A question for our fine Black posters...

[Valmore]

I had this conversation with a co-worker the other day. Nice guy. Goes to FAMU. Played softball on our company team with him.

Anyway, I was wondering how you feel/think/react, etc. whenever a media source or anyone in general picks a person, usually Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, and says, "He's the voice of the black community."

To me, I would find this sort of thing insulting, because it lumps an entire race of people into one group, forgets nuances, differences of opinion, etc., calls it a "community" and gives that "community" a de facto leader that many people in that "community" may not agree with or even like very much.

Even worse, you never hear about how such and such is the "leader of the white community." Or the "leader of the Hispanic community." Or the "leader of the Korean-American community." Or... well, you get the idea.

But I'd be pretty indignant if someone went and said George W. Bush is the leader of the white community. Or if they picked any white guy and said he or she is the leader of the white community.

And why haven't they done that? Why are the blacks all lumped as a community with a so-called leader and the whites aren't?

Your thoughts?

[traxler]

It's just lazy journalism, Valmore. Nothing more.

[Grant]

But I'd be pretty indignant if someone went and said George W. Bush is the leader of the white community. Or if they picked any white guy and said he or she is the leader of the white community.

Actually Tom Cruise has been chosen the leader of the white community.

[Tom]

If nothing else, this thread should answer once and for all which of our Black posters consider themselves "fine."

[Valmore]

If nothing else, this thread should answer once and for all which of our Black posters consider themselves "fine."

Fortunately, there's plenty of definitions for "fine."

I was just in a cheerful mood, despite asking a serious question.

[west3man]

If nothing else, this thread should answer once and for all which of our Black posters consider themselves "fine."
If nothing else, this post proves you've got to get up pretty. early. in the morning to beat Tom to the punchline... and 7:27am wasn't early enough.

[Valmore]

If nothing else, this post proves you've got to get up pretty. early. in the morning to beat Tom to the punchline... and 7:27am wasn't early enough.

But you could have gone with a different punchline.

Like, "Fine? I'm better than fine. I'm DAMN SEXY!"

Or something.

Guess this'll teach me to mix cheerfulness with serious questions.

[west3man]

I had this conversation with a co-worker the other day. Nice guy. Goes to FAMU. Played softball on our company team with him.

Anyway, I was wondering how you feel/think/react, etc. whenever a media source or anyone in general picks a person, usually Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, and says, "He's the voice of the black community."

To me, I would find this sort of thing insulting, because it lumps an entire race of people into one group, forgets nuances, differences of opinion, etc., calls it a "community" and gives that "community" a de facto leader that many people in that "community" may not agree with or even like very much.

Even worse, you never hear about how such and such is the "leader of the white community." Or the "leader of the Hispanic community." Or the "leader of the Korean-American community." Or... well, you get the idea.

But I'd be pretty indignant if someone went and said George W. Bush is the leader of the white community. Or if they picked any white guy and said he or she is the leader of the white community.

And why haven't they done that? Why are the blacks all lumped as a community with a so-called leader and the whites aren't?

Your thoughts?
If someone is a part of a large effort, supported by Blacks, and stays in a position of prominence, for the most part, for years I could see calling that person a voice of whatever group they represent. I don't find it insulting.

Where are the voices of the white community? They're everywhere. They're just called "voices of the community," without qualifiers. If they're white and most of the community's white and they speak out about topics supported mostly by white people... there you go. That's a voice of the white community.

Calling someone a voice of the community is no worse than calling someone else a representative of that community... and that's what we all are, as we represent SOME portion of the communities of which we are a part. I know some people have a problem with that, but I'm convinced that's the way it is.




* - ("the" sounds too solitary, but I could see people doing it for effect the way that they say "always" and "never" when neither is usually the case)

[west3man]

But you could have gone with a different punchline.

Like, "Fine? I'm better than fine. I'm DAMN SEXY!"

Or something.

Guess this'll teach me to mix cheerfulness with serious questions.
Not at all. It was just amusing. That doesn't mean there was anything wrong with your phrasing.

Try starting a "would you support" thread THEN talk to me about unfortunate phrasings.

[bushboy]

I think they are called voices because of the fact that where I come from, we have a tighter family complex all throughout the neighborhood and these certain people are outlets for the very small group that doesn't voice their opinion.

[west3man]

I thought I'd focus on the particular examples Valmore gave and try to think of some whose words I'd have a problem with. Hmm...

Jesse and Al have earned their titles in one way or another, despite any shortcomings. Tavis Smiley is a rising celebrity and I think his words reflect and focus some of the feelings of the community, in general... or at least this member of the community. Armstrong Williams? No thanks.

So, now I have to consider if it all comes down to whether the "voice" actually says the things that the community feels... or if it's just about what a particular individual feels. Hmm...

The best answer I can give for that is that it has to be earned. Demonstrate that there are large numbers of Black people who support many or most of the things this person stands for and I'd say that, whether or not you or I agree with their statements, those statements are somewhat reflective of the community, as a whole... and thus that person could be considered a voice OF the community.

In fact, under those circumstances, I'd feel better about saying the person in-question is one of the voices of the Black community, for instance, and not just a voice. The more people your words represent, the closer you get to deserving "the," as opposed to "a."

Hope that makes some sense.

[Nate C.]

Where are the voices of the white community? They're everywhere. They're just called "voices of the community," without qualifiers. If they're white and most of the community's white and they speak out about topics supported mostly by white people... there you go. That's a voice of the white community.



See, I don't see it that way. When I hear a white guy in the media trying to represent me, I don't think, "Go, honky!" I just think that if he mirrors my belief system, he does indeed represent me; if not, not.

If a white guys speaks up, he's attempting to speak up on behalf of the American Community, not just the white community. Blacks, Asains, Hispanics, other minorities too often segregate themselves needlessly, in my humble opinion.

[Spackling Compound]

See, I don't see it that way. When I hear a white guy in the media trying to represent me, I don't think, "Go, honky!" I just think that if he mirrors my belief system, he does indeed represent me; if not, not.

If a white guys speaks up, he's attempting to speak up on behalf of the American Community, not just the white community. Blacks, Asains, Hispanics, other minorities too often segregate themselves needlessly, in my humble opinion.

I often think about that myself. Both of us being Mississippians won't come off as well but the way it seems to work out is:

Whites are more diverse than Blacks. There are poor whites, rich whites, liberal whites, conservative whites, hippie whites, preppy whites, rockstar whites, jock whites, old whites, young whites, cowboy whites, pirate whites, and so on and so forth. Whites may have more freedoms or liberties to be heterodox while Blacks tend to perpetuate an idea of "community" and "culture".

If I saw a white man, I couldn't assume he'd be Democrat. A Black man, pretty good assumption. If he wasn't Democrat, a hundred Blacks would refer to him as "Not Black".


Blacks are more homogenized,or it seems culturally. There seems to be no distinction or variety among African-Americans as it would among "white" people. If an African-American deviates from the system, they are no longer considered "BLACK".

That's the way it seems to work.

[bushboy]

I often think about that myself. Both of us being Mississippians won't come off as well but the way it seems to work out is:

Whites are more diverse than Blacks. There are poor whites, rich whites, liberal whites, conservative whites, hippie whites, preppy whites, rockstar whites, jock whites, old whites, young whites, cowboy whites, pirate whites, and so on and so forth. Whites may have more freedoms or liberties to be heterodox while Blacks tend to perpetuate an idea of "community" and "culture".

If I saw a white man, I couldn't assume he'd be Democrat. A Black man, pretty good assumption. If he wasn't Democrat, a hundred Blacks would refer to him as "Not Black".
.

Blacks are more homogenized,or it seems culturally. There seems to be no distinction or variety among African-Americans as it would among "white" people. If an African-American deviates from the system, they are no longer considered "BLACK".

That's the way it seems to work.
Thats where you are completely wrong. Blacks are just as diverse as whites, trust me, I've seen them all. Just look where you are, on a forum for comic-book fans and you are talking to black comic-book fans. There may not be so many of us, but that doesn't mean we are not accepted in our community

[west3man]

See, I don't see it that way. When I hear a white guy in the media trying to represent me, I don't think, "Go, honky!" I just think that if he mirrors my belief system, he does indeed represent me; if not, not. Well, I don't remember saying I shouted, "Go, brutha!", either, BUT if I did, it'd because there aren't that many of them.

As far as representing, any person represents whatever group they belong to. It's not a choice. If someone said something about Australians to one of the Americans who posts here, if there were a serious contrast between that statement and what we hear from the Australians who post here... we'd speak up or we'd weigh the person's comment against what we heard from actual Australians... because they represent... Australians.

It's a simple as that. It doesn't mean that member of a particular group is a perfect example of what the entire group has to offer - both positive and negative.

If a white guys speaks up, he's attempting to speak up on behalf of the American Community, not just the white community. Really? Some guy from Tallahassee is speaking up for the American community? If he's IN Tallahassee and speaking OF Tallahassee, I'd say he's speaking on behalf of Tallahasseeans (yeah, I dunno how to spell that). His opinions would represent those of Tallahasseeans, to some degree... whether perfectly or poorly.

Blacks, Asains, Hispanics, other minorities too often segregate themselves needlessly, in my humble opinion. First of all, we were segregatED. Does that mean we don't ever segregate ourselves? No, but it's a point worth mentioning within the context of this branch of the discussion. Besides, often, we still are segregated.

I think an added element is the fact that too often, when race is even mentioned the (over-)reaction of the majority is to assume it's those guys trying to separate themselves and the entire country, again.

That's too bad because from that moment on, we're not seen for the people we are, saying the things we're saying. We're just those guys being that way.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Perhaps the trouble with the phrase "the voice of the black community" is that it makes the ungrounded assumption that there is one single black community.

[bushboy]

Perhaps the trouble with the phrase "the voice of the black community" is that it makes the ungrounded assumption that there is one single black community.
I think that we are a community. A community with different, lets use the metaphor of houses. We stick together but we have our own lives too.

[JLarson]

I think that we are a community. A community with different, lets use the metaphor of houses. We stick together but we have our own lives too.

Would you say that's a unique aspect of "blackhood," then? Because it seems so... limiting.

[bushboy]

Would you say that's a unique aspect of "blackhood," then? Because it seems so... limiting.
I do not think that it is a unique aspect of "blackhood" The same can be said for any race

[Nate C.]

Well, I don't remember saying I shouted, "Go, brutha!", either, BUT if I did, it'd because there aren't that many of them.

Just being coy, West. (and feel free to still call me noljo if you want, or Nate)

As far as representing, any person represents whatever group they belong to. It's not a choice. If someone said something about Australians to one of the Americans who posts here, if there were a serious contrast between that statement and what we hear from the Australians who post here... we'd speak up or we'd weigh the person's comment against what we heard from actual Australians... because they represent... Australians.

If I take your premise as true (and I don't think it's always true) then why can't the default position be the policy or the goal, and not the colour of their skin? That's my point. If a white guys speaks for me, it aint cus he's white. It's cause he represents my interests (which aren't "white" interests).


Really? Some guy from Tallahassee is speaking up for the American community? If he's IN Tallahassee and speaking OF Tallahassee, I'd say he's speaking on behalf of Tallahasseeans (yeah, I dunno how to spell that). His opinions would represent those of Tallahasseeans, to some degree... whether perfectly or poorly.

See? Goal. Not Colour.

First of all, we were segregatED. Does that mean we don't ever segregate ourselves? No, but it's a point worth mentioning within the context of this branch of the discussion. Besides, often, we still are segregated.

Right.

I think an added element is the fact that too often, when race is even mentioned the (over-)reaction of the majority is to assume it's those guys trying to separate themselves and the entire country, again.

Well can you find community (goal wise) with others outside your own demographic? If so, you most certainly should group with them. Take Mike Smash for example. He groups with Ministers when it serves his purposes for Green Party enlargement. (glad I didn't choose the word "member")

That's too bad because from that moment on, we're not seen for the people we are, saying the things we're saying. We're just those guys being that way.

I see your point.

Where are the voices of the white community? They're everywhere. They're just called "voices of the community," without qualifiers. If they're white and most of the community's white and they speak out about topics supported mostly by white people... there you go. That's a voice of the white community.

Do you see my point? There is no such thing as the "white community".

To put it this way-

Tom
Paul McEnry
JWK
Meethra
Samurai
Me
Winslow
Ed Cunard
Slam Bradley
Morts

all white-no "community" (other than the fact that we all like comics-which isn't a white only activity)

[TinMan]

You know, I understand what you're saying here, but honestly more than anything, I think its time people stop labeling themselves and others. Think about it this way, the media over the years has CONSTANTLY used terms such as "black", "hispanic", "asian", "african-american", "hispanic-american", etc. all its doing is perpetuating classification. I can understand the descriptions when it comes to crime suspects because the more details the better the chance of catching that person, but when it comes to everday news all we here is "african-american" this, and "hispanic-american" that, why is it that people just can't be considered a human being and not worry about ethnicity? I mean, if it comes down to that I would be an "english-german-irish-black foot indian-american" and its just rediculus. People (and this includes everyone) just need to stop labeling people by ethnicity and color, stop using those terms because all its doing is continuing the problems we've had for centuries and further causing segragation among the races. We all share this freakin planet and as humans we can all procreate across "racial" lines, its time to stop the labeling and just be human beings.

[west3man]

Would you say that's a unique aspect of "blackhood," then? Because it seems so... limiting.
This seems to be based on a really big assumption* on your part - a really unfortunately, but highly prevalent one:

If someone refers to the Black community, while acknowledging the potential for diversity of opinion WITHIN that community, why would you get the impression that person's saying that other communities can't be that way?


*-I realize your first sentence was a question, but the context of the entire post is suggestive.

[JLarson]

Maybe the word community is just rubbing me the wrong way, then. I'll drop the whole issue.

[Spackling Compound]

I believe that, unlike whites, Black people in America identify themselves as "black" more readilly because of the history of oppression based on skin color.

I told a black friend of mine (some of my best friends are) that I can jump out of bed, throw on a tshirt and jeans, go to the store to buy a pint of milk and walk back home without any incident.

A black man if he is unshaven, shabbily dressed and walking down a street just may get pulled over and accosted or even followed around in the Quicky Mart.

So, regardless of "culture", the "BLACK culture/community" is the prevalent one for a black person...in America.

[west3man]

Just being coy, West. (and feel free to still call me noljo if you want, or Nate) I didn't realize that's who you were. I thought you were a new poster (or just new to the Comm).

If I take your premise as true (and I don't think it's always true) then why can't the default position be the policy or the goal, and not the colour of their skin? If it's ONE goal, then it makes sense to refer to the goal. If it's a set of goals, then it makes sense to refer to the group those goals are associated with. If that group happens to be a bunch of union workers, fine. If that group happens to be Black people, that's fine, too.

Do you disagree?

That's my point. If a white guys speaks for me, it aint cus he's white. It's cause he represents my interests (which aren't "white" interests). If we were in the same family and I spoke up about something, I wouldn't necessarily be speaking for the family officially but I would be representing them, to some degree.

If those interests are common to most of the family, then those are family interests. If those interests were common to most Blacks, then those are Black interests.

"Black" is not a bad word. Allowing "family" or "Democrats" or "CBRians" to have common interests, but denying that there is any such thing among Blacks is to act as if it IS a bad word.

Keep in mind that a Democrat speaking up about an issue IS a representative OF Democrats to some degree, even if his or her opinions don't reflect those of every Democrat.

Well can you find community (goal wise) with others outside your own demographic? Yes. The two aren't mutually exclusive. One can belong to more than one group or community, at the same time.

Do you see my point? There is no such thing as the "white community". Sure there is, just as there is a world community. It's just so big that it's hard to see.

To put it this way-

Tom
Paul McEnry
JWK
Meethra
Samurai
Me
Winslow
Ed Cunard
Slam Bradley
Morts

all white-no "community" (other than the fact that we all like comics-which isn't a white only activity) Not true. Among many white people, there are common reactions to certain things... common feelings about certain topics. It doesn't mean each and every white person feels exactly the same way about each and every topic, but to deny that any commonality BESIDES skin color exists is to deny reality... and the evidence presented in this thread and on this board on a regular basis.

[Nate C.]

I didn't realize that's who you were. I thought you were a new poster (or just new to the Comm).

teehee. I used the service entrance and had on an apron-that's why you didn't recognize me (even though "missassippee" and my sig and my avatar should have given you a clue. :rolleyes: :p )

If it's ONE goal, then it makes sense to refer to the goal. If it's a set of goals, then it makes sense to refer to the group those goals are associated with. If that group happens to be a bunch of union workers, fine. If that group happens to be Black people, that's fine, too.

Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree. I think blacks should stand united on some issues as "black Americans". I just think they should diversify on other goal orriented issues as "Americans".

If we were in the same family and I spoke up about something, I wouldn't necessarily be speaking for the family officially but I would be representing them, to some degree.

If those interests are common to most of the family, then those are family interests. If those interests were common to most Blacks, then those are Black interests.

I get that. (See my comment right above.)

"Black" is not a bad word. Allowing "family" or "Democrats" or "CBRians" to have common interests, but denying that there is any such thing among Blacks is to act as if it IS a bad word.

Right. I don't automatically oppose "black issues" but I sometimes see "black issues" as "white issues" too.

(snipped some b/c we were agreeing)

Sure there is, just as there is a world community. It's just so big that it's hard to see.

I'm not sold on this.

Not true. Among many white people, there are common reactions to certain things... common feelings about certain topics. It doesn't mean each and every white person feels exactly the same way about each and every topic, but to deny that any commonality BESIDES skin color exists is to deny reality... and the evidence presented in this thread and on this board on a regular basis.

And I think I just see this differently than you do, West. I see posters of every stripe and colour and proclivity agreeing/disagreeing on all sorts of issues, and occasionally/often agreeing irregardless of skin colour, not because of it. And when that happens, it''s not a "white" community, but an ideological community.

[west3man]

Quote by Nate:
Right. I don't automatically oppose "black issues" but I sometimes see "black issues" as "white issues" too.[/quote] That's fine. Sometimes a man's child is also a woman's child. That doesn't mean neither is true. It just means they're BOTH his or her parents.

Again, the two aren't mutually exclusive.


Quote by West:
Sure there is, just as there is a world community. It's just so big that it's hard to see.

Quote by nojo:
I'm not sold on this.

I think that's partly because what often establishes a group is the existence of those who are outside of the group. We don't all agree that there are beings outside of our world. However, I think I can bring us back down to Earth, so to speak, by pointing out that America's (or GWB's) actions since 9/11 have caused a Black-lash in the international community. That community is everybody EXCEPT the USA. What if we were in India and we referred to the international community? That'd pretty much be the entire world, right (and it still could be in the U.S. example, but I thought this might be an easier sell)?

Quote from West:
Not true. Among many white people, there are common reactions to certain things... common feelings about certain topics. It doesn't mean each and every white person feels exactly the same way about each and every topic, but to deny that any commonality BESIDES skin color exists is to deny reality... and the evidence presented in this thread and on this board on a regular basis.

Quote from Nate:
And I think I just see this differently than you do, West. I see posters of every stripe and colour and proclivity agreeing/disagreeing on all sorts of issues, and occasionally/often agreeing irregardless of skin colour, not because of it. And when that happens, it''s not a "white" community, but an ideological community.

I think it's the cause and effect that's tripping you up here. (Well, that and my "reality" comment, which I regret phrasing that way. I apologize.)

It needn't be that Blacks agree on something BECAUSE they're Black. They agree. That's what makes it okay to refer to it as a Black issue. That doesn't mean it's JUST a Black issue OR that it applies to EVERY Black person.

That's not to say that people BEING Black doesn't have ANY affect on what they feel or think. There are things that many or most of us have in common which increase the chances that we WILL agree on certain things.

The two can co-exist.

[Dee3]

You know, I understand what you're saying here, but honestly more than anything, I think its time people stop labeling themselves and others. Think about it this way, the media over the years has CONSTANTLY used terms such as "black", "hispanic", "asian", "african-american", "hispanic-american", etc. all its doing is perpetuating classification. I can understand the descriptions when it comes to crime suspects because the more details the better the chance of catching that person, but when it comes to everday news all we here is "african-american" this, and "hispanic-american" that, why is it that people just can't be considered a human being and not worry about ethnicity? I mean, if it comes down to that I would be an "english-german-irish-black foot indian-american" and its just rediculus. People (and this includes everyone) just need to stop labeling people by ethnicity and color, stop using those terms because all its doing is continuing the problems we've had for centuries and further causing segragation among the races. We all share this freakin planet and as humans we can all procreate across "racial" lines, its time to stop the labeling and just be human beings.
That would be nice but It's never gonna happen.

[Nate C.]

It needn't be that Blacks agree on something BECAUSE they're Black. They agree. That's what makes it okay to refer to it as a Black issue. That doesn't mean it's JUST a Black issue OR that it applies to EVERY Black person.

I understand your use of the terminology now.

That's not to say that people BEING Black doesn't have ANY affect on what they feel or think. There are things that many or most of us have in common which increase the chances that we WILL agree on certain things.

The two can co-exist.

For sure.

(I'm still uncomfortable having a bunch of people agreeing on a goal/agenda, most of them happening to be white, called "the white community". This is kinda like Tom's arguments against the "hive mind".)

[Shellhead]

I'm still dreaming of a color-blind world... racially color-blind. People could be judged purely on the merits of their ideas and communication skills. The internet could have been such a place, but many people feel this overwhelming compulsion to tell us their skin color and emphasize it, which ultimately reinforces the idea that skin color is somehow important, even though racism is a subset of that idea.

Try this out as an experiment... try judging people by eye color instead of skin color for a day. Tell people in this forum about your eye color, and then share stories of triumph or persecution or whatever that had to do with your eye color. Make insinuating remarks about other posters with eyes of a different color than your own. It's silly, isn't it?

[Johnny_Storm]

I'm still dreaming of a color-blind world... racially color-blind. People could be judged purely on the merits of their ideas and communication skills. The internet could have been such a place, but many people feel this overwhelming compulsion to tell us their skin color and emphasize it, which ultimately reinforces the idea that skin color is somehow important, even though racism is a subset of that idea.

Try this out as an experiment... try judging people by eye color instead of skin color for a day. Tell people in this forum about your eye color, and then share stories of triumph or persecution or whatever that had to do with your eye color. Make insinuating remarks about other posters with eyes of a different color than your own. It's silly, isn't it?

My thought's exactly Shellhead, there is no need for someone to state their race. We only need to judge people based on idea's.

[K'Nort]

Edit: Double post

[K'Nort]

That would be nice but It's never gonna happen.

You say it would be nice, but you seem to regularly indentify yourself by ethnicity (Irish). People are never going to give up the negative connotations until they see others give up the positive ones. Too competitive.

[west3man]

(I'm still uncomfortable having a bunch of people agreeing on a goal/agenda, most of them happening to be white, called "the white community". This is kinda like Tom's arguments against the "hive mind".)
A bunch of people agree on some goals or agendas or interests ... and we call them the "comics community." That needn't be any more hive-mindish.

It's the aversion to potential racial tension, I think, which makes some of us so averse to framing issues within a racial context of any sort. Framing them that way is no worse than any other sort unless it serves no purpose OR is harmful.

It can be either of the last two (or both), but I don't think we should assume that's the case by default.

[Nate C.]

A bunch of people agree on some goals or agendas or interests ... and we call them the "comics community." That needn't be any more hive-mindish.

It's the aversion to potential racial tension, I think, which makes some of us so averse to framing issues within a racial context of any sort. Framing them that way is no worse than any other sort unless it serves no purpose OR is harmful.

It can be either of the last two (or both), but I don't think we should assume that's the case by default.

Let me use an example to be more forthright, West.

I oppose most forms of welfare (corporate, individual, certainly monthly payments, food stamps, etc., which is not to say for every individual, but that the system is deffinitely broken, imo).

It has nothing to do with me being white. (most corporations are owned and operated by whites, most people on welfare are white statistically, although a disproportionate amount are minorities.)

However, if I say, "I oppose welfare", a lot of people (white and black) would say that I arrived at that decision because I was white. (which simply isn't true.)

That's what I mean when I say using phrases such as, 'when a white person represents his community, he's representing "white community" ' is unhelpful.

[Dee3]

You say it would be nice, but you seem to regularly indentify yourself by ethnicity (Irish). People are never going to give up the negative connotations until they see others give up the positive ones. Too competitive.
Fine, I'm sorry I was trying to make a point guess it did not get thru.

[west3man]

Let me use an example to be more forthright, West.

I oppose most forms of welfare (corporate, individual, certainly monthly payments, food stamps, etc., which is not to say for every individual, but that the system is deffinitely broken, imo).

It has nothing to do with me being white. (most corporations are owned and operated by whites, most people on welfare are white statistically, although a disproportionate amount are minorities.)

However, if I say, "I oppose welfare", a lot of people (white and black) would say that I arrived at that decision because I was white. (which simply isn't true.)

That's what I mean when I say using phrases such as, 'when a white person represents his community, he's representing "white community" ' is unhelpful.
It sounds like the real problem is with the person who assumes the fact that you're white is the reason you oppose welfare, if that's not the reason.

If the person is saying he or she is not surprised, considering the fact that you're white, that may be based on statistics and, thus, doesn't sound problematic to me.

I don't think any of that has to do with "the white community," because even without that phrase (which is not a common one) that person would probably feel however he or she feels.

[Shellhead]

My high school had a lot of afterschool activity groups, aside from the usual sports teams. One of these groups was called Black Student Union, and nobody made a big deal out of it. During my junior year, some jokers formed the White Student Union, but the school administration banned them from the school campus, apparently on the grounds that their group seemed to be racist in intent. At the time, I was amused, but looking back, it seemed to be an early warning of the oppressive political correctness that I encountered in college.

[crystalline green]

Blacks are more homogenized,or it seems culturally. There seems to be no distinction or variety among African-Americans as it would among "white" people. If an African-American deviates from the system, they are no longer considered "BLACK".

That's the way it seems to work.

I disagree. Blacks are actually very diverse - there are black christians, buddhists, hippies, poets, yuppies, conservatives, radicals, pacifists, intellectuals, militants, republicans, democrats, independents, gays, straights, etc etc. Black people are even genetically diverse in the sense that many are mixed with native american, caucasian etc. Unfortunately media and mainstream american culture have been loathe to recognise or even acknowledge this. It's the images of black people in popular culture that has been persisently and falsely homogenized.

[Spackling Compound]

I disagree. Blacks are actually very diverse - there are black christians, buddhists, hippies, poets, yuppies, conservatives, radicals, pacifists, intellectuals, militants, republicans, democrats, independents, gays, straights, etc etc. Black people are even genetically diverse in the sense that many are mixed with native american, caucasian etc. Unfortunately media and mainstream american culture have been loathe to recognise or even acknowledge this. It's the images of black people in popular culture that has been persisently and falsely homogenized.
I used to disagree as well but when I see it more and more that the gap between the popular culture and political culture and the "regular" folks is closing in, the more it seems that Blacks are becoming "forced" into homogenization.

The evidence I have is mostly anecdotal, unfortunatley. But I live in a state that has the greatest number of African-Americans in the USA. When a black wants to be a republican, gay, hippie..if possible, they will get called back in to the "fold" quickly.
There's a lot of benefit to being "BLACK" as defined by pop culture here, I am thinking.

[crystalline green]

I used to disagree as well but when I see it more and more that the gap between the popular culture and political culture and the "regular" folks is closing in, the more it seems that Blacks are becoming "forced" into homogenization.

The evidence I have is mostly anecdotal, unfortunatley. But I live in a state that has the greatest number of African-Americans in the USA. When a black wants to be a republican, gay, hippie..if possible, they will get called back in to the "fold" quickly.
There's a lot of benefit to being "BLACK" as defined by pop culture here, I am thinking.

I agree that the pressure is there from both inside and outside of the black community. It's a peculiarly American problem in the sense that American culture, in general, has popularized and focused on a narrow image of black people. I think that's what so insidious about our cultural mirrors. They do have an impact on the self-image of the people in our culture because we all (black, white, asian, etc) grow up with the same images and passively accept them as truth. Couple that with the basic and pervasive human need to be accepted, and yeah, you have people conforming with those images in order to feel like they have a place in the overall culture.

Personally, being black, gay, and a pagan, I don't fit cozily into the "homogenized" image or community of black people. I couldn't be "called back into the fold" if I wanted to, but my experience isn't terribly unique. I know many African Americans who (for a myriad of reasons) don't fit the mold. It's not that they don't exist, it's that they are relegated to being invisible because they don't match the picture that Americans or those who are influenced by American media and images have of black people.

[Spackling Compound]

Personally, being black, gay, and a pagan, I don't fit cozily into the "homogenized" image or community of black people. I couldn't be "called back into the fold" if I wanted to....

I think that you could easily "play the race/black" card if you wanted to. You may have the integrity of conscience or stronger allegiance to the factors that express who you are than others, but you could easily be "black".

On the other hand, some of us white folks would be a bit afraid to address you on issues of sex and religion because we have been conditioned to believe all or at least most blacks won't discuss issues for long before throwing in race.

I blame black comedians, and even "enlightened" popular culture images of blacks as "Boondocks" and the music of 2pac as enforcing this idea in us whites that at some point, we don't understand you and somehow we are mean to you even when we don't know it.

Maybe that's the allure of the internet. No colors to see (except green:)) and honest discussion that sometimes is hard to take but good to have.

[west3man]

I think that you could easily "play the race/black" card if you wanted to. You may have the integrity of conscience or stronger allegiance to the factors that express who you are than others, but you could easily be "black".

On the other hand, some of us white folks would be a bit afraid to address you on issues of sex and religion because we have been conditioned to believe all or at least most blacks won't discuss issues for long before throwing in race.

I blame black comedians, and even "enlightened" popular culture images of blacks as "Boondocks" and the music of 2pac as enforcing this idea in us whites that at some point, we don't understand you and somehow we are mean to you even when we don't know it.

Maybe that's the allure of the internet. No colors to see (except green:)) and honest discussion that sometimes is hard to take but good to have.
Cool post.

[MJC]

I often think about that myself. Both of us being Mississippians won't come off as well but the way it seems to work out is:

Whites are more diverse than Blacks. There are poor whites, rich whites, liberal whites, conservative whites, hippie whites, preppy whites, rockstar whites, jock whites, old whites, young whites, cowboy whites, pirate whites, and so on and so forth. Whites may have more freedoms or liberties to be heterodox while Blacks tend to perpetuate an idea of "community" and "culture".

If I saw a white man, I couldn't assume he'd be Democrat. A Black man, pretty good assumption. If he wasn't Democrat, a hundred Blacks would refer to him as "Not Black".


Blacks are more homogenized,or it seems culturally. There seems to be no distinction or variety among African-Americans as it would among "white" people. If an African-American deviates from the system, they are no longer considered "BLACK".

That's the way it seems to work.

Hmm...somebody watches too much MTV.

[Smarty Jones]

"I think that you could easily 'play the race/black' card if you wanted to. You may have the integrity of conscience or stronger allegiance to the factors that express who you are than others, but you could easily be 'black'.

On the other hand, some of us white folks would be a bit afraid to address you on issues of sex and religion because we have been conditioned to believe all or at least most blacks won't discuss issues for long before throwing in race.

I blame black comedians, and even 'enlightened' popular culture images of blacks as 'Boondocks' and the music of 2pac as enforcing this idea in us whites that at some point, we don't understand you and somehow we are mean to you even when we don't know it.

Maybe that's the allure of the internet. No colors to see (except green:)) and honest discussion that sometimes is hard to take but good to have."

So what does that mean, you only see black people as stereotypical images that you see in the media? How about going out and actually speaking to and meeting other black people instead?

[west3man]

So what does that mean, you only see black people as stereotypical images that you see in the media? How about going out and actually speaking to and meeting other black people instead.
Dunno if I've ever mentioned it, but I really like your sig.

[Spackling Compound]

So what does that mean, you only see black people as stereotypical images that you see in the media? How about going out and actually speaking to and meeting other black people instead?
I think I just will..where do I look? In da Club? The tent revival? Barbershop I or II?

Actually, I do relate with black folks..all the time. It's awkward however. Admittedly, there is a bit of the media and the black punditry that makes me apprehensive and I think they also feel a bit "on" to entertain those fears.

Anecdote:
I was in charge of a teen event and it came to plan a social. Since this was church sponsored, I said maybe we find something that would not include "dirty lyrics" or involve "Dirty Dancing". Some of the advisors said maybe drop the idea of a dance and have a cafe setting with kids playing music and hanging out. Everyone was in seeming agreement until a black woman spoke up and said, "In our culture, dance is important. It is who we are. Black people don't see what you see or hear what you hear. Black kids wont' participate if you take rap music and "freak" dancing out."
We went ahead and did the cafe. It was well received by both black and white kids but the adults, age 30 and older, of the Black community later said that singing, poetry and playing games isn't what their culture is familiar with and to take dance and rap away is to be against their people.

I don't believe that and the kids weren't hurt at all. But it made me a lot more apprehensive to make a blanket decision for "the kids" when it seems "black people" see and hear things differently.

And in my day to day relationships with black people, I am aware of that same tension.

Sorry. That's just the way it is.

[west3man]

I think I just will..where do I look? In da Club? The tent revival? Barbershop I or II?

Actually, I do relate with black folks..all the time. It's awkward however. Admittedly, there is a bit of the media and the black punditry that makes me apprehensive and I think they also feel a bit "on" to entertain those fears.

Anecdote:
I was in charge of a teen event and it came to plan a social. Since this was church sponsored, I said maybe we find something that would not include "dirty lyrics" or involve "Dirty Dancing". Some of the advisors said maybe drop the idea of a dance and have a cafe setting with kids playing music and hanging out. Everyone was in seeming agreement until a black woman spoke up and said, "In our culture, dance is important. It is who we are. Black people don't see what you see or hear what you hear. Black kids wont' participate if you take rap music and "freak" dancing out."
We went ahead and did the cafe. It was well received by both black and white kids but the adults, age 30 and older, of the Black community later said that singing, poetry and playing games isn't what their culture is familiar with and to take dance and rap away is to be against their people.

I don't believe that and the kids weren't hurt at all. But it made me a lot more apprehensive to make a blanket decision for "the kids" when it seems "black people" see and hear things differently.

And in my day to day relationships with black people, I am aware of that same tension.

Sorry. That's just the way it is.
I don't have a problem with this anecdote, btw. I mean, if it's what you experienced, then it's what you experienced. If it was highly representative of what you usually experience with Black folks, then like you siad, that's just the way it is... unfortunate though it may be.

The only thing I'd conclude from that, though, is that there's such a thing as racial tension. It's very real and it's not always due to fault on one particular side... either side.

That doesn't read as clearly as I'd like, but that's that, for now.

[Smarty Jones]

"I don't believe that and the kids weren't hurt at all. But it made me a lot more apprehensive to make a blanket decision for 'the kids' when it seems 'black people' see and hear things differently.

And in my day to day relationships with black people, I am aware of that same tension."

That evidently was a black person conveying his or her concept of a social event via stereotyping. Sometimes you have to use common sense when dealing with people like that, because not all black people like rap music and a lot of adults don't want to see children doing some suggestive dances.

[west3man]

That evidently was a black person conveying his or her concept of a social event via stereotyping. Sometimes you have to use common sense when dealing people like that, because not all black people like rap music and a lot of adults don't want to see children doing some suggestive dances.
Sometimes what one considers to be a product of common sense contradicts what the people in-question say applies to them. Then if the first person has the balls to question the second, shit gets tense.

I agree that common sense is key. I also agree that it's a two-way street that sometimes has people on the wrong side of the road.

[Smarty Jones]

"Sometimes what one considers to be a product of common sense contradicts what the people in-question say applies to them. Then if the first person has the balls to question the second, shit gets tense."

And that's when you get together a cross-section of members of the group in question and ask them. If you get 10 reasonable black adults together and ask them if a social event for kids should consist of doing the hulley-gulley and blasting rap music "because it represents," I'm sure most of them would agree that black person who said it was had no common sense.

[Spackling Compound]

And that's when you get together a cross-section of members of the group in question and ask them. If you get 10 reasonable black adults together and ask them if a social event for kids should consist of doing the hulley-gulley and blasting rap music "because it represents," I'm sure most of them would agree that black person who said it was had no common sense.
In the case you can't assemble 10 black people, it does get tense.

And it probably doesn't do much good for me to assume tension at times, either.

[west3man]

And that's when you get together a cross-section of members of the group in question and ask them. If you get 10 reasonable black adults together and ask them if a social event for kids should consist of doing the hulley-gulley and blasting rap music "because it represents," I'm sure most of them would agree that black person who said it was had no common sense.
I thought SG said it parentS, not just one Black person, who made those statements.

[Smarty Jones]

"I thought SG said it parentS, not just one Black person, who made those statements."

Like I said, I would use a cross-section of black people from different perspectives. I would find it a little hard to believe that every black parent who objected was saying that rap music and suggestive dance was intrinsic with the black community unless:

1.) these people had perspectives that were limited beyond the stereotypical (I call them the "Martin" generation).

2.) the environment was so lacking that it seemed limiting in acceptance.

I say the main thing is the audience to whom you were addressing it. I'm sure you're at some community room at the rec, you would get a lot of resistance. But again, it sounds like he described the type of social event most people would find acceptable. Again, I can't find too many reasonably accepting and educated black people saying that poetry (see Nikki Giovanni), singing (c'mon now) and playing games (something black kids do) was an anathema to the community.

[west3man]

Like I said, I would use a cross-section of black people from different perspectives. I would find it a little hard to believe that every black parent who objected was saying that rap music and suggestive dance was intrinsic with the black community unless:

1.) these people had perspectives that were limited beyond the stereotypical (I call them the "Martin" generation).

2.) the environment was so lacking that it seemed limiting in acceptance.

I say the main thing is the audience to whom you were addressing it. I'm sure you're at some community room at the rec, you would get a lot of resistance. But again, it sounds like he described the type of social event most people would find acceptable. Again, I can't find too many reasonably accepting and educated black people saying that poetry (see Nikki Giovanni), singing (c'mon now) and playing games (something black kids do) was an anathema to the community.Not all Black people are reasonably accepting and educated. Since those that aren't are still Black, their opinion, particulary when it's the most vocal or popular, still matters - especially in the kind of situation I think SG was talking about.

I don't think it's the worst idea ever, but I also don't think it's a fair expectation that SG would've dismissed the opinions of the parents who were there so that he could find a good cross-section somewhere and then do what THEY said to do.

[crystalline green]

I think that you could easily "play the race/black" card if you wanted to. You may have the integrity of conscience or stronger allegiance to the factors that express who you are than others, but you could easily be "black".

On the other hand, some of us white folks would be a bit afraid to address you on issues of sex and religion because we have been conditioned to believe all or at least most blacks won't discuss issues for long before throwing in race.

I blame black comedians, and even "enlightened" popular culture images of blacks as "Boondocks" and the music of 2pac as enforcing this idea in us whites that at some point, we don't understand you and somehow we are mean to you even when we don't know it.

Maybe that's the allure of the internet. No colors to see (except green:)) and honest discussion that sometimes is hard to take but good to have.

I agree. I think it's very cool that this sort of dialogue is happening on a medium like CBR. It gives me hope for this country (which I often feel is fast losing it's ability to engage in sane and intelligent discourse). When I visited Paris last year for the first time I was very impressed by the way the French could get into these thoughtful debates and passionate dialogue without it degenerating into hostility and personal attacks.

As to playing the "race card", I've never been in a position where that option has ever occurred to me. I'm not sure if I even fully understand the concept. The idea seems as ridiculous as playing the "gay card" or the "vegetarian card".

I think actually the race thing only becomes tense when we relate to people only thruough the lens of race. I was brought up to believe that there are all different kinds of all different kinds of people. So I pretty much just accept people as I find them. Hmm...I just realized that you live in the South and I have little experience with how different racial climate is there. Maybe things are more tense. My experience of the South comes mostly from the time I lived in Texas, and there much like any other place I've lived, I had friends who were a number of different races.

[Valmore]

Lots of good discussion points. Let me see if I can explain why I was asking.

I guess, what I'm trying to find out, is a question of perception. As some would say, it might just be sheer laziness on people's ends why the black race at least seems to get "lumped" together. And not just in the media and entertainment, but that it sometimes seems that people get the notion that, when one of the most prominent black figures speaks, he or she must be the voice of every black person in the nation. Obviously, this isn't true, but I've seen the perception at times myself.

And it's strange that it seems like the only ethnic group that gets that is the African American community. About the closest thing I could even think of that comes close to the same example is when Ben "Nighthorse" Campbell was prominent for a little while. And yet I don't think even he got the same extent of "he must speak for all Native Americans" perception as guys like Jesse Jackson used to.

I'm not certain I'm expressing this as best I can.

[Dan Apodaca]

...doing the hulley-gulley...

Tee. Hee.

I didn't realize it was 1946.

[PatrickG]

Why does anybody have to represent anybody else? Why can't it be everyone for themself?

Why do we need to acknowledge people as belonging to groups?

[Smarty Jones]

"Not all Black people are reasonably accepting and educated. Since those that aren't are still Black, their opinion, particulary when it's the most vocal or popular, still matters - especially in the kind of situation I think SG was talking about.

I don't think it's the worst idea ever, but I also don't think it's a fair expectation that SG would've dismissed the opinions of the parents who were there so that he could find a good cross-section somewhere and then do what THEY said to do."

Well, I didn't say dismiss the parents summarily. However, given the responses that he got he should evaluate the people who said them as well as the event itself. There's a possibility the event itself had elements that seemed so foreign to those parents, because plenty of black people love and read poetry, much less sing.

For instance, if the poetry is nothing but Robert Frost citings and the music was either Yanni or Black Sabbath (using extremes solely as examples), then maybe that was the reason for the responses. If we're assuming these are mostly reasonable people, I'm struggling otherwise to see why they would object to that kind of social.

[west3man]

Why does anybody have to represent anybody else? Why can't it be everyone for themself?

Why do we need to acknowledge people as belonging to groups?
Because it is sometimes beneficial to do so, like having a message board for groups of people who like comic books.

Similar interests? There's your group - if only to refer to them, it's practical and often necessary.

[west3man]

Well, I didn't say dismiss the parents summarily. However, given the responses that he got he should evaluate the people who said them as well as the event itself. There's a possibility the event itself had elements that seemed so foreign to those parents, because plenty of black people love and read poetry, much less sing.

For instance, if the poetry is nothing but Robert Frost citings and the music was either Yanni or Black Sabbath (using extremes solely as examples), then maybe that was the reason for the responses. If we're assuming these are mostly reasonable people, I'm struggling otherwise to see why they would object to that kind of social.
He may have been struggling, too. That's all I'm saying.

[Charles RB]

Why do we need to acknowledge people as belonging to groups?

Because a lot of people say they belong to groups, and may find that part of their identity?

[crystalline green]

Lots of good discussion points. Let me see if I can explain why I was asking.

I guess, what I'm trying to find out, is a question of perception. As some would say, it might just be sheer laziness on people's ends why the black race at least seems to get "lumped" together. And not just in the media and entertainment, but that it sometimes seems that people get the notion that, when one of the most prominent black figures speaks, he or she must be the voice of every black person in the nation. Obviously, this isn't true, but I've seen the perception at times myself.

And it's strange that it seems like the only ethnic group that gets that is the African American community. About the closest thing I could even think of that comes close to the same example is when Ben "Nighthorse" Campbell was prominent for a little while. And yet I don't think even he got the same extent of "he must speak for all Native Americans" perception as guys like Jesse Jackson used to.

I'm not certain I'm expressing this as best I can.

I think I understand where you are coming from. I would echo Traxler in answering that it's nothing more than lazy journalism and it reflects the American media's tendency to oversimplify when approaching the subject of ethnicities other than white and particularly black people. I think a "voice of the race" is more acceptable when the race itself recognises and chooses that person -- much as the majority did MLK in his time. Of course, when an individual is designated as the voice of the race by someone outside the black community, it does come off as patronizing and insulting. At it's worse it's a very ugly expression of entitlement.