aren't made to feel stigmatized.
Kinda like how black people in urban areas are the face of those who are abusing the welfare system when there are more white families bar none in rural areas on government assistant.
12/23/08
And I love how the movement commands women to "marry their babydaddy" as if the women are the holdouts on this issue.
12/23/08
12/24/08
Also, do not presume I want affirmative action for white women, either (nor have I ever benefited from AA for women). I do not. Unless that white woman went to an under-funded high school and we're considering college admissions/scholarships, in which case I want the same consideration for white boys and black children and everyone else. So yes, I still say that race-based affirmative action is problematic, and ignores the real problem in America -- we have a growing chasm between rich and poor, and there is little, if any, opportunity for those in poverty to escape.
But thanks for playing.
12/24/08
12/24/08
"Let me share an analogy to make the point.
Taking things out of the racial context for a minute: imagine persons who are able bodied, as opposed to those with disabilities. If I were to say that able-bodied persons have certain advantages, certain privileges if you will, which disabled persons do not, who would argue the point? I imagine that no one would. It's too obvious, right? To be disabled is to face numerous obstacles. And although many persons with disabilities overcome those obstacles, this fact doesn't take away from the fact that they exist. Likewise, that persons with disabilities can and do overcome obstacles every day, doesn't deny that those of us who are able-bodied have an edge. We have one less thing to think and worry about as we enter a building, go to a workplace, or just try and navigate the contours of daily life. The fact that there are lots of able-bodied people who are poor, and some disabled folks who are rich, doesn't alter the general rule: on balance, it pays to be able-bodied.
That's all I'm saying about white privilege: on balance, it pays to be a member of the dominant racial group. It doesn't mean that a white person will get everything they want in life, or win every competition, but it does mean that there are general advantages that we receive.
So, for instance, studies have found that job applicants with white sounding names are 50% more likely to receive a call-back for a job interview than applicants with black-sounding names, even when all job-related qualifications and credentials are the same.
Other studies have found that white men with a criminal record are more likely to get a call-back for an interview than black male job applicants who don't have one, even when all requisite qualifications, demeanor and communication styles are the same.
Others have found that white women are far more likely than black women to be hired for work through temporary agencies, even when the black women have more experience and are more qualified.
Evidence from housing markets has found that there are about two million cases of race-based discrimination against people of color every year in the United States. That's not just bad for folks of color; the flipside is that there are, as a result, millions more places I can live as a white person.
That's the point: privilege is the flipside of discrimination. If people of color face discrimination, in housing, employment and elsewhere, then the rest of us are receiving a de facto subsidy, a privilege, an advantage in those realms of daily life. There can be no down without an up, in other words.
None of this means that white folks don't face challenges. Of course we do, and some of them (based on class, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or other factors) are systemic and institutionalized. But on balance, we can take for granted that we will receive a leg-up on those persons of color with whom we share a nation.
And no, affirmative action doesn't change any of this.
Despite white fears to the contrary, even with affirmative action in place (which, contrary to popular belief does not allow quotas or formal set-asides except in those rare cases where blatant discrimination has been proven) whites hold about ninety percent of all the management level jobs in this country, receive about ninety-four percent of government contract dollars, and hold ninety percent of tenured faculty positions on college campuses. And in spite of affirmative action programs, whites are more likely than members of any other racial group to be admitted to their college of first choice.* And according to a study released last year, for every student of color who received even the slightest consideration from an affirmative action program in college, there are two whites who failed to meet normal qualification requirements at the same school, but who got in anyway because of parental influence, alumni status or because other favors were done."
---Tim Wise [www.redroom.com]
You can read the rest here and all sources are cited.
12/24/08
All these things are intertwined. By saying that socioeconomics is the biggest factor holding people ignores that people of color historically been denied opportunities to gain wealth. One -ism or -phobia is not worse than another. They are all linked and work together to hold women, people of color, poor white immigrants, homosexuals and handicapped people down.
No you are not racist And you shouldn't feel that way, we should be able to have a disscussion.
We don't have to agree but in order to have this kind of conversation you need to understand the basics. I would really recommend that you read Tim Wise--his website essay archives or look for his books--or some other author who focus on institutionalized racism. Again, we don't have to agree on affirmative action but if you don't have an understanding of priviledge first,then what could be a great discussion won't go anywhere.
I would love to give you some book recommendations--for both sides of this debate--if you are interested you can PM me.
12/27/08
12/27/08
12/23/08
I can't wait for the study that determines that boys indeed do not make passes at girls who wear glasses, or the article about how science has just proven that beer before liquor means never sicker, while liquor before beer puts one in the clear.
12/23/08
Liquor?
I don't even know her!
har har...
12/23/08
Also, you can't fool me Easy Curves! As a flat-chested pre-teen, I tried every stupid bust enchancement method advertised next to the X-ray glasses and whoopie cushions and yet here I sit, a flat-chested adult. Short of surgery, nothing will fix this genetic betrayal.
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
Sigh....so many sexual puns, too little alcohol.
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/24/08
12/23/08
More news at 11.
12/23/08
Problem solved.
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
Twazila sounds much more pleasant.
12/23/08
12/23/08
Yuck, me too. There are wayyy too many meat-themed lady-part names. Well, I can think of only two, but that's two too many.
12/23/08
Q: How do I know my dick is a magician?
A: Because it's always dissapearing behind curtains.
Like, as in meat curtains...
Yeah, what an asshole.
12/23/08
12/23/08
I also have to wonder about the limited experience of a guy who thinks if colors don't match than the woman must dye her hair. It is only when I dye my hair that there is a consistency.
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08