Showing posts with label white. Show all posts
Showing posts with label white. Show all posts

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Macklemore's "White Privilege II"

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/01/29/464752853/i-guess-we-gotta-talk-about-macklemores-white-privilege-song?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160129

First I blog about a Hollywood movie, and now a rap song. I thought it was very well done though, esp. how touchy a subject this is for a white rapper.

The key quote to me was, "What are [white people] willing to risk and sacrifice to create a more just society?"

Critics say that guilt trips won't change whites and only makes them dig in. But sometime there isn't a more comfortable alternative. 

Real change and progress has to hurt, and sometime it is zero sum. Otherwise it's just a BS Oscars speech and telethon. Show you care for 5 min and then return to the comfortable status quo. Remember that some white man had to give a spot to Medgar Evers, Jackie Robinson, Sandra Day O'Connor, Obama, etc. justice means fairly sharing resources, responsibilities, and hardships.

It's not good enough to not be a raging racist. And it's obviously not all on whites. But anyone who benefits from privileges/advantages that are associated with bias - do we have the courage to shun them, in order to expose them and not perpetuate them? 

It's like $100 on the sidewalk. You didn't steal it from anyone, and no one will notice if you take it, and it will make your life better. But the right thing to do is to refrain, because you are not entitled to it, and maybe you can find its rightful owner or donate it to a good cause. But that takes discipline and caring. This is such a hostile, me-first culture; do we have the courage to do this for different looking strangers who are subconsciously associated with all things bad, because of centuries of bigotry? Can our better angels prevail?

I know not everyone can fight against injustice, but everyone has the power to not partake in privileges that are paid for by the pain and blood of innocent victims of prejudice.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Virginia shooter and destructive payback psychology

Like the shooting of NYC cops after Ferguson, if this violence is tied to race and Charleston, it blows my mind. I wonder what these shooters want for their legacy, or what they want the public to take away from their crimes. Maybe Flanagan's manifesto will shed some light, but his atrocious actions pretty much invalidate anything insightful he may have written.

Although racial violence is still vastly disproportionately black victims and white perpetrators, events like this may just perpetuate the stereotype that young black men are all thugs and the black people you work with are unstable and could go off on you any moment. Those perceptions of course do great daily harm to African Americans as a whole - even if it's mostly subtle aggressions that are imperceptible to non-blacks.

I suppose there is a fixation in the American psyche (or human nature in general) about getting payback and taking matters into our own hands. If others have hurt you or those you associate with, how is it is "justice" to commit violence against totally unrelated people who just happen to be of the same broad, arbitrary social category or geography? When Hamas sends some rockets into Israel, why does the IDF bomb and bulldoze homes and hospitals full of women and kids who never touched a rocket? Does that make them feel better, or feel safer? Of the 45M blacks in the US, did Roof think that killing 9 would "set things right" for Obama being president and all the other terrible things blacks have done to whites? And then Flanagan killing 2 whites 300 miles away from SC somehow settles that score too? Obviously this lunacy never ends, so such beliefs should never materialize into action in the first place.

Monday, June 29, 2015

More black churches targeted after Charleston

Did you guys hear that 5 black churches had fires since the SC massacre? 3 are confirmed arson. So assuming it's not a one-in-a-billion coincidence, we as a nation clearly haven't put this behind us. Black people didn't do anything provocative to upset anyone since Charleston (no riots, revenge, etc.). There's no "reason" to burn churches except that racists were tired of seeing black faces and hearing about racism stuff on the media all the time. Intimidation, suppression, and fear - that is the terrorist's playbook.
I read a black commentator write about healing after Charleston (sorry I can't find the link now). It's all well and good that whites and blacks hold hands to cry and sing together after such a tragedy. Then we return to the same society that spawned such a horrific event. America heals and achieves closure after tragedies on the white schedule. When the whites (majority) feel better and want to move on, that is what the nation does.

But what if blacks are still hurting and don't want to pretend that we're done with this? They know that they still have to live with all the same shit when the funerals are over. They know they are more likely to be murdered than whites. They know nothing has really changed after the news vans clear out. So why don't they have the right to say, "No - you don't get to have catharsis and feel normal again, because WE don't. You don't get to act like this tragedy has brought us closer together, when I am still upset with no relief in sight?" I am taking artistic license, but that is what I think he was getting at.

While the victims of SC have been exceedingly Christ-like though this tragedy, I actually wish they weren't. Don't be so nice and let the mainstream society sweep this under the rug. Keep feeling outrage and rub our face in the fact that we have a messed up country and it's unacceptable. Because as good as they are reacting and behaving now, it's not going to stop the next violent bigot (or even cop) from abusing them. Maybe a Malcolm X approach is needed (arm yourselves, or just leave America if they don't feel wanted here).

---

This is a good interview regarding the costs/symptoms of America's refusal to confront its racist heritage: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/06/30/bryan-stevenson-racial-tensions

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Starbucks' #RaceTogether

By now you guys have probably heard the hoopla about Starbucks' proposed #RaceTogether campaign to encourage customers and baristas to have frank discussions about race issues. Maybe the idea was noble, but the communication and execution left much to be desired, obviously. It comes off as out-of-touch, know-it-all, do-gooder, liberal Seattle rich white men telling the rest of America how to fix its racial issues (without doing any actual work themselves). Or even more cynical, some claim it is a shameless marketing ploy to capitalize on recent racial events like Ferguson to boost their brand and sales among minorities (a demo that is not core to Starbucks).
I will try to avoid getting too deep in the weeds here, but just some points to consider:

  • By focusing on race, Starbucks is unfairly putting the spotlight on their black-Latino employees and customers, who will likely need to play a larger role in the discussion. Why not name the campaign #Tolerance or #MoreUnderstanding, which is the end goal of #RaceTogether but could apply more broadly to any injustice or misunderstanding (like sexuality, religion, and poverty)?

  • If Starbucks expects its relatively low income and low education baristas to participate in complex race discussions, will they at least give them a raise and professional training? They were not hired on to do this job, so if they get new responsibilities, they should be compensated accordingly. 

  • Why not set aside a corner of their cafes for employees on break and customers to sit down and talk about issues, race or otherwise, in a more appropriate environment? It's obviously problematic to expect stressed baristas and impatient customers to engage in meaningful discussions during the morning rush, when all they want is their cup of overpriced Joe and to get on with their day (many comedians have touched on this point).

  • Instead of punting this issue to their baristas, why doesn't Starbucks' leadership actually lead by example? Their exec team and board are almost uniformly white upper-class men, even for Seattle standards. And that's probably why they OK'ed such a half-baked campaign. Did they consult minority groups and race studies experts beforehand? How about they improve the diversity programs within their org, and pay for professionals to hold race discussions among their workforce and customers, when they won't interfere with their core business operations?

  • Starbucks almost has no commercial presence in majority-minority neighborhoods like Ferguson and Harlem (for obvious business reasons, not necessarily racism). If they just want to have race discussions between their 20-something urban baristas and their mostly white yuppie clientele, I am not sure how much good that will do for our society and their company. Magic Johnson franchised many Starbucks in "less desirable" neighborhoods in SoCal, and recently sold them back to Starbucks. So that is a step in the right direction, but it was only because Magic took a chance and demonstrated to Corporate HQ that such cafes could be profitable (Seattle never wanted to expand into Compton on their own). But if Starbucks really cares about inclusion and social change, why is their brand and product so selectively targeted? Heck, even their #RaceTogether print ads were only depicting white hands holding coffee cups (which is about representative of their customer base - do you think many Ferguson folks can afford daily $4 frappucinos?).

  • Bottom line: if Starbucks wants to make a positive impact on race relations in America, they have the resources and influence to actually do it. But they'll need to invest seriously, fix their own house first, consult people who actually know what they're doing, and lead by example - not just pass the buck to their lowest workers while the leaders in their ivory tower pat themselves on the back.

Monday, February 22, 2010

How unemployment is destroying a generation (or two)

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201003/jobless-america-future


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123974560

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455219391652725.html



The current US unemployment situation is most drastically affecting white Midwest manufacturing workers and "trophy kids" from the Millennial Generation, which we've already discussed a bit: http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2009/02/welcome-to-recession-spoiled-brats.html



Self-esteem without basis encourages laziness rather than hard work... The ability to persevere and keep going [is] a much better predictor of life outcomes than self-esteem...There’s an element of entitlement—[Millennials] expect people to figure things out for them.

- Jean Twenge, psychology prof. at SDSU



It's foolish to generalize an entire generation, but new graduates born between 1980 and 1991 grew up with comfort, security, and high expectations. As suburban Boomers had fewer kids and bigger incomes, they doted on their children and taught them to believe that they were special and destined for great things of their choosing. But with that mindset, if things don't go well for them, it can't be their fault, right? They're perfect; what are Harvard and Google smoking to reject them? Something must be wrong when 74-79% of Millennials surveyed thought of themselves as physically attractive and very intelligent. It can't be all grade inflation and TV. More Millennials think that they will have postgraduate degrees and high-paying jobs versus previous generations too. Maybe even scarier, more Millennials think that they will be able to earn a living as entertainers and artists versus their predecessors. Good luck.



But it's not all their fault; sometimes "society" and timing are to blame too. Studies of the 1980 and 1990 recessions showed that for every 1% the unemployment rate rises, new graduate salaries drop 7%. So similarly skilled people who entered the job market during a boom may enjoy 25% higher pay than those who entered during a bust, which will haunt them their entire careers (by cursing them to a lower baseline). The number of graduating seniors given job offers was down 21% from 2008 to 2009. An American's first job has huge impact on his or her career potential too. Recent graduates stuck with a less glamorous job out of desperation are handicapped for future promotions or job transitions, because employers write them off as low achievers (in general, but of course there are exceptions with a few truly talented young workers getting ahead). So maybe the Millennials who shun boring, subsistence jobs and prefer to spend a year or two "finding themselves" and living off their parents are on to something (and the clingy, enabling Boomer parents are complicit in this for another precious opportunity to dote and feel life in their homes again). But they can't wait too long, as the younger crops of grads with more current skills, more fire in their bellies from spending their teen years in a recession, and no "gaps in employment" will be breathing down their necks.



Here's more reason to feel for the Millennials: studies have shown that prolonged unemployment during the post-high-school-to-age-30 years increases the risk for lifetime alcohol abuse, poor health, and depression, even when controlling for people's psychological background, exposure to alcohol, and socioeconomic situation. So maybe all those years of being praised as wonderful (when they were always just average) makes the let-down of "you're not even good enough to get a job" all the more bitter. This is another reason why it may do more harm than good for parents to coddle and overly inflate their kid's self esteem.



--------



“A man is not a man without work.”

“During the Depression I lost something. Maybe you call it self-respect, but in losing it I also lost the respect of my children, and I am afraid I am losing my wife.”

“I still love him, but he doesn’t seem as ‘big’ a man.”

Quotes from people who lived through unemployment during the 1930s.



And now for the older folks: 3/4 of recent job losses were incurred by men, since male-dominated construction, manufacturing, and finance have had the most layoffs, while female-oriented service, health, and education jobs have fared better. For the first time ever, women may comprise the majority of the US workforce by mid-2010. But unless the woman earns significantly more in a non-traditional household, an unemployed father/husband has disasterous effects on the family. Besides their financial contributions, men are less likely to help with household work while unemployed (maybe in rebellion against their loss of manhood from unemployment), and being out of work affects them more psychologically (self worth, mood, treatment of others, turning to destructive behaviors).



Only a death is more traumatic to a family than male unemployment. The likelihood of divorce increases drastically when the man is out of work, especially for over 6 months, which is now the average duration of American unemployment (the longest period since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started the measurement in 1948). All the divorces and unstable households will have terrible impacts on the children and America' future. Despite some arguments that children can still excel from single-parent homes (like Obama), statistics show the opposite. And more unmarried, unemployed men on the streets causes social problems. Married men are less likely to be involved with gangs, crime, and drugs, since they are spending more time doing wholesome family activites (in theory). This point applies more to poor blacks than whites or Latinos, but all races are affected. People are still having kids at normal rates (which is expensive and can negatively impact work performance), but fewer people are deciding to marry during this recession too (as in the past), which makes sense due to the exorbitant costs of the "ideal marriage" played up by the wedding industry, and shifting priorities during hard times.



All this has been going on in predominantly white communities from the Rust Belt to Buffalo even before the recession began. And the jobs lost there will never come back, despite what the politicians may promise and what the people may hope for. If they want to return to the workforce, they may need complete retraining, which is expensive, time consuming, and maybe not practical for many of them. Plus they will be competing with more qualified and experienced urban folks for new jobs. We've already seen the effects of this phenomena in urban black blue-collar communities in the 1970s. As the jobs left, those African Americans had difficulty transitioning to other employment, due to cultural and racial barriers. A macho steel worker can't become a courteous customer service rep overnight. So instead of joining the urban service sector as women and immigrants did, blacks languished and turned to depression and crime. I don't know if Rust Belt white communities are heading down that same path, but it's possible.



And on a societal level, recessions and tough times can make people meaner, less progressive, and less tolerant (against those who get blamed for the harships of the masses, namely immigrants). Politicians say that they draw inspiration from the American spirit of good people helping each other, working together to deal with hardships, and getting back to basic values. Like those Allstate commercials and whatnot. In some cases, recessions do make people more compassionate and grounded, as class tensions and wealth gaps shrink. But in the current recession, the rich-poor gap has actually increased (thanks, Goldman Sachs). Anger against the rich (and by extension, our leaders) has spiked, as we've seen with the Tea Parties and populist backlash. White lower-income Americans are increasingly feeling left out of the American promise (blacks and Indians are saying, "Welcome to our world!"), and are raging against that.



To close, I'll leave you with this statement from The Atlantic's Ron Peck:



In The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, the economic historian Benjamin Friedman argues that both inside and outside the U.S., lengthy periods of economic stagnation or decline have almost always left society more mean-spirited and less inclusive, and have usually stopped or reversed the advance of rights and freedoms. A high level of national wealth, Friedman writes, “is no bar to a society’s retreat into rigidity and intolerance once enough of its citizens lose the sense that they are getting ahead.” When material progress falters, Friedman concludes, people become more jealous of their status relative to others. Anti-immigrant sentiment typically increases, as does conflict between races and classes; concern for the poor tends to decline.