Category Archives: Prejudice

The Illusion of Prejudice: The Minority Rules

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Sad, but true. In the electronic age of omnipresent wall-to-wall news coverage, the opinions of the very few are quickly blown way out of proportion.

As everyone knows by now, there has been a confrontation between a white policeman and a black resident who a passerby thought, innocently enough, might be burglarizing what turned out to be his own home. Whether there was race involved in what occurred is problematic, and my personal opinion on the subject, irrelevant.

In fact, it’s not the event itself, but what happened next that is, I think, most significant. As if the event had not been newsworthy enough in and of itself, the President of the United States, admittedly without a full understanding of what transpired that day in Cambridge, chose to comment, to second guess the local police and make the assumption that racial profiling had been involved. As to latter, if that hadn’t been his assumption, why was he commenting – and, of course, we’ve since learned that that was exactly what the President was talking about when he accused the Cambridge police of having behaved stupidly.

The next thing you know, it’s all over the media, day in and day out. The opinions of a relatively few number of Americans, a miniscule proportion of our total population – virtually none of which were there or have complete knowledge of the event – become the subject of the news. Even the few polls that have been taken are based on very small samples and questions which force the respondent to form an opinion, however well poorly developed or uninformed. “My gosh,” the rest of us say, “I had no idea…” and you can fill in the rest.

The result can be that the existence of a phenomenon, in this case, adverse racial profiling, is blown way out of proportion to the point of actually convincing many people that that’s what actually happened, and that the problem is everywhere, that black Americans are being discriminated against left and right, everywhere, all the time. I certainly hope that’s not the case, but the news that is today’s excuse for legitimate journalism is no proof of anything but that your set or personal computer is on.

The problem is not just the ever-present, compelling nature of today’s electronic media technology. More to my point, it’s the people who report the news – cable news being the worst example – who spend much more time telling us what a few people think, and way too little about precisely what actually happened. As to the larger, national issue, the American people are not served well by anecdotal statements by people, whatever their color. What are the facts of the problem? What do legitimate studies of the subject of continuing racial prejudice and profiling tell us?

President Obama, in an attempt to spin positive his inappropriate and frankly prejudicial* comments on the event in Cambridge, says this should be a learning experience for all of us – and invites the two principals over for a beer. (Unbelievable.) Far from being educational, the President and the media have created a mess that does the serious issue of racial profiling a disservice, and is distracting us from more pressing issues at hand.

*Suggested reading… “President Obama: The Presumption of Prejudice“, posted July 23, 2009 on the WordFeeder.

-wf


Site Meter

President Obama: The Presumption of Prejudice

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Without question, there is still racism and other ethnic discrimination in the United States, and there will be for some time to come. Prejudice dies hard.

Black Americans have certainly done their part, heroically, to make their case and for that effort deserve, at the very least, the respect of those for whom a belief in equality isn’t second nature.

For the most part, equality has become a technical reality. Having accomplished those objectives, we’re now in that awkward, unfortunately long-term endgame for when people need to go beyond accepting the fact of equality, to not recognizing the differences between our people which some once thought made discrimination appropriate, even necessary.

It’s a process that takes time, understanding and patience, and that often requires subtle, but nonetheless exceptional efforts by both sides of the problem.

Unfortunately, in a press conference yesterday that was supposed to be about healthcare reform and the economy, President Obama chose to enter the fray over the arrest of noted scholar Louis Gates, Jr. in Boston. While admittedly not knowing all the facts of the situation, he nevertheless expressed his opinion that Boston Police – including the one of three officers on the scene who is also black – behaved stupidly when they arrested his friend and, let’s say it, fellow black person.

That the President would even comment on a local police matter is odd. That he would risk diverting the attention of the media from the primary objectives of his press conference is bad politics and frankly disrespectful to those major issues he was there, in prime time, to argue. More to the point, that he would express a critical opinion about police behavior without knowing all the facts is, almost by definition, discriminatory in and of itself, and sets a bad example for Americans of all persuasions who are doing their best, in their everyday behavior, to put an end to inequality.

Had a passerby seen two white men apparently breaking into a house, would he or she have called the police? Had Professor Gates been white, would the President have commented about the event at a prime time press conference? No. What President Obama did was act on the presumption of prejudice, which may be understandable, but is also unfortunate and tells us something interesting about how he sees the world.

-wf


Site Meter

Barack Obama: The Presumption of Prejudice

Thursday, March 27, 2008

“Prejudice and discrimination have a certain ghostly momentum that continues for years after their demise.”

Barack Obama, more than anyone this election, has raised the issue of race and kept it in the headlines.  At first, it was a reasonable strategy akin to the way John Kennedy handled the potential of his becoming the first Catholic President in 1960.  The candidate tells everyone that it shouldn’t be an issue, the implication being that it is.  Many non-Catholics then, or white voters now will feel compelled to deny the implicit charge of prejudice and will support your candidacy to prove their point.  At the same time, Catholic and Black voters will be galvanized into voting for one of their own.  It worked for Kennedy, and has worked for Senator Obama – up to a point.  The  Pastor Wright controversy and Senator Obama’s speech on the subject of race are on the verge of casting the Senator as a Black candidate, rather than simply a candidate who happens to be Black.  The latter works for his candidacy, the former might not.  We’ll see.  (See “Channeling JFK,” posted March 14th here on WordFeeder.)

The explicit message of the Senator’s comments on the subject has been to describe Black and white Americans as racially sensitive.  The typical white person, he tells us, is still apprehensive, if not outright fearful in his or her contacts with Black Americans who still feel resentment for inequities against which they have long struggled.  Senator Obama pretends to be enlightening the American voter by bringing all this to our attention.  Others no doubt think he’s stirring the pot.  My feeling is that he’s a throwback to another era, not all that many years ago, but another time nonetheless, and that bothers me.

He can’t be forward looking, and backward thinking at the same time.  He can’t bring us together, if he doesn’t appreciate how much progress we have made on our own toward precisely that objective.  I don’t particularly like the way he claims to speak for all Black people, and to understand the race-related anxieties of whites.  He may be bi-racial personally, experienced and well read, but that doesn’t make his interpretations of Black and white behavior universally or even generally correct.

Some time ago I worked with a gentleman, a quality individual in all respects, but somewhat odd in appearance and behavior, who is a member of a small, but prominent ethnic group.  He had one of those last names that could easily be mispronounced by people who didn’t know him.  To make matters worse, the common mispronunciation was a real word with unattractive implications.  I won’t give you his actual name which would be unkind, but will defer, by way of example, to a commercial which ran some months ago.

The ad featured a young man toward the end of an important interview which appeared to be going very well, when he rises to his feet, extends his hand to the interviewer and says, “Thank you, Mr. Dum-ass,” to which the interviewer, his displeasure obvious, responds by saying, “It’s ‘Doo-mahsss.’”  Needless to say, the real individual I’m talking about was the subject of considerable kidding, and suffered a daily struggle to feel good about himself.  As I remember, he often complained about how he was treated under various circumstances, attributing his lack of personal and professional success to his ethnicity.  In fact, as one colleague eventually told him, ethnicity had nothing to do with it.

Prejudice and discrimination have a certain ghostly momentum that continues for years after their demise.

For those who have been on the receiving end, they, like the rest of us, are prone to make assumptions which attribute the adverse aspects of their experience to factors other than their own behavior and capabilities.  Unfortunately, excuses, race-related or other, tend to distract from root causes, and delay the progress a clearer vision might accomplish.

For all of those who have reacted in a way conditioned by the habits of prejudice and discrimination against others, there are doubtlessly remnant feelings that persist without reason.  They can be hurtful, and die a slow death I’m not sure any politician can hasten.

Is all this worth talking about on the evening news?  I don’t know, except that exposure in the media tends to exaggerate the prevalence of any problem.  Blowing things out of proportion is an unavoidable byproduct and favorite pastime in the world of “Breaking News” and 24 hour coverage.

I wonder how much of what Senator Obama and his spiritual advisor, Pastor Wright, cite of the Black experience is still valid, or the vestigial mindset of another generation’s reality?  It’s a reasonable, although difficult question for someone to ask another of a different color, but Senator Obama raised the issue in public, and that gives all of us the right.  Senator Obama, how much of the reaction of typical whites to Black Americans which you describe is real, how much of it imagined, and how much of it the confused, outdated and inherently prejudicial teachings of 20 years of Sundays in the wrong place?

How much of the problems which still plague Black America are attributable to race, or to color-independent economic and other factors to which your attention and our country’s resources might be better directed?


Site Meter