Topic #4. Things have got to change
(Showing 69-83 of 109)

69. public action influences more than government
Tue, Sep 28, 1999 - 7:58 PM/EST
kann

greetings laura ca, bb, shanita, patkelly, and others,

people working together for change can influence more than government officials and laws. remember those collective shaming and collective boycott strategies of recent years? here's an example from the border, in a largely Latino/a community with high poverty rates and long historical experiences of 'colonization' by outside corporations and their cheap wages.

last summer, a group of community scholars (high school seniors) did action research on four big banks. their detailed results (ratios of $ generated from the community to $ exported to corporate headquarters) showed shocking inattention to the old '70s congressional Community Reinvestment Act. small businesses face a big capital squeeze. the results caused NO revolution, i know, but the newspapers picked up the issue and STAYED with it, so much so that the bank executives were scurrying to try to show what they're doing and how they will change.

and a footnote on Props 187, 209: i hear you, bb and laura ca, on how disheartening some of these campaigns, coalitions, and opponents can be. but Prop 187 was challenged in court, and "resident" children continue to be enrolled in schools. here in texas, the 3-man circuit court decision addressing prop 209-like matters had short-term negative consequences, but a variety of schools have gone back to the drawing boards to examine admission criteria in ways that don't "obsess" about standardized test scores compared with other important factors like GPAs, etc.

good websites:

www.communityscholars.org

www.rethinkingschools.org

enjoy!

70. Uhope
Tue, Sep 28, 1999 - 8:03 PM/EST
shanita

My previous message to you could not be more clear. But, you are right, "of color" does not necessarily mean that a person is of African decent. But, in the case of the Spaniards by the time of the "discovery," African is EXACTLY what I mean. And, please make no mistake about it, wherever the Spaniards (and other European colonialists) went so did their slaves. Of course, there is a lot to the story of the history of the Latino peoples, and yes these stories are varied, but certainly not without a common thread. I choose not to write more on the subject because before I did research on ancient Africa, I was absolutely convinced that there wasn't much to know. All I ever heard about was Egypt and to tell you the truth, not much was said about Egypt beyond the pyramids, and the mummies. As my knowledge grew over the years, I became aware that if everybody knew what was going on during those ancient times, above and beyond the Moors' occupation of Spain, their entire worldview, and beliefs about "race" would have to change. More astoudingly, the viability of the philosophy of "white supremacy" is completely dependent upon the supression and distortion of this information. This is a major upheaval. I am simply not qualified to set it off constructively. This is why I strongly suggest that people do their own research so that they can draw their own conclusions. And, I don't mean standard American textbooks and encyclopedias alone. I mean traveling, interviewing, and primary sources as well as secondary sources. If we all improve our knowledge on the subject by filling in the omissions and getting past the misconstructions and the lies, then this too is one way that discussions on a grand scale level can improve (my most recent revelation).

71. people of color - BB
Tue, Sep 28, 1999 - 8:33 PM/EST
shanita

Well, I guess the only thing that I can say is that "white" and "black" in this society under the current worldview has been pretty much what the powers that be have made of it. I can't speak for Italy, but no official government, or standard public forms in Spain (at least up to the time I visited in '91) require people to identify their race. It is simply not an issue.

72. shanita
Tue, Sep 28, 1999 - 9:03 PM/EST
domdotcom

i wish i could say i didn't laugh at your comment. i think you took it the wrong way. i'm anything but an instigator. standing up for someone's right to be who they are and stirring the pot are two different things. i just feel that making a statement and not backing it up is the same as a hit and run...you say in your post (#70) that each person will take what they will from the information they get. don't you think you can say the same as far as your opinion on how others see themselves? aphrodite knows who she is...all i'm saying to you is to allow her that.

73. domdotcom
Tue, Sep 28, 1999 - 9:26 PM/EST
shanita

I have no quarrel with your point of view. But, I never told anyone in this discussion group "who they were." All of this commotion is about a comment that I made in a discourse to someone ELSE about the history and background of the Latino students in MY class. How does this logically translate to telling anybody in this room who THEY are? If there is a problem, then it is not my own.

74. Part I - Africans, Latinos, and Shanita
Tue, Sep 28, 1999 - 10:41 PM/EST
aphrodite

The point is that "Latino" is an extremely broad label; it encompasses well over one dozen countries and billions of people. I attempted to point out to you that when you are speaking about individual people, you should identify them with more accuracy, as we are not all the same. It is not fair to paint us with such a broad brush as to not respect our individual cultures. When you talk about your "Latino" students who consider themselves white, but you educated them in their history, you not only insult them and their families, but you lump billions of other "Latinos" into your racial definition of them as well. To put it plainly, I am suggesting to you and everyone else that you take the time to be specific when you refer to "Latinos" - we are extremely diverse in culture and history.

I am not interested in going into a discussion about the Moors and the significant impact they had on European history. Although I find it a fascinating history, I really don't think that it justifies stating that "Latinos" are of African descent. Unless of course you buy into the one-drop rule, which is a very interesting and timely topic that I would like to discuss.

75. Part II - Africans, Latinos, and Shanita
Tue, Sep 28, 1999 - 10:42 PM/EST
aphrodite

Now, the question is, can you respect "Latinos" and not dump us all into one pot? Or, are you so set on furthing your personal agenda that you refuse to enter into honest and perhaps painful discourse that may upset your apple cart?

And, if you don't want your posts commented on because you are talking to someone "ELSE", then I am sure that you can exchange emails with that special person. But if you post here, then be prepared to discuss your posts. We are all putting ourselves on the line here and I believe being honest with each other, so take advantage of this opportunity because you may not have this chance again. After all, not too many people would actually want to read your research, but I sure do and apparently many others do as well. Of course it is soooooo much more easy to fall back into that "you've been brainwashed" crap than to actually walk the walk.

76. Part I - One Drop Rule
Tue, Sep 28, 1999 - 11:27 PM/EST
aphrodite

"'one drop" (entirely a false notion) makes you 'black', no matter what you look like or how you were raised."

Uhope, I am interested in this topic. I really felt validated when I read your post. This may be of interest to you or others in the group, I recently wrote a research paper on a man named Chief Buffalo Long Lance aka/Sylvester Long. He was born in 1890 in N.C. His parents were both born into slavery, but they were both white and Indian, not African. They lived in Raliegh, right behind the Reynolds mansion. Everyone in town considered them Indian, but because they were not registered members of a tribe, they were considered "colored", which at that time did not = Af/Am, but had the same result. Anyway, Syvester recreated himself and in the process made himself an "Indian Chief", when he was "exposed" as a "negro", which I argue he wasn't, he committed suicide. It is an interesting story that I believe has some impact today in respect to the "one-drop" rule.

Further on the point, when I was in my first year of law school, I wanted to join student groups. Most of my friends were members of BLSA (Black Law Students Assoc.). It is important to join groups in law school because they are a great support system, offer mentorship, and help you academically. So, I asked to join BLSA, now keep in mind that it is illegal for clubs that have open enrollment to discriminate based on race. Initially my friend told me "of course you can be a member." Later I was pulled aside and asked "is there anyone Black in your family?" Hmmmmm, "well my sister is Black Puerto Rican and my step-father was Black." He responded, "Okay good, you can join, we just have to make sure you are Black and you count." I didn't join BLSA. Not only was their membership practice illegal, but I felt that if I joined, I would constantly be put in the position to justify my membership.

77. Part II - One Drop Rule
Tue, Sep 28, 1999 - 11:29 PM/EST
aphrodite

Another Af/Am friend of mine told me that Native Americans are of African descent, although she never told me what that theory was based upon. She was also "Cherokee." I have met so many Af/Ams who state that they are "Cherokee." Frankly, I am always suspicious of this statement because Cherokees were ademant slave owners (they even took their slaves on the trail of tears) and according to my Cherokee prof., and my own research (see above) quite racsist in their attitudes towards Blacks. When Af/Ams state that they are "Cherokee", if it is in fact accurate, then they are products of master/slave unions, which I am told, but have not researched were extremely uncommon.

When I hear Af/Ams (and whites too) recant their Native lineage I always wonder if it is effort to "claim every 'relative' they can?" Or, due to slavery they are not able to accurately identify the tribe of which they descend? As my prof said, if there were really that many "Cherokees" out there, everyone else would truely be a minority in this country.

What does everyone else think?

78. Lineage
Wed, Sep 29, 1999 - 12:24 PM/EST
bb

Sometimes I think that when the white people in my diversity classes make a point of recanting their American Indian lineage it is a way of saying "see I have a minority connection" and maybe a way to deny their white privilege.

79. Edgewalkers
Wed, Sep 29, 1999 - 12:37 PM/EST
bb

Just wanted to share a book review I read this morning. Edgewalkers by Dr. Nina Krebs, a retired Sacramento psychotherapist. She defines edgewalkers as people who stay connected with a spiritual or cultural tradition at the same time they are participating in the mainstream--mixed race people, gay people living a a predominantly straight world, women in male-dominated corporate cultures, highly religious people living in a secular society. Edgewalkers in her opinion place importance on cultural identity, have managed to balance their identities, and maintain continuity throughout their lives. She says successful edgewalkers are psychologically integrated enough to be who they are everywhere they go. She admits edgewalking is difficult--some people always think you're a traitor. (Cicily's experience) I think the edgewalkers have, are and will move society closer to the world of respect and justice we all seek. What do you think?

80. Cherokee
Wed, Sep 29, 1999 - 2:08 PM/EST

it is my understanding that the reason there seems to be many people of Cherokee descent is that while nearly all tribes require a rather direct link, parentage/grandparentage, in oder to be a tribal member, the Cherokee actually use a one-percent rule in allowing admission to the tribe. I can understand this, in terms of both a survival strategy, and as a way negotiating more funds from the US government.

81. Shanita
Wed, Sep 29, 1999 - 2:37 PM/EST
uhope

Quoth Shanita: "wherever the Spaniards (and other European colonialists) went so did their slaves."

By this statement, are you implying that Spanish conquistadors were "really black" and so were all of their offspring by nature of the fact they took slaves with them on voyages? I don't know; this seems to be a bit of a stretch. Wouldn't most of any slaves taken on a trip like this be male in order to be helpful on the ship? I didn't think women (black or white) were approved on ships. Sounds more like the ever insidious "one drop" philosphy creeping in. I'm just wondering how far back do you go to determine that someone is "denying" their African heritage. If someone's most recent black relative was 100, 200, 300 years ago, are they still black, in your opinion? And remember - in those days, not every slave was of African origin, either. Rom (Gypsies), East Indians, anybody who could be subjugated was fair game. The first slaves in the Americas were the natives. They didn't start importing Africans 'til they killed the Indians off. Which - I know - is a lot to get into here in this forum. I think all Aphrodite is trying to get you to appreciate is that when one uses the term "Latino" it is wise and respectful to consider the individual ethnicities when instructing them about their background. As stated, they are not the same anymore than all Asians - Chinese, Malay, Indian, Tibetan, etc. are the same.

Forgive me if I seemed to be missing your "very clear" points. I've tried to follow this thread carefully and I don't see where I've gotten off track. I think you were the one who started the initial topic "Things Have Got to Change". That's true on all sides. Regardless of one's research - and it was ALL written by humans with their own motives and agendas - change cannot be effected without acknowledging individual exceptions to what we thought was the "rule" and having the utmost respect for them.

82. Aphrodite - Lineage
Wed, Sep 29, 1999 - 3:13 PM/EST
uhope

Seems like you really started something in here, you Latina spitfire (please smile; just playin')! The "one drop" rule started by whites to deny rights and priviledges to blacks seems to now be embraced by blacks to arbitrarily include every member they can for whatever reason. It is SO uncool. No other racial group has such a philosophy. But, it's not unlike Patkelly's statement about Cherokee membership, I suppose. Your experience with the BLSA is rather ironic considering its members are supposed to be about fighting these kinds of exclusionary tactics. Sounds kinda like country club rules of old. Just goes to show - no one group corners the market on prejudice and discrimination. Unfortunately, certain groups tend to get away with it because of their history. A "right to sing the blues" as it were. It's all pretty bogus.

It wasn't too long ago that having Native American ancestry was nothing to be proud of, at least among whites. It seems to have become more fashionable since the positive portrayals of Natives in films like "Dances with Wolves". I wonder if it will ever be "fashionable" to claim African ancestry? Even among AfAms, there is a tendency to attribute every "attractive" physical feature to "Indian" or "Oriental" blood somewhere. What a day it will be when a white person proudly attributes their child's wavy hair or luscious lips to their black great-great grandmother. It could happen :-)

83. Edgewalkers
Wed, Sep 29, 1999 - 3:34 PM/EST
uhope

What an interesting concept! Who, here, considers themselves to be an "edgewalker"?

The description sounds very like how I see myself. The trick is being able to stand up and "be" yourself when others look at you crazy for your "different" tastes in music, clothing, speech, attitudes or call you a "sell out". I don't think any group is any better or worse than another and refuse to be pigeonholed. As a result, I enjoy - and am irritated by - everyone equally!