The “Invisible” Problems of Racism

The problem with racism is that many people don’t think it is. Many live their lives not even realizing what is happening the world around them. “Racism, here, na The problem with racism is that many people don’t think it is. Many live their lives not even realizing what is happening the world around them. “Racism, here, nah. ” Others know all about it, but they don’t realize that they themselves, yes, themselves, are racists. “Huh, I’m not racist. What do you mean? I’m more open minded than that. Give me some credit. ” Then hey turn around and discriminate against someone else’s human rights.

Not racist, yah right. What is one of the main problems with racism? It’s that many people live in racist conditions, without even seeing it. It flies right over their heads. Schools, the workplace, our community, our friends house, even our homes. We hear a racial slur, oh well, it’s just a joke. Hardly. If you think racist joke are harmless than you should take a reality check. Racist jokes are just the start of it. Many people think the jokes are funny. Maybe they are, but they still hurt the people the jokes are about. Some of the worst racists are the ones who think that they are not racist and really are.

They really have to come to grips with reality. Why are they some the worst racists? They are, because they can’t comprehend what is happening. They don’t realize what they are saying and doing are racist. Until they come to grips with it there is no problem. No problem, in their minds. They say that they aren’t racist, even when they don’t hire the East Indian employee who was the most qualified of the candidates. Even when the basketball team that they coach is all white. And even the time when they moved from their seat at the ovie theater because of the black person next to them.

Well, gee, they could have been a criminal. A robber from “the hood. ” After all, isn’t that what most of “them” are. No one deserves to be prejudged like that. The prejudice of people in the world is disgusting. The worst part of it all is that they don’t even know that they are doing it. They think it’s just no rmal behavior. It doesn’t even phase them when they do it. Then there are those who are completely unaware of racism in the world. They walk down the streets, through the stores and working at their job, completely oblivious. They’re so blind!

Why can’t they see what is happening around them? Have they really lived such sheltered lives? Or do they just not want to believe it is happening? If you take someone and put them in the heart of a racist area, they still won’t notice the problems. They will see it with their own eyes, but it won’t register in their mind. If these people don’t open their eyes, they will never see what is happening. What is going to happen to the world if people don’t start realizing what is happening? Will we be plunged into a time where racial tension is everywhere?

Will we soon start having racial wars? Will racial violence be a normal every day occurrence? I don’t know. No one could know. Unless we start taking action and helping people come to grips with the way they are we can’t combat racism. People who don’t see that racism is a problem are almost as bad as the racists themselves. Now, don’t take that comment in the wrong way, but as long as they are unaware, racism won’t stop. I am aware of racism. I am also not a racist myself. I have lived in a racist community for most of my life, thank god I haven’t turned out like the rest of them.

Suffering for Suffrage: Racism in the Womens Suffrage Movement

Historically, women have been excluded from the many liberties men have arranged for themselves. From the disregarding of women from being considered Elect during the Puritan era, to the modern instances of women lacking equal compensation. According to Charlotte Gilman, even religion, the womans help, was tainted and injured by coming through the minds of men alone (Gilman, p. 370). Men have molded American society to exclusively adhere to their personal desires.

In spite of the many disenfranchisements, some women however, refused to passively submit to such conditions. They knew that the only way to influence change was suffrage. The first women’s rights meeting in the United States held at Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848, itself followed several decades of a quietly-emerging egalitarian spirit among women. This was the birth of womens suffrage. Throughout the long road of suffrage there was somewhat confusion about what political focus will be granted the most attention.

White women wanted equal rights and slavery abolished, but, they didnt want to be equal to Blacks, even after the Civil War. If they were granted their citizenship rights would this mean that Black women were to be granted those rights as well? When it appeared that white men might grant black men the right to vote while leaving white women disenfranchised, white women suffragists did not respond as a group by demanding that all women and men deserved the right to vote (Hooks, Bell p. 7).

In order to maintain their political autonomy and protect their personal missions of gaining equality amongst themselves, many of the white women suffragist used what appeared at the time as racial discrimination to keep Black women at a distance to get white men to address their agendas. According to Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique and ardent feminist, the womens movement was supposed to remain distant and excluded from the blacks struggle for civil rights.

She goes further to explain that feminists could not assume the ideologies in black power would work for them. Our tactics and strategy, above all, our ideology must be firmly based in the historical, biological, economic, and psychological reality of our two-sexed world, which is not the same as the black reality, (Freidan, pg. 467). This doesnt quite disprove or prove that there was racism within the womens movement; however, it does give another view of the white womens decision to exclude black women from their agenda and focus on liberating themselves.

Attempting to understand Freidmans position of womens rights movements being exclusively focused on white women, there is conflict in her argument when she wanted to have sex discrimination laws added to the Civil Rights Act. If she didnt feel that the blacks struggle for civil rights was a good method for women to use in earning their rights, how is the Civil Rights legislation different? Maybe wanting sex added to the Civil Rights Act Freidans way of saying that her view of why women suffrage should be separate from the black movements wasnt influenced by racism but based solely on the speed of progress.

Ardent white womens rights advocates like Elizabeth Cady Stanton who had never before argued for womens rights on a racially imperialistic platform expressed outrage that inferior Blacks should be granted the vote while superior white women remained disenfranchised (Hooks, Bell p. 127) Stanton argued: If Saxon men have legislated thus for their own mothers, wives and daughters, what can we hope for at the hands of Chinese, Indians, and Africans? … I protest against the enfranchisement of another man of any race or clime until the daughters of Jefferson, Hancock, and Adams are crowned with their rights (Hooks, Bell p. 7).

To black women the issue is not whether white women are more or less racist than white men, but that they are racist (Hooks, Bell p. 125). Racism has significantly undermined feminist organizing over the past two centuries. Despite the fact that campaigns for womens rights in the United States have been initiated by women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, and that various womens organizations have fervently struggled against racist hierarchies and institutions, racism has persisted both within and beyond the movement (Grant, Parker).

Although the case is popularly assumed to have been otherwise, Black women found themselves unwelcome in most white womens antislavery groups (Caraway, Nancie p. 134). This antithesis can be accounted for by stressing, as has Bell Hooks, that early-nineteenth-century reformers attacked slavery, not racism when white women reformers in the 1830s chose to work to free the slave; they were motivated by religious sentiment. They attacked slavery, not racism.

The basis of their attack was moral reform; they were not demanding social equality for black people is an indication that they remained committed to white supremacy despite their anti-slavery work (Caraway p. 135 from Hooks). Ending slavery could be conceived by whites abstractly as a gesture demanded by Christian morality. Going further, we must understand why the white women were overly conscious about adding Black womens rights to their goals. In this era, it was highly controversial to advocate Blacks and their causes.

Knowing this, white women who wanted their place in society risked earning such with the reputation of Negro Lover attached to her name. Consternation and denial about racism in the womens movement stem from the political principle that a movement struggling for the empowerment of women must, by definition, oppose all systems of oppression that affect womens lives. Women of color who have committed themselves to the womens liberation struggle have long done so from the standpoint that movements against sexism must also address racism if they are to have any real impact upon their lives.

If the womens liberation struggle pertains to all women, rather than to white women exclusively, then it must work to achieve and end to pervasive racism both in institutional forms and in personal dynamics. Although various womens organizations have cited countering racism as a priority, it is not surprising to find racist hierarchies within the movement that are both the reflection and the result of the racism of the male dominated culture.

In using the Booker T. Washington, Atlanta Address paradigm to analyze the issues in the womens suffrage movement, women have endured the rejection from white women in order to attain their goals of equality. Without, assuming the Uncle Tom stigma, though this may have been a struggle for black women to remain suppressed by other women, many of the liberties they suffered to attain progressed with their fight. Over the years, women, Black women included, have become better acknowledge in American society. Women of all ethnicities hold many political offices, educational accolades, and other symbols of leadership.

Effects/Origins of Racism

Today, the United States is respected around the world as an international business powerhouse, notorious for a flourishing capitalistic marketplace. However, the very foundation for this commercial capitalist market was rooted in the exploitation of Africans. At first, the primary use of North American land was to provide the raw materials necessary for the British to produce goods to the end user. The need for cheap laborers soon arose. Europeans filled this void through the use of free laborersAfrican slaves.

Africans were viewed as inferior beings, mere property to be traded and used like a horse or a cow, which gave Europeans the notion that this practice was morally acceptable. At first, only wealthy Europeans could afford the goods produced by the African slave trade; however, the goods soon became affordable to the middle class and the demand for additional slaves grew rapidly. At the time of the American Revolution, slavery was the very basis for the American economy.

Most of the country’s industries revolved around and depended upon the use of traded peoples. If not directly using Africans to provide labor, most businesses in America somehow related to the use of this free labor and all Europeans benefited in some way. Textiles manufacturing was the staple industry during the Industrial Revolution, most of whose raw cotton was grown by enslaved Africans. Those not directly involved in the trade of Africans benefited from the purchase and sale of products created by the slavery system.

The triangular trade emerged, allowing Europe and the American colonies to benefit, while exploiting blacks even further (to gain economically in Africa, one would have to take part in the trade by providing the laborers). The textile industry’s success was based on the use of slave labor, and without it, it’s questionable whether the U. S. would have become a major industrial power. Sons and grandsons of the earlier traders in slaves and slave-produced products benefited both directly (by becoming captains of the industries fueled by the slave trade) and indirectly (by the intergenerational transference of wealth).

Americans not only gained economically, but also in terms of living conditions and life expectancies. Even the educational system (i. e. Brown University) benefited from the profits of the slave trade. Political figures that helped form the bases for our nation’s principles and are commonly viewed today as respectable, noble men (such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) were able to live their luxurious lifestyles because of their slave ownership. The finances used to fight the American Revolution were essentially derived through the slave tradeAmerican freedom was bought with the proceeds from African enslavement.

Until this class, I had little knowledge of the powerful economic and social effects that slavery had on the U. S. Although I recall being taught the basics about slavery in elementary school, it was bluntly ignored thereafter. It is difficult to assess the exact reasoning for the absence of this part of my formal education. As described in our readings and discussed in class, the idea of slavery being a thing of the past and therefore, worthy of ignorance, seems to be the prevailing notion of the American education system.

In some way, each and every white American benefited from the slave tradebecause of this, there is a certain degree of guilt associated with its discussion (even though it may be unconscious to some). European and African histories have been taught separately for so many years that it is often viewed as acceptable. To change the dynamics to include all of U. S. history (and what it truly consists of) involves changing the entire landscape of the educational system. It often takes decades to make slight changes in racist ideologies; however, progression is slowly being made and eventually there will be but one U. S. history consisting of both black and white.

De facto segregation became a foremost difficulty for black Americans once legal segregation was outlawed. Until the civil rights movement of the 1950’s, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were virtually disregarded. Virtual enslavement continued through the practices of the U. S. government on behalf of white group interests (and the quest for a continuation of privilege). Blacks lost the political power they gained during the Reconstruction period as white political interests joined to exclude them of their given rights.

The decision in the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court case in 1896 affirmed whites’ view of their supremacy. It upheld the legality of “separate but equal” facilities and reasoned that if one race was inferior to another, the Constitution cannot put them upon the same plane. Police-state conditions in the South helped to maintain segregated public facilities such as buses, water fountains, colleges, churches and hospitals. Blacks were only referred to by his/her first name (or derogatory terms such as “nigger”); since whites felt they did not deserve the respect of using Mr.

Mrs. , or Miss. Whites used lynching to generate fear amongst black Americans in order to maintain the segregate practices. By performing savage, public attacks against blacks, whites controlled the Southern environment. White also created an ideological advantageby granting blacks their “freedom,” any prevalence of poverty left them with no one to blame but themselves. When large-scale industrialization reached the South, blacks were excluded from jobs except for menial, low-paying positions.

Once again, whites controlled all fiscal aspects of society. De facto segregation also existed in the housing market, leaving blacks with few places to reside. At one point or another, every state east of the Mississippi had some form of segregation law. During the Great Depression, the opportunity for blacks to work dwindled. Since whites were losing jobs exponentially, it was that much harder for blacks to gain employment. Extreme hunger and starvation set in and government aid and local charities provided little assistance.

With so few resources (and the inability to gain them and climb the social ladder), it became essentially impossible for blacks to reach the financial and social status of even the least privileged whites. The effects on blacks’ psyches were devastating. When an individual is told that he/she is inferior to other individuals (and in all aspects of his/her life he/she is treated this way), it’s nearly impossible to escape the mental constraints. As black peoples were being pushed further and further down, whites reaped the benefits of these social injustices.

One effect that legal segregation had on whites was the ability to gain resources and assets to further enhance an individual and his/her family’s future. Since blacks were denied access to high-paying jobs, first-rate neighborhoods and proper educational tools through systemic racism, they suffered. Whites benefited greatly from having this access (by being ten steps ahead of any black). Another effect is that of perceived superiority. When a white was born into a segregated environment (where his/her resources are obviously superior to those of blacks), it is implanted into his/her brain that he/she is better than a black.

Unless taught otherwise by family, a white person is led to believe that there must be a reason he/she is so blatantly treated better. To overcome these embedded ethnocentric ideas takes time. One final impact that segregation had on whites was the cognitive dissonance created. Many whites believed that segregation was wrongyet, just as many whites believed it was an acceptable practice. During the times of segregation, siding with blacks’ rights was often viewed as going against one’s own race.

My father was a member of the 101st Airborne Division that was sent to Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, which was integrating its student body. He explained to me that the backlash by the white students of the school was tremendous; fortunately, his assault rifle was equipped with a bayonet that kept the racists at bay. Many times, whites are faced with racist situations where passive participation is an option. If many individuals still feel discomfited with the idea of going against his/her own race, it was a lot more difficult during times of segregation. However, moments of discomfort does not compare to a lynching.

What can be done to stop racism

Racism is a certain kind of prejudice, based on faulty reasoning and inflexible generalizations toward a specific group. The word prejudice comes from the Latin noun praejudicium, which means a judgment based on previous decisions formed before the facts were known. If a person allows their prejudiced beliefs to block the progress of another, it is discrimination. Those who exclude all members of a race from certain types of employment, housing, political rights, educational opportunities, or a social interactions are guilty of racial discrimination. For centuries conflicts have taken place among three main races,

Caucasian, Asian, and Negro ranging from snobbish social exclusion, to state- sponsored genocide. Racism is an unmerited fear or dislike of a people because of their ethnic heritage. When colour is not a reason, other reasons such as language, religion, nationality, education, sex, or age become the reason of prejudice. Sociologists, historians, anthropologists and archeologists believe racial discrimination happens more often and most harshly when two groups with different skin colours and unique physical features come into contact with each other and the two compete for the same thing.

History shows that all attempts at a racial dominance result in conflict and avoidance. But, some communities without disturbed racial conflict can take advantage of all its citizens potential and move toward elimination. Our hate is caused by witnessing the behaviour of the Ku Klux Klan, our unfavourable feeling toward a person without actual facts and the verbal abuse that we get almost every day of our lives (if not us, then there is someone in the world being hurt right this very minute.

The most effective way which I believe this issue can start to be stopped is by alking it out rationally without involving racism at that point in time and bringing everybody together as equal as the next. Africans were brought to the colonies and forced to work a lifetime for no wages. The master took all the profits to save the small amount he used to provide food, clothing and shelter for his slaves. Without being able to read or write, the first Africans in America had no defence against the refusal of their people.

The dehumanization of the African-American slave stands out as one of the most brutal and savage torture in history. Not being able to defend yourself against the hurt that people can put person through, can scar you for life. We need to see what the world is doing to each other and instead of turning to violence or some other kind of defence to get even. It would be easier if we just come together as one and help the people who are discriminated against in understanding that they are not what persons say they are. From birth to about age twelve, children collect information about their world.

They learn from many ways including their school, family, neighbours, friends, and the community. They also get information from books, movies, television, and other media. From this information they gain beliefs, attitudes, and opinions. (An opinion is a belief that is stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge. ) Attitudes are feelings and emotions held toward a person, idea, or things. Attitude, opinions and the way we treat people are based on our beliefs. If beliefs are prejudiced, then our attitude and behaviour will be the same.

Racism is a belief based on faulty reasoning, misconceptions, and generalizations. Stereotyping is an exaggerated belief associated with a group. It is produced by name calling, racial slurs, and jokes. Victims of prejudice often develop a faulty belief in the same way children learn to be prejudiced. They learn to protect themselves by creating self defences essential to their survival. A slur directed at a particular ethnic group is likely to get these results in a confrontation: pain, anger, shame, hostility, guilt and embarrassment. Students admitted that they had used racial slurs when angered.

I have noticed in our own school, that the students tell racial jokes and used ethnic names but they say that they dont mean what they say its just for humours sake. Race hatred often leads to violence. People whom form groups to efend America from a minority takeover fall into the category of extremists. There are gangs in America today who walk the streets measuring out a perverse form of justice to a whole race by choosing an innocent person of such race to beat or kill. Such gangs are usually powerless as people, so they seek strength in numbers.

People with shared hatred gain a pseudo power within the organizational structures of such groups as the neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. Race hatred, permitted to gain unlimited power, will be disastrous. The state – sponsored genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany is an example f what happens when people who hate gain power. Hitlers extermination took the lives of six million human beings for no other reason than they were Jewish. It started in little ways, an ethnic joke, stereotyping that was never challenged, then restrictions, loss of jobs, loss of civil rights, loss of voting rights, and the loss of life.

Racists have very specific beliefs about their own groups and others. Columnist Ellen Futterman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch says, We are guilty of race prejudice. We might go out of our way to avoid certain words and phrases in our everyday speech only to find ourselves laughing t a racial or ethnic joke later. Even though we may say that we could never be racist or prejudice against a certain type of person, (Im not saying we are), it is interesting how someone can just say something hurtful and not even realize what has been said.

What can be done to stop racism? A famous document from the Johnson era, called the Kerner Report, stated that there must be strategies for action that can produce progress and make good the promises of American democracy to all citizens urban and rural, white and black, Spanish surname, American Indians and every minority. We cant expect only the eople of colour to take a stand in the elimination of racism. This issue includes each and every one of us whether it is black, white, orange, yellow, Australian, Russian, Ukrainian, or Irish.

If you have been called names that are directed to your colour, race, the way you talk, act, or walk, you have experienced racism. (Based on the lives of human rights leaders, there is no single way to take a stand. Each person has to decide whether to take a leadership role or to follow a leader, whose beliefs or goals he or she shares. Taking a stand against racism and discrimination is not casual nvolvement. It is a total commitment). Racism is an emotionally charged subject. If you have ever been discriminated against, you know it is difficult to think or act calmly.

The first reaction is to attack. But it is only fair when taking a stand against racism or discrimination that you state your case directly, fairly, and accurately, using facts, and evidence to support your claims. Before you can take a stand against racism and race discrimination, you need to know what it is, how it develops, and how to recognize it in you and others. According to Alfred Fleishman, St. Louis newspaper columnist, Racial prejudice is one of the scourges of our society.

And when it grows and lurks, especially where it is not even noticed, the danger is even greater. Up to the point of life which we are in now, we dont even realize what we say, the jokes we tell or the music we listen to. Some think of some major issues as a joke but really there is always someone being hurt whether they show it or not. Today we stand for equality, justice and freedom. Where Canada and America stand on racism and discrimination today and tomorrow is where we stand because we are what is needed to stop the hate.

Racism – The Future

People see it everyday across America. A group of whites burn down a black church, someone gets hurt or murdered from a racial slur, or fights break out at school or in public. These are the extremes of racism. Racism is definitely not a good thing, its a power that has taken over through the last two years. In doing research on Racism, I hope that my feelings towards blacks would improve and they have. What will the future bring for Racism? What are the main problems of racism? Can we get a hold on racism throughout America or will we self-destruct in our own hate?

Racism is everywhere, as much as today tries to hide it or say that we resolved it forty-to-fifty years ago. Racism is still all over the place. Racism first showed it teeth in America, when the segregation of blacks and whites came along. The segregation shut down all activities or actions from whites and blacks. It absolutely separated whites and blacks from being close to each other in public and blacks having no rights. Then the movement took place when Rosa Parks wouldnt give up her seat to a white man on a bus. At the time she was tired of the treatment her and fellow African-Americans were getting.

She said she was tired and on this fateful day she bgan the turning wheels of the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights Movement took place and gave blacks their future as they have now. It gave them the freedom that they deserved and needed. They were given the ability to vote; not having to be separated in such insane ways against whites, as they were. Positive helpers in the role of blacks rights were Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. King had a dream that little black boys and girls would be able to join hands with little white boys and girls.

His dream came true. On April 4th 1968, King was leaving his motel room. When he was shot and killed (Schulke). 2 Everybody knows what racism is, but there are so many other factors that tie in with racism. If someone is a racist they are of course, prejudice. Prejudice is when someone doesnt like someone for the way they look. A big problem with racism is many live in racist conditions and dont even see it. It flies right over their heads. Schools, the workplace, our community, our friends house, even our homes. We hear a racial slur, oh well, it’s just a joke. Hardly.

If you think racist joke are harmless than you should take a reality check. Racist jokes are just the start of it. Many people think the jokes are funny. Maybe they are, but they still hurt the people the jokes are about. Some of the worst racists are the ones who think that they are not racist, and they really are. They really have to come to grips with reality. Why are they some the worst racists? They are, because they can’t comprehend what is happening. They don’t realize what they are saying and doing are racist. Until they come to grips with it, there is no problem.

No problem, in their minds. They say that they aren’t racist, even when they don’t hire the East Indian employee who was the most qualified of the candidates. Even when the basketball team that they coach is all white. And even the time when they moved from their seat at the movie theater because of the black person next to them. Well, gee, they could have been a criminal. A robber from “the hood. ” After all, isn’t that what most of “them” are. No one deserves to be prejudged like that. The prejudice of people in the world is disgusting.

The worst part of it all is that they don’t even know that they are doing it. They think it’s normal behavior, it doesnt even phase them when they do it. Born of the civil rights movement three decades ago, affirmative action calls for minorities and women to be given special consideration in employment, education and contracting decisions. In its modern form, affirmative action can call for an admissions officer faced with two similarly qualified applicants to choose the minority over the white, or for a manager to recruit and hire a qualified woman for a job instead of a man.

Affirmative action decisions are generally not supposed to be based on quotas, nor are they supposed to give any preference to unqualified candidates (Froomkin). And they are not supposed to harm anyone hrough “reverse discrimination. ” 3 Then there are those who are completely unaware of racism in the world. They walk down the streets, through the stores and working at their job, completely oblivious. They’re so blind! Why can’t they see what is happening around them? Have they really lived such sheltered lives? Or do they just not want to believe it is happening?

If you take someone and put them in the heart of a racist area, they still won’t notice the problems. They will see it with their own eyes, but it won’t register in their mind. If these people don’t open their eyes, they will never see what is happening. What is going to happen to the world if people don’t start realizing what is happening? Will we be plunged into a time where racial tension is everywhere? Will we soon start having racial wars? Will racial violence be a normal every day occurrence? I don’t know. No one could know.

Unless we start taking action and helping people come to grips with the way they are, we can’t combat racism. Today we are living in a load of social issues that we have to deal with and racism is one of them. For some reason many people cant figure out, is why are many standards being lowered? The government has given blacks many ways to get in and out of college and its not fair for the average white person. Throughout history blacks havent always been the smartest people. They have consistently under performed in IQ (Emeagwali).

A black athlete then doesnt have to be as smart as the average white athlete to get into college. Blacks blame their faults and disappointments against society and the whole race in which they live in. They say that since they grew up in a poor family, they cant do good or excel, but anyone can do good or excel if they put their mind to it. This is not a one sided situation though. Whites can be the same way. Many whites grow up in poor families, and they cant use excuses either. Some whites live in a trailer so they say that they cant succeed in anything.

I have friends that act this way. There isnt but one 4 true pure science that blacks have furthered in. Phillip Emeagwali programmed the worlds fastest computer in 1992, due to his exceptional mathematics. Superiority is a big part of racism. Blacks think that they are superior to whites, and whites think they are superior to blacks. Thats one of the main reasons racism is very bad across America. Blacks think they are a better race and whites think they are the better race. Therefore, we fight and create violence to justify who is the greater race. Gangs can be associated with this view.

In the sense that every gang thinks that they cant be stopped. And if someone wears the wrong colors on the wrong street or neighborhood they are going to get hurt or killed. That follows the same scenario, if a white man walks in a black community, its generally unsafe in the inner cities or slums. Or if a black man walks in the presence of one or several KKK members, it would be unsafe for the black person. The scenario could go many different ways, but the reality is, that it doesnt matter who you are or what color you are, its unsafe to be who you are.

Hate in America is getting worse and worse everyday. Every hate crime that happens has to do with race or being prejudice. No less than one month ago, two teenage boys committed the worst school shooting this country has seen, killing 13 helpless teenagers and 1 courageous teacher. These two boys made it clear, that they hated blacks, Christians, athletes and foreign people (ODonnell). They killed a black for his color and a Christian for saying that she believed in God. They went on a rampage and tore up thousands of people lives on one Tuesday morning.

All because they didnt like types of people. Everyone is different, thats the way that God made us. He didnt intend for us to do this to each other though. History has had their share of hate crimes, dating back to the start of the Klu Klux Klan (KKK), a group of whites that hate and terrorize blacks. They wear all white, ghost looking outfits. And in their earlier years were known to ride on horses and kill blacks for no reason, just hate. The KKK was more of a southern cult, then became known worldwide, and are still located in the southern parts of the country.

The KKK committed hate crimes such as burning down of black churches, and putting crosses to fire. Not to mention torturing blacks and creating brutal 5 deaths such as the death seen last June in Jasper, Texas. A 49 year old black man by the name of James Bryd Jr. was dragged by the back of a pickup truck (Boven). Police got the call of a dead body and the mans torso was found first, right arm second. The brutal death started by two young men picking up Bryd, he hopped in the back of the truck and one of the men became enraged that he picked up a black man.

They then drove to a clearing and beat Bryd severely. Then he was chained to the truck and dragged, to his death. The two men who had many white-supremacist tattoos were charged with a capital crime offense (Boven). The Texas born Dennis Rodman paid for the funeral for his stand against racism. The future, when you hear that word you start to think about advancing our technology and furthering science. You think of exploring new boundaries and seeing new places. A better world, but a worse world is what I see.

The technology may improve as we go into the next century, but what about the children of today that are responsible for the future? Right now, we are only hurting ourselves with racism and hate. We have taken many steps in controlling this disease, but like most diseases, they spread. Where there is a problem, there is a solution. The only solution that seems to be found is to stop the hate. Plain and simple. If only that feeling of walking in public and being looked at the wrong way could end. Its not even safe to be a Christian anymore, and thats when you know somethings wrong. Prejudice is human nature.

It will never be stopped. The government can control it with specific penalties for hate crimes, but surely cant end it. It seems that people would respect someones life enough not to take it. Everyone is different; therefore, we have to live with it. We dont have to associate with that certain someone if they are black or white, but we just have to respect them, and where they come from. God put us on this Earth to love one another and to be kind to your brother. To hate someone is just like an insult to God. So remember, next time youre in public, just be kind and generous. Thats the start to the answer.

The Understanding Of Prejudice

The understanding of prejudice can lead to us removing of racism and discrimination in our country. Stereotyping, or forming a set of characteristics thought to be common to all members of a certain group, leads to prejudice influencing the observer to be part of a group rather than an individual. Traits that go against the stereotype that could bring an end to prejudices, are ignored. The diversity movement claims that its goal is to halt racism and build acceptance of differences.

But, someone cannot teach students that their identity is determined by skin color and expect them to become colorblind. Someone cannot be exposed to multiculturalism and expect students to see each other as individual human beings. Someone cannot teach the need for self-esteem while destroying the staff that makes it possible. Basically, the diversity movement is a complete contradiction of itself, because after all is said and done, were back to where we started.

Prejudice, Racism and Education

Racism has been a steady problem all through time. One of the most troublesome areas of racism is in places of education. Finding a cure for this would be a major step towards ending racism in general. No one has ever thought of a solution yet, and racism will be strong as long as there isn’t one. It all started back when the colonists traded certain goods for slaves. They had never seen a black person before and thought of them as lower human beings because they did all of the colonists’ work for them. Since blacks were so low, they were never given a good education.

This lack of education continued throughout the centuries. Even in the 1700’s slaves were never taught how to read or write. In the 1800’s everyone’s feelings about slavery, good or bad, culminated in one big war, the American Civil War. During this period, the slaves really tried to break free from their past stereotypes. A small percentage of them taught themselves to read and write and they began to teach others. Some blacks even fought in the Civil War. The most educated were selected and several black units were formed.

Once the North had defeated the South in the war, the slaves were freed from bondage, however, that did not mean hat they would be free from the terrible prejudice that still permeated the country. Schools sprang up in all black areas but were not given the public funding that they needed and deserved. They were usually only one room and very dirty. They were given the oldest and most worn out books and equipment that were available. There weren’t even many teachers who were qualified and were willing to teach at an all black school.

Even though education was instituted for African Americans, which was a step in the right direction, it was a very small step and still didn’t give blacks the education they deserved. This treatment prevailed for many years after the Civil War. A new concept, segregation , evolved and was predominant from the late 1800’s through the first half of the 1900’s. Whites assumed that they were better than black people and didn’t want to be around them in anything they did. For example, in buses, whites were given privileged seating in front; but blacks had to sit in the back.

Moreover, if there were not enough front seats whites could preempt blacks from their back seats. There were separate restrooms, drinking fountains, stores and, of course, schools. Segregation remained the same for many years until one day in 1955 a black woman named Rosa Parks sat down in the front of a bus where all of the white people were sitting. When she was told to move to the back of the bus, she refused to budge. This action set off an uproar among blacks who questioned their rights for the first time. In the 1960’s, the governor of Alabama, George Wallace, was a militant supporter of segregation.

In 1963 two blacks, Vivian Jones and James Hood, sought admission to the traditionally segregated University of Alabama. According to legislation at the time, they had every right to go there; but ince the governor was so anti-black and pro segregation, he didn’t like it one bit. As the two black students prepared to enter the college, George Wallace stood in the doorway, blocking their way addressing the need for segregation. He refused to move, so the national guard was called in to restore order and admit Jones and Hood to the University of Alabama.

This was an important moment in black history because it marked the first time a black person had been admitted into an all white college. Although laws pertaining to civil rights were enacted that ended segregation, hatred and racism still continued; and it appears to be even tronger now than it ever has been. Today there is no legal segregation in colleges but a recent study revealed that most southern colleges remain segregated. In this day and age, there are many diverse ethnic groups and cultural backgrounds that populate the same colleges. With this great amount of people, there is naturally much tension between the many groups.

From this tension arises the hate groups on college campuses. Whether they are against whites, blacks or any other groups, they cause many problems in the steady flow of education. Although everyone has the freedom of speech, even if the majority isagrees with it, they do not have the freedom to do whatever they want to fellow human beings. These hate groups become uncontrollable when they assault or desecrate things that other races value. In October 1995, two black students from Rowan College in New Jersey were beaten on the college campus by a couple of white football players.

The fight occurred at the Study Hall pub when racial slurs were used against the black students. When the black students asked them to quit with the verbal assault, the football players drug them out to the football field and began to beat them until someone saw it happening. It was stopped immediately and the football players were escorted away. The two students suffered minor injuries and have recovered. The football players were kicked off the team and may even be suspended from the college if charges are filed. This is just one example of the racial prejudice in colleges, even in a small college of 9,000 students.

In a larger school the problems are understandably magnified. At Rutgers University in February, the school was racked with controversy. The president of Rutgers, Francis L. Lawrence, was caught saying that black students do worse on the SAT tests because they are enetically inferior to other students, particularly white ones. This incident spurred a protest on the floor of a basketball game between Rutgers and UMass at half-time. Soon hundreds of classmates streamed onto the court, forcing the suspension of the game. The one black woman, who started it, is now known as the Rosa Parks of Rutgers.

Lawrence was not reprimanded for his comments but this shows that even the leaders of schools are not free of prejudice. But, most of the time it does not matter how large the school is, just how many students are involved in the riots. Probably one of the biggest school iots in history was at the University of Massachusetts on October 27, 1986. The World Series had just ended, where the New York Mets beat the Boston Red Sox. Hundreds of students, many of them drunk, came pouring out of their dorms. White Red Sox fans began taunting and shoving black Mets fans.

After a while, a huge mob of 3,000 whites were running all over the campus, chasing and beating anyone they saw who was black. Luckily, only ten of the black students were severely injured, but that was ten too many. Black students now are facing the same oppression in schools as there was many years ago. Groups such as the Nazi skinheads make it very difficult for blacks to get a good education because they are constantly worried about being verbally or even physically assaulted. This, however, could be part of the problem says Shelby Steele, a black professor of English at San Jose State University.

He says that because of black feelings of inferiority, people have exaggerated the level of racism on some campuses and that blacks should try to move on with their lives rather than be pulled down to a lower level of petty fighting. “Instead of demonstrating for a black ‘theme house,’ black students ight be better off spending their time reading and studying. ” This kind of hatred is not peculiar to the colleges alone. Many teenagers who are either in the hate groups or have a lack of faith in equality are made this way through their high schools.

Many high schools are either all black or all white and influence the way that teens think. The all black schools even resemble the schools of old. They have minimal funding and substandard equipment. They are always in the worst neighborhoods and are filled with drugs and violence. In all white high schools, on the other hand, students are not ccustomed to being around blacks. This might be one of the reasons that blacks and whites do not mix well in colleges. In 1994, a principal from an Alabama high school opposed interracial couples’ attending his school’s prom.

The students and parents protested, saying that the kids had the right to take whoever they wanted to prom. Although he was fired as principal, his ideas have left their mark, that students should stay away from other races. He probably isn’t the only principal or authority figure that thinks this way. When students learn this behavior from high school and heir parents they take it on to college with them. When these diverse backgrounds get mixed together in college, many confrontations occur. The movie Higher Learning is a great example of the way many college campuses are today.

There are many groups of students going to the same school, ranging from whites to blacks to Asians and different religions such as Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc. Of course, there are even hate groups. In the movie, a group of neo-nazis do not want to have anything to do with the blacks or Jews who go to that college. Usually the blacks tend to stay away from he group so as not to be a part of a fight but one can only take so much. There are numerous beatings and verbal assaults against the blacks; and, when they try to fight back the police always take for granted who started the fighting, and arrest the black “troublemakers”.

By the end of the movie, there is a peace march on the campus and the nazis don’t like it. The group persuades one of the members to go to the top of a large building with a gun and open fire on the peace marchers. He does and a black woman ends up getting shot. Her boyfriend runs to the top of the building and proceeds to beat the nazi. The cops find them both, drag the black man off and start to beat him as if he just picked a fight for no reason! As the cops approach the white student, he becomes frightened and sticks the gun in his mouth. He says if they come any closer he will shoot himself.

The movie ends with him actually shooting himself, which goes to show the confusion that most of these people have. Most of them probably don’t even know why they hate, they just know that is what they were brought up to think so it must be right. Obviously that is not the case. Even though this movie was fiction, the type of college campus it portrays is not. These kind of things are happening everywhere, and most of them aren’t even publicized. When one goes to college one would expect to go there to learn but that is not always the case, as often seen on the news.

Although there is widespread violence in college, it does not go unpunished. Many of these beatings and riots that are going on in recent times are broken up by the police before anyone seriously gets hurt. The people who partook in the crimes are usually apprehended and punished for their actions. Some people would say that the offenders are not punished well enough, because here has not been a decline in violence as of late. The court system has done little in improving the life on college campuses. A lot of the cases brought up are simply forgotten about because of “more important matters.

It is just a mere excuse on their behalf to support these kind of racist actions. “University administrators at many campuses prefer to ignore racial incidents or keep them out of the news. ” This kind of thinking is increasing the gap between races and putting more fuel on the fire of racism. This is not always the case, as seen in the Rowan College, Rutgers and UMass events. But, even when they show some action toward ending racism through fair decisions, there is a limit to what they can do. According to the first amendment, the hate groups that are formed do have a right to march, protest and show what they believe in.

There is no law against having a nazi flag or being a skinhead, but there are laws to prevent slander and violence. That is where the human nature of peacemaking comes in to play. Nearly every human wishes deep in their heart for peace on earth, with the exception of those who take part in the hateful actions mentioned before. Past peacemakers such as Martin Luther King Jr. ave struggled and even given their lives for the cause of peace; and because of this, blacks have a lot more rights and a higher acceptance in society than they did 30 or 40 years ago.

But they still do not have the full respect they deserve as fellow human beings, so more work is needed. Although nothing can be done about existing hate groups existence, there is hope for the next generation of people to be a lot more open-minded. The only way for that hope to be realized is if all the people of the nation, and even the world, band together and stop racism before it starts. By educating young children and bringing them up to know the difference between reality and ignorance. Programs are already in place in most schools that are not bias against other races or genders.

If there is a school that is predominantly black or Spanish, courses are set up to meet the needs of the children. Spanish and Spanish History are taught to Spanish children and black culture and history are taught to black children. “Even in colleges, many students are encouraged to take a course in ethnic studies or cultural diversity which are often taught by newly hired minority faculty members. If these children are taught the correct values that should have been taught a long time ago, then they can grow up to be leaders of a new, equal nation that gives everyone an even chance at life and free from hatred.

In the meantime, the laws should be increased against any kind of hate crime, especially in schools. To many of these offenses are slipping through the cracks of the court system without any kind of punishment whatsoever. No form of racial abuse should be tolerated in the slightest and if offenders knew this, then maybe it would mark the beginning of the end of racial injustice. Today’s current status is, sadly to say, very much unchanged from the eighties and early nineties when a lot of the bad incidents occurred. There is still much to be done and hopefully much to look forward to.

I, for one, would like to see an end to all of this violence and hatred that is ripping the country apart. If everyone could put aside their differences and look at their similarities they have with other people, then this world would be a better place. I think it is really unfortunate what is going on with today’s schools. School is supposed to be a place where people are educated and aught so that they would not be ignorant to all areas of learning, not a place where ignorance thrives and real education is only handed out to those who have white skin, or those who are fortunate enough to afford a good college.

No one should have to put up with any form of abuse, especially when they are trying to learn and make something of themselves so that they can have an equal chance for success in the future. Perhaps if everyone would have a positive outlook on this problem in the future, there will be an end to all of the violence and hatred in our nation’s schools and everywhere else that this pestilence exists.

Psychology of Racism

“If you’re White you’re alright, if you’re brown, stick around, if you’re Black, stay back. ” You may not have ever heard that old saying, but many believe the feeling behind it is still as popular as the rhyme was generations ago; positive character traits are associated with light skin, while negative attributes and problems are connected to darker skin color. Many people believe that African Americans receive a great amount of discrimination from Caucasian Americans. Although this is true, there is a growing problem within the African-American community itself.

That problem is lighter-colored vs. rker-colored. There is a mind-set that light is closest to white so it must be right. I was one of the many African Americans who have been led astray to think that black-on-black racism was OK. For many now it is the media. The media play such a big role in differentiating between the darker-skinned people and the lighter-skinned people. I was watching a TV show one day and the show was about being against your own race. There was an African- American lady on the show and she was just going on and on about how ugly darker-skinned people were and how she is so blessed to be light-skinned.

It sickened me to see a grown lady talking about this black-on-black racism. However, I could not blame her. Later she explained that when she was younger, her mother would tell her to stay away from the darker kids because they would mess up her reputation. She was led astray, just as other African Americans often are. The European standard of beauty — keen features, light skin, and straight hair — continues to dominate popular music videos, television shows and movies. On TV and in magazines, you seldom see a dark-skinned black person. Our culture is still being led to believe that having lighter skin somehow makes you a better person.

Black people with lighter skin get treated better; I believe this discrepancy stems from the days of slavery. This segregation of shades within the same race is a serious problem. Racism has always been an issue for the black community. In the past, some black social clubs and societies only allowed those who had light skin. Today, black children having white G. I. Joes and Barbie dolls with blond hair and blue eyes reinforce racism. It is also strengthened by the absence of dark- skinned black people on TV and in magazines. What happened to “Black is Beautiful”?

The black race is made up of many shades, so how can anyone say ne is better than another? Many people complain about seeing primarily light-skinned black women in music videos. Almost all people I asked say the same answer: “It is messed up, but what can I do? ” Most were angry about how dark-skinned black women are portrayed in music videos: “When they do show dark-skinned girls, they are all greased up. ” These images of dark- and light-skinned black women affect people differently. However, it is clear that the absence of beautiful dark-skinned women and the flood of images of light-skinned women increase self-hatred and division.

The self-hatred comes in many forms; hen I was in High school, a black girl told me she only wanted to marry a white man so her children would have light skin and white features. “Ah just couldn’t see myself married to no black man. It’s too many black folks already. We ought to lighten up the race. ” – From Their Eyes Were Watching God, by Zora Neale Hurston When you begin a book with a quotation like that, you’re inviting trouble to come in, kick off its shoes and stay awhile. But that’s Marita Golden’s intention, in her article “Color Hurts”, published in the New York Times.

There are so many words to describe African-Americans’ pernicious, ersistent dirty little secret- colorism, color-conscious, color-struck, color complex. And then there are the more specific descriptive terms that separate Blacks and create castes, and cliques, and that are ultimately definitions not of color but of culturally defined beauty and ugliness and that can end up distributing everything from power, to wealth, to love. High yellow, high yalla, saffron, octoroon, quadroon, redbone, light brown, black as tar, coal, blue-veined, caf au lait, pinkie, blue-black. , Marita Golden, Don’t Play in the Sun: One Woman’s Journey Through the Color Complex.

Marita Golden founded and served as the first president of the Washington, D. C. based African American Writers Guild. She wants to ignite debate about one of the oldest, rawest issues among African-Americans. The aching honesty in the words of Zora Neale Hurston’s character, from 1937, Ms. Golden says, evokes a continuing aesthetic hierarchy among African- Americans that puts light skin at the top and dark skin at the bottom. It’s the subject of her new book, Don’t Play in the Sun: One Woman’s Journey Through the Color Complex.

For Don’t Play in the Sun, Ms. Golden interviewed black people, including a psychotherapist, a cultural istorian, a biracial writer, a TV producer and her friends and her husband. The book’s title comes from her mother’s warning that the sun would make her deep brown skin even darker and less attractive. Through the prism of her own skin, Ms. Golden explores the belief that light skin and European features remain the highest standard of beauty in most places in the world. Color, though, is not just a black thing, she says. It is not even an American thing, with versions of lighter-is-better in India, Asia, Africa and the Caribbean.

Ms. Golden considers this global obsession a legacy of colonialism. She describes her own separation as a child. Her mother, lighter skinned, disapproved of her dark coloring. She told young Marital she would need to marry someone light-skinned to have presentable children. Having read Gulden’s autobiography, Migrations of the Heart, I believe the color conflict was the basis of serious alienation between mother and daughter. Golden would grow up to reject her ‘home training,’ marrying a Nigerian and moving to Nigeria for a time. Additional salt in the wound came from golden growing up in Washington, D. C. , a ‘Chocolate City’ with an entrenched history of politically based racism.

However, racism is both personal and political. It can determine who gets opportunities in education and work. People of color who are light brown or fairer are often praised as more attractive and more intelligent, though there is no empirical basis for either belief. They are likely more apt to be hired and promoted than their darker peers. As black studies professor Henry Louis Gates has observed, color seems to determine which black women are successful as actresses and hired as models or to perform in videos.

An Alicia Keyes wins a fistful of Emmys while an India Aries goes home empty-handed. The situation is not monolithic. Dark-skinned women such as Oprah Winfrey and Whoop Goldberg do overcome the color barrier, as they do the barriers of gender and race, but they are phenomenal people. Millions of men and women of color pay the price for being the ‘wrong’ color — darker than a brown paper bag. Many think that this feeling of discrimination goes all the way back to slavery, when it was thought that those whose color was lighter than a brown paper bag had the chance of “passing” as white.

Also those who were lighter were able to work in the house instead of in the field and were usually treated with more respect there. This feeling of resentment had ontinued to infect the African-American community through generations and generations. How can we even try to fight off discrimination from Caucasians when we are having so much discrimination between ourselves? Martin Luther King Jr. urged us to learn to respect and love ourselves before we can expect others to respect us. I believe that the African-American community must learn to fight this black-on-black racism before it diminishes the dignity of further generations.

Many books on the subject say color-consciousness began long before slavery. But for Africans and their descendants, slavery was where it all began. First off, the institution of slavery itself was based on skin color. Author and lecturer Dr. Maim Amber, a clinical psychologist who pioneered the development of African-centered psychology, said in his book “Chains and Images of Psychological Slavery” that “the African’s black skin was considered as evidence for his cursed state to serve as a slave. So dark skin justified slavery, and became synonymous with other subhuman characteristics: dark skin and sub-Saharan features were considered ugly and less intelligent, while pale skin was associated with superhuman traits.

Associations based on skin color have followed us hroughout generations because while we are no longer slaves, the oppression hasn’t stopped, said Dr. Minify Harvey, associate professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Maryland. “It gets inculcated into you in a very indirect way,” Harvey said. Some of this is very unconscious so people will say, ‘oh, no, it has no effect on me,’ but some of those people are the same ones who teased others in high school about their skin tone or their hair type. ”

During slavery, Harvey said, children of slaves and slave owners who were shades lighter than others were granted certain privileges. “Those rivileges varied; some were allowed to learn how to read, others didn’t have to work in the fields,” Harvey said. “Some of them were later freed by the slave owners. ” Harvey said the stratification created a hierarchy on the plantation.

And it later created an elite group of Blacks who happened to look closer to White slave owners than Africans and who wanted to maintain their social status. Willie Lynch, a British slave owner, is notably credited for giving a speech addressing American slave owners on how to keep their slaves under control. Lynch outlined a number of differences between slaves including age, “color” or shade and gender. He predicted that the black slave would become self re-fueling and self-generating for hundreds of years.

“You must use the dark skin slaves vs. the light skin slaves and the light skin slaves vs. he dark skin slaves,” reads an excerpt from Lynch’s speech. “I think racism within the black race stems from people who are not accepting of themselves, therefore they’re not accepting of others like them,” said Conrod Kelly, 20, a junior business student from Miami. “It all goes back to the house slave versus the field slave. Animosity towards members of your own race is a characteristic passed down from one generation to another. It’s another form of self-hate. ”

“Everyone wants to look white,” junior broadcast journalism major Leslie Orji said. You can see it in music videos because there are only light skinned chicks with long hair. It makes people feel inferior and gives black people more of a complex, especially women. ” Orji, who is Nigerian, believes that placing European beauty standards on a pedestal “is a destructive habit brought on by colonization,” but believes it is more of a problem among Africans than African Americans. “Women in Africa use bleaching creams because they have to be lighter,” she said. “And if I had an Afro my mom would tell me to go traighten my hair.

I think guys and girls just don’t want Afro centric hair anymore because they don’t want to be viewed differently. ” Although Nikki Akinyeye feels that many blacks tend to prefer lighter skin and long hair, she also feels blacks are learning to accept each other’s differences. “Here in the United States, blacks discriminating against skin color is something that can be expected because of the standard of beauty that women who aren’t white are held up to,” said Akinyeye. “But I think that lately it has kind of changed because you see more and more people with natural hair styles and darker skin on television. “

Racism in school

As a child, Ray Charles attended a blind school. The teachers divided the class between the blacks and the whites, even though they could not see each other. This was done to teach the students that even though there was no difference between them, other people would relate to them based on the color of their skin. The society that existed back in Charles’ still exists today in many different aspects, ranging from racism against religions, color, and gender. Racism is a problem that plagues our nation today. People fall into categories of groups usually based upon ethnicity and race.

Sociologists study the behavior of individuals in different groups. The minority group is referred to as the group which they are being discriminated upon. The majority group is considered to be doing all the discriminating. People associate the majority as the group with the greatest number of people. The minority is associated as being the small group. A good example of how this is not correct is the pre-Civil War era. Blacks easily outnumbered the plantation owners. The majority in this case was the blacks, even though they were still discriminated upon.

The majority uses minority groups for a lot of the’dirty work’ — those jobs that are undesirable to most people, yet are necessary to keep the society going. ” (Stewart 8-11) The way a majority group relates to a minority group is affected by any of thier prejudices. As noted by Stewart, “Prejudice is the belief that you can know people because of their race or the country their ancestors were from. Sometimes prejudice causes us to believe we know what someone is like because of his or her sex or religion. Prejudice allows you to think you know somebody without knowing him or her at all! 11-12)

A persons’ prejudices against a group of people are thought of or determined by their ideas about the group. These images and ideas about the group are called stereotypes. Stewart describes a stereotype as, “… a mental picture we carry around with us to help us deal with people on a day-to-day basis. ” (13) Stereotypes dealing with minorities are usually negative. The stereotypes of the group help strengthen the majorities’ beliefs that they are superior and the minority is inferior. (Stewart 13) There are various stereotypes for various minorities.

Blacks are usually thought of as being lazy or dishonest to the majority group. To men, woman are thought of as too emotional and too weak to handle responsibilities and situations. People who have Polish ancestry are sometimes pictured as being ignorant and slow-witted. With all the stereotypes of today, it seems that there is no end to the many different ways majorities refer to and categorize minorities. (Stewart 14) Certain use of words can hurt different people. If you were talking with a group of other people and someone used a negative stereotype, that person may be offended if it applies to them or someone they know.

If a white person used the ‘N’ word to associate to African Americans, or if a man calls a woman a ‘babe. ‘ The person being offended can speak up by letting the other know they do not want to hear the language used around them. People should be very well aware that words hurt. If you know you have said something wrong, it is best to say that you are sorry right away instead of causing the person pain further on. By apologizing, it will help be more excusable. “Don’t use negative words if you don’t belong to that group. ” (Bowman-Kruhm 112)

Over the past generations, the meanings of words in some contexts have changed. By changing the way a word is pronounced, or by accompanying a gesture with it, the meaning of the word might vastly change. The word bad, for example, literally means “not-good,” however when it is pronounced slightly different as “ba-ad,” it really means “good. ” The reason for this change in language was that the slaves had created an ambiguous language that was meant to be completely misunderstood by the plantation owner, so they could somewhat speak in private. (McKissak 46)

According to McKissak, “No racial name has been more devastating or confusing to a whole race of people than nigger. ” (44) The word “nigger” has been used in context by poets, about its’ pain, and has been somewhat commonly used by comedians to laugh it out. To some people, being called a ‘nigger’ will anger them and cause them to go into a violent rage. However, to others, refering to another person as a ‘nigger’ will commonly be used as a friendly reference to a friend. The word Nigger comes from the latter niger, which really means “black. ” When Africans were captured, they were referred to as nigers.

Post-Civil War times, the word ‘nigger’ has been used to be more powerful as an insult to anger a person, like it does to many today. “White supremacists would not accept being equal to black people. ” (McKissak 44) Perhaps the most major concerns of racism is from the cause and effect of name calling and put-downs. Names or name calling are used like weapons to spark an argument against a person and put them in anger. A slur is directed towards a specific ethnic group in order to make the person feel anger, embarrassment, guilt, hostility, pain, or shame.

McKissak notes that in an interview, “Students admitted that they had used racial slurs when angered. ” Most of these students said that they had made racial jokes and used ethnic names, but they did not use them for the intent of hurting the other person. “It’s kind of the way we talk”, the students say. (McKissak 40) Racism does not only exist between ethnic groups, it also exists between differences in gender. In the past years, men and women have entered job fields from which they had long been excluded from. Men who hold jobs that are mostly populated by women, such as a nursing job or a secretarial job, may encounter some prejudices.

They may be verbally harassed by others for holding such a job. Sometimes to the extent people assume that the person is gay based on the work that they do. (McKissak 40) The past history of the economy also deals with racism. “Economic greed has been cited as the primary source of American bigotry toward people of color. ” (McKissak 16) Many fortunes were made in the slave trade business. Africans had been brought into the early American colonies, put into labor, and were given no wages. “Mexican, Native American, and Asian workers, though not formally enslaved, were also exploited for economic gain.

McKissak 16) Justification was necessary for slavery to continue in a nation that was founded on principles of freedom and justice. “Racism provided a ready answer. ” (McKissak 16) To make a persons’ prejudices clear to another person or group, they will often use acts of discrimination against them. Using discrimination will reassure the person that their prejudices are known and the person is kept at a distance. Acts of discrimination only need begin with one person. It does not matter how many people are involved in the act itself. It still only takes a single being to start. (Bowman-Kruhm 15)

In existance, racism is a problem that plagues our nation today. A majority is a group that discriminates against a minority, and it is not based upon numbers. Stereotypes are images thought of by people to describe the minority and are usually always negative. From these negative stereotypes, when used can incite anger and possibly violence among others. The stereotypical use of words among certain people have a unique history behind them and therefore should not be made fun of. Racism not only exists between different colored people, but also between different genders and ethnicities.

Farewell To Manzanar: Review

In spring of 1942, immediately after the United States entered war with Japan, the Federal government instructed a policy where hundreds of thousands of people of Japanese ancestry were evacuated into relocation camps. Many agree that the United States government was not justified with their treatment towards the Japanese during World War II. This Japanese-American experience of incarceration is believed to be unconstitutional, demonstrating racism and causing social and economic hardships for the evacuees.

The location of one of the camps in California, Manzanar, was representative of the atmosphere of racial prejudice, mistrust, and fear, that resulted in American citizens being uprooted from their homes, denied their constitutional rights, and with neither accusation, indictment, nor conviction, moved to remote relocation camps for most of the duration of the war (Daniels et al., 1986, p.148). As the Japanese people were being removed from the West Coast, it was obvious that some economic loss would occur. In a movement of this kind…it was probably inevitable that some mistakes would be made and that some people would suffer (qtd. In Daniels et al., 1986, p.163).

After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese lost a lot of money and personal property through forced, panic sales. Failure to protect the property of aliens by the Department of Justice, during their evacuation, resulted in distress and anguish for the Japanese people. The evacuees were required to signed a property form stating that no liability or responsibility shall be assumed by the Federal Reserve Bank…for any act or omission in connection with its [the propertys] disposition (qtd. In Thomas, 1946, p. 15).

This policy encouraged the liquidation of property and led many Japanese merchants and businessmen to sell their property at ridiculous prices or to place them in storage at their own expense and risk. Buyers were unwilling to pay reasonable prices for their properties because they were fully aware of the fact that a sale would have to be made, at any price, if the owner wanted to receive some kind of profit from it. Many buyers took advantage of this situation. In addition, the use of land and crops, previously owned by the Japanese in America, underwent some changes as a result of the evacuation of Japanese owners, farmers, and labor.

Evacuee farmers were in the worst bargaining position possible. Even though Japanese Americans were allowed to continue their farming activities, farming was a disadvantage of the evacuees. One reason for this was the fact that farming operations required payment for sprays, fertilizers, labor, and other farm necessities. Unfortunately, because of the evacuation, Japanese farmers did not have these resources and made it impossible to harvest crops. This led to the destruction of their crops. Landlords, creditors, and prospective purchasers were ready to take advantage of the adverse bargaining position of Japanese evacuees, even at the cost of serious loss of agricultural production (Thomas, 19046, p. 17).

This critical episode in Americas evolution brought about racism in which a minority group was being mistreated. Once the United States found itself at war with Japan, Japanese Americans were considered the enemy aliens. World War II was a race war(qtd, in Daniels et al., 1986, p. 81), and America felt it had to protect itself and keep apart these enemy aliens. The isolation and segregation of Japanese immigrants from the life of the general American community were repeatedly emphasized during World War II. Japanese and Japanese Americans were constantly being singled out on the basis of their ethnicity.

On February 19, 1942, ten weeks after the Pearl Harbor tragedy, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, authorizing the exclusion of all people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast of the United States and relocating them into concentration camps. It is revealed that not the military necessity but primarily racial prejudice provoked such unprecedentedly drastic measures, indiscriminately applied to the whole national group (Klimova). Prior to their forced evacuation, racial bias of the American white majority toward the Japanese minority aroused the feelings of distrust and fear, and led Japanese Americans to live within their own communities, before they were forcefully removed.

During the early 1900s, before World War II began, the success and achievements of the Japanese in America aroused feelings of jealousy and resentment among the Caucasian population. This resentment led to the myth of yellow peril (Klimova). According to this myth, the supreme mission of Japanese Americans was to establish ascendance over the whites by driving them first, out of business, and then, out of country (Klimova). Most Americans believed the nation had been pushed around by a slanted-eyed people to whom [it felt] racially superior (qtd. In Daniels et al., 1986, p. 80).

Ineligibility to citizenship was a constant reminder of another form of racial prejudice of the dominant group. An example of such bigotry is a statement made by a racist politician, saying once a Jap always a Jap (qtd. in Daniels et al., 1986, p. 81). In other words, this American, having similar beliefs to many other politicians during that time, believed that you cannot turn a person of Japanese ancestry into an American. According to this false belief, no matter how loyal a Japanese American may be to the United States, there is still a chance of disloyalty, due to their dual citizenship (Klimova).

Therefore Japanese Americans were not able to become, or remain, American citizens. Their ineligibility of American citizenship is another factor of the American governments injustice towards Japanese people, led by racial animosity. The imprisonment of Japanese Americans against their will in internment camps was also unconstitutional. The victims of Executive Order 9066, including all American citizens of Japanese descent, were prohibited from living, working, or traveling on the West Coast of the United States. Similarly, Japanese immigrants, pursuant to Federal law and despite long residence in the United States (Smith, 1995, p. 292), were not permitted to become American citizens. In addition, it was unconstitutional to evacuate only citizens of Japanese descent.

The confinement of the evacuees after they had been removed had no military justification. According to Ex parte Endo, the evacuation case was held that there was no authority to detain a citizen, absent evidence of a crime (Smith, 1995, p. 369). To relocate some one hundred thousand alien and American-born Japanese, to expose them to threats and violence, and to involve them beatings and murder cannot be excused or justified. Exposed to such harsh living conditions such as dirty barracks and unsanitary bathrooms, many evacuees agreed that they cant live like this.

Animals live like this (qtd. in Houston, 1973, p. 26). Over seventy thousand American citizens, without benefit of criminal charges, incrimination, or trial, without the benefit of any hearing at all, and in the guise of national security and military necessity, were forcibly uprooted from their homes and forced to endure years of imprisonment in Americas concentration camps (Daniels et al., 1886, p. 184). As a result, the unlawful confinement of Japanese Americans was unconstitutional because it clearly violated their freedom rights.

The job of the Courts to resolve doubts, not create them (qtd. in Daniels et al., 1986, p. 184). Emotionally, politically, and racially charged, the issue of the Japanese-American relocation during World War II is an event that cannot be justified. Economic discrimination and social segregation imposed by Americans caused the Japanese- American wartime tragedy. The Executive Order 9066 was not justified by military necessity, because its historical causes, which shaped its decisions, were racial prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.

Ignorance of Japanese American contributed to a policy conceived in haste and executed in an atmosphere of fear and anger at Japan (Daniels et al., 1986, p. 5). A grave injustice was done to American citizens and resident aliens of Japanese ancestry who, without individual review or any probative evidence against them (Daniels et al., 1986, p. 5), were excluded, removed, and detained by the United States. Furthermore, economic losses, racism, and unconstitutionalism were all key factors which explain the United States governments injustification towards the forced evacuation of Japanese Americans. Manzanar is symbolic of a tragic event in American history, an event that reminds us that a democratic nation must constantly guard and hinor the concept of freedom and the rights of its citizens (Daniels et al., 1986, p. 148).

Bibliography

Daniels, Roger, Sandra C. Taylor, and Harry H.L. Kitano. Japanese Americans: From Relocation to Redress. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1986.
Houston,m Jeanne Wakatsuki and James D.. Farewell to Manzanar. New York: Bantam, 1973.
Klimova, Tatiana A. Internment of Japanese Americans: Military Necessity or Racial Prejudice? 17 Oct. 1999
Smith, Page. Democracy on Trial: the Japanese American Evacuation and Relocation in World War II. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
Thomas, Dorothy Swaine. The Spoilage. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1946.

Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin: Short Summary

Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin is a Multicultural story set in the south around the late 1950’s in first person point of view about John Griffin in 1959 in the deep south of the east coast, who is a novelist that decides to get his skin temporarily darkened medically to black. What Griffin hopes to achieve is enough information about the relationships between blacks and whites to write a book about it.The overall main obstacle is society, and the racial divide in the south with the whites.

John begins his journey in New Orleans where he gets his first taste of what it is like to be black. He meets a shoeshiner named Sterling Williams who gives Griffin friendship, and the opportunity to be incorporated in the African American society. While in New Orleans, Griffin discussed race issues with other African Americans. John was harassed by some white supremacists, while with Negroes, was treated with courtesies, even by strangers. When Griffin gets news that a white jury rejected a case of a black lynching, Griffin decides to go to the heart of the deep south, Mississippi to check it out.

Even with the risk of his life, Griffin decides to take a bus to Hattiesburg into the deep south to check out the lynching case. At the bus station, Griffin acquired hate stares from many whites on the benches waiting for their buses. Griffin boarded the bus, and during the trip he conversed with a man named Christophe, and when the white passengers got off the bus during the rest stop, the bus driver prevented the Negro passengers from departing. The Negroes were about to urinate all over the bus, but they decided it would just be another thing for the whites to hold against blacks. They arrived in Hattiesburg and John took a cab to a hotel to rest.

In the hotel, Griffin tried to write a letter to his family, but there were too many things blocking his mind. Afterwards, Griffin called P.D. East, a white friend who writes in a black newspaper in Mobile and visited his family for a while. Continuing his trip to Montgomery, he covered a long distance with the help from passing white drivers (some wereperverted) who gave him rides during the night time. When Griffin was kicked off the car, he was left a far distance from everything. He reached a small convince store on the road, in which the owners would not let him in until he begged them. As he walked on, a young black male offered him a ride and a place to sleep in his house with his wife and six children. Later that evening, Griffin had a reoccurring nightmare about white men and women, with their faces of heartlessness staring at him.

As Griffin was about to leave, he tried to give money to the family for his gratitude, but they would no accept it, so he just left the money there. Griffin then hitchhiked to a small bus station and bought a ticket to Montgomery. When he got to Montgomery, he called his wife and children and then changed back to white. Griffin also witnessed a skirmish on the bus when 2 blacks would not move into 1 seat, so a white women could sit down. A large white man was about to hurt someone, but the white women told him to stop. Griffin had enough of this and changed back to white in the station restroom.

Afterwards, he called the Sepia ( A News Paper ) editors and made an appointment for a story in New Orleans with a photographer. After the story was done, he flew to Mansfield as a white man to be in an editorial conference. Then Griffin flew to Hollywood for a TV show, New York for an interview in Time magazine and many other places for stories. Griffin’s mother started to get hate calls from some of the people in town, and the Griffins got police surveillance on their house just in case.

When Griffin was kicked off the car, he was left a far distance from everything. He reached a small convince store on the road, in which the owners would not let him in until he begged them. As he walked on, a young black male offered him a ride and a place to sleep in his house with his wife and six children. Later that evening, Griffin had a reoccurring nightmare about white men and women, with their faces of heartlessness staring at him. As Griffin was about to leave, he tried to give money to the family for his gratitude, but they would no accept it, so he just left the money there.

Griffin then hitchhiked to a small bus station and bought a ticket to Montgomery. When he got to Montgomery, he called his wife and children and then changed back to white. Griffin also witnessed a skirmish on the bus when 2 blacks would not move into 1 seat, so a white women could sit down. A large white man was about to hurt someone, but the white women told him to stop. Griffin had enough of this and changed back to white in the station restroom.

Afterwards, he called the Sepia ( A News Paper ) editors and made an appointment for a story in New Orleans with a photographer. After the story was done, he flew to Mansfield as a white man to be in an editorial conference. Then Griffin flew to Hollywood for a TV show, New York for an interview in Time magazine and many other places for stories. Griffin’s mother started to get hate calls from some of the people in town, and the Griffins got police surveillance on their house just in case.

Black Like Me: Racism Is A Foolism Misunderstandin

All men are created equal… or are they? John Griffin’s “Black Like Me” shows how racism is nothing more then the foolish misunderstanding of man. White’s current superiority hangs in the balance as Blacks become tired of being the minority, in the late 1950’s. Even though this struggle isn’t as dreadful as it was then, it still exists. The certainty of racism can’t be ignored but it will soon disappear as generations mix. Racial discrepancies challenge the unity of human civilization.

John Griffin had a biting curiosity which he could no longer stand. What was life truly like, for a black man in the deep south? He sought the real answer to this by darkening his skin with extreme amounts of medication. A new skin color determines everything and John is now thrown into a new world that he was in no way prepared for. He was no longer John, an average but respected white novelist, he was a black man and that is all that mattered. Simple pleasers like a drink of water or the use of a restroom become near impossible.

John, at first was puzzled by this, but soon realized that it was not his personality, his age, but his blackness that made him a disgrace in the eyes of an average white person. If he were white, a white store owner would have not hesitated in the slightest to allow such privileges. How could these people be so blind as to not see that a black person breathes the same air, eats the same food, and has the same internal functions as themselves? This misunderstanding stares them in the face and they can’t see it. Their selfishness and fear is completely unnecessary but it remains because the whites have never been exposed to any other way of life. This is why the whites can not allow such common privileges to Mr. Griffin or any other black person. To treat a black as an equal was absolutely unheard of.

Fatigued from rejection and many actions which would be declared unconstitutional, the blacks must do something so their future generations do not suffer the same. This desire for action only stirs a greater terror within the (racist) white community. People like, Martin Luther King Jr. begin to surface. He and many others aspire to show the blacks that they are equal human beings. Its strange to think that most blacks thought a white was better just because that is what they were brought up to believe.

This new realization completely jeopardizes the supremacy of the white community. The book gives many examples of this fear/hatred such as, “The hate stare”, the tone of peoples voices, and the over all rejection. Who could have thought that a black person could have the same job opportunities and the same living standards? For those racist whites who have a pathetic pride in there incomparable skin color and fear of change is why groups like the Ku Klux Klan exist. It is comforting to know that this despicable attitude is no longer holding the majority.

Yes, certain racial beliefs were awful in the 50’s and 60’s but its not over yet, some still exist today. People who still feel they are fighting the Civil War, also believe in the segregation of the black community. Hate groups such as the KKK and Neo Nazis are around but don’t expose themselves publicly as they had in the past for obvious reasons. Today racism isn’t about little things that white people take for granted, such as drinking water or a nice place to stay for the night, its more about fair trial and equal job or education opportunities. The hard fact of our diverse country hinders most racial discrepancies. Most people anymore can no longer be called just black or just white but a mix of the two. If a person were to make a racist comment whether white or black, they will most likely be bashing their own ethnic origin. This will be even grater as generations continue. Racism won’t disappear all together but can be diminished by the brotherhood of man.

John Griffin took a chance and discovered something outrageous which he never expected. The real life for those in the deep south was concealed under a complete misunderstanding of each others feelings. Due to the unfair treatment to the blacks things begin to change. Now with changing generations and a greater diversity among people, things have changed and will continue to do so. The misconception of one race being any better then another perhaps, is the only thing that separates us from world peace.

Society in John Howard Griffin’s Black Like Me

In the Fall of 1959, John Howard Griffin set out on a journey of discovery. A discovery of his own nature, as well as a discovery of human nature. With the help of a friend, Griffin transformed his white male body into that of an African-American male body. Through a series of medical treatments, the transformation was complete. He spent the next several months as an African-American traveling through the deep South of the United States. What he discovered changed his perspective of himself, as well as his perspective of others.

On his journey, John Howard Griffin encountered what could be termed the dark side of human nature. He experienced racism in its purest form. He experienced what it was like to live in squalor with a sense of hopelessness. John Howard Griffin also experienced the antagonism of those that feared him solely because of the color of his skin. His experiences even included witnessing acts of racism with the African-American community.

(1) As a white man in White America, John Howard Griffin enjoyed certain luxuries. With those luxuries, however, is an independence of sorts. A majority of white people pass through life without much notice of other white people. What he found as an African-American was that he developed a bond with other African-Americans. The type of bond that is shared between people in the With this discovery came a certain amount of hope. A hope that the human spirit will prevail through any hardship.

Through his journey, he would step back into his true white self, and enter back into the white world. He would then observe the black world with a new sense of clarity. (3) While in the white world, he encountered white people that had a desire to change the wrongs of It would seem that white society is comprised of a great deal of felicity. That is to say, a human being will naturally be drawn towards the preservation of the self. (4) During this time period, the white man viewed the black man as a threat to the white lifestyle.

As experienced through the eyes of John Howard Griffin as a black man, the white man would have many questions as to Through Griffins experience, he learned that there is no fundamental difference in the nature of the white man as compared to the nature of the black man. There seems to be a desire to survive. The white man attempted to survive by making the black man a second citizen, which is to say lesser citizen. The black man attempted to survive by banding together as a race.

This helped the race survive through a feeling of empathy. If a human feels that he is not alone, it tends to give a more powerful sense of strength. Another interesting finding from John Howard Griffin was that white children did not necessarily share their parents racial beliefs. This offers proof that racism is not a part of human nature, but rather a by-product of the human nature of the fear of the unknown. Since the white person was unfamiliar with the black man, there was a sense of fear of the black man.

Racism is merely a defense mechanism passed down from parent to child. The white men in Black Like Me would teach their children to use racial slurs like nigger in This theory is supported by the great thinker Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes theorized that man is dictated by a psychological egoism. That basically is to say that people are selfish. They put their own needs in front of the needs of It is in this manner that the white man saved himself from the black man.

The white man saw only his own need for self-preservation. He feared the black man because of the white mans ignorance of the black man. The white man feared that the black man was different than the white man, and therefore dangerous. It is from this fear that racism springs. By keeping the black man down in society, the white man can fulfill his need to survive. This is the manner in which Hobbes views of psychological egoism are supported by John Howard Griffins experience as a black man in the John Howard Griffins experiences also helped to point out many of the known African-American stereotypes held by many white people.

One scene in particular involves Griffin hitchhiking in It was November 19, and Griffin had just arrived by bus in Biloxi. He proceeded to seek transportation to his next resting spot, Mobile, Alabama. He found that transportation by hitch-hiking with several anonymous drivers. Griffin encountered a great deal of curiosity from the people that stopped to give him transportation. Most were white males, and they all bombarded Griffin with questions. Questions ranging from the size of his genitalia to his sexual prowess.

Most of the questions dealt with the stereotypes dealing with the black males Griffin describes an almost perverse pleasure that was achieved by the white males in asking such sexual questions during these episodes; questions about his past sexual experience with white women. One such driver even asked Griffin to exit the car after Griffin refused to answer one such question. This would seem to support the theory that humans are curious, and maybe even a little frightened, of the unknown.

The constant craving for answers to apparently perverse questions showed a fear of inadequacy on the part of the white male drivers. By achieving the answers to these questions the white males were possibly hoping to allay their fear that the black man was sexually Were this to be found true, this in turn would lead to further racism. If the black male was in fact found to be sexually superior to the white male, the white male would in turn continue to keep the black male down, if Hobbes theories of psychological egoism are to be believed.

By keeping the black male down, the white male could indeed maintain their superior position in society, thereby allowing them to take care of their own Towards the end of John Howard Griffins journey, he ended up in the city of Atlanta. In Atlanta, he found a different sort of spirit among the black community. It was a spirit of social change. Griffin had arrived in Atlanta feeling that the black condition in America was one without hope. It was in Atlanta that he found a glimmer of hope within the black community. (7) While in Atlanta, John Howard Griffin met with several black community leaders. Civic leaders, men of the cloth, and various black business owners throughout the city were among his audience.

Through these conversations, Griffin discovered that Atlanta had found a way to deal with the white persons suppression of the black person. Griffin found that three main ingredients were responsible for the improved racial conditions in Atlanta. First, blacks in the community were united in their purpose. Secondly, Atlanta had at the time a fair and just mayor. And finally, the city newspaper was known for taking a stand on These findings helped Griffin to understand another facet of human nature: the survival instincts of the oppressed.

Griffin found that although the Southern African-American was African-Americans came together as a people as a The black civic leaders that John Howard Griffin had encountered in Atlanta organized the black community in such a was as to give the black people a better chance at education, health care, and employment. This in turn changed the black persons outlook on life in the city. This is what gave the black person in Atlanta hope, which is necessary for survival, which in turn is a basic During this entire event, John Howard Griffin had been keeping a journal of his experiences.

He was a reporter of sorts, and this was his story. He enlisted the help of other affluent white people from the North, as well as an internationally distributed black magazine. The trip was paid for by the magazine Sepia, and in return for the trip, Griffin was to supply the magazine with the While John Howard Griffin and Thomas Hobbes are from different eras, their concepts of basic human nature were in most cases very similar.

Hobbes theorized that man is consumed by psychological egoism, which is the need to attend to ones own needs over that of another human being. Griffin found the same line of thinking in the white man while living as a black man in the Deep South. However, Griffin also stumbled upon the resilience of the human spirit in times of duress. The black people that Griffin encountered in Atlanta were determined to improve their condition. The difference between the white people and the black people in this instance was that the black people held into account the needs of other black people.

The whites seemed only concerned with It would appear as though both thinkers share similar ideas in regards to this form of human nature. It would be interesting to determine whether race makes a difference in the outcome. That is to say, what would happen if the roles were reversed? What would happen if the black person were in a position of power and the white person If these are truly examples of human nature, one could theorize that the outcome would remain the same.

Bibliography:

(1) Black Like Me John Howard Griffin Pg. 55-59
(2) Black Like Me Pg. 116-117
(3) Black Like Me Pg. 118-121
(4)&(7) The Battle For Human Nature Barry Shwartz Pg. 41
(5) Black Like Me Pg. 85-96
(6) Black Like Me Pg. 156
(7)Black Like Me Pg. 133-139

Black Like Me & Beloved: Critical Analysis

Some people looking at society today tend to think that the racial prejudice of the past has nearly been done away with. Others, however, those who are still the recipients of racial prejudice in their every day lives see our society very differently. Those who think that racial prejudice is getting better may only be fooling themselves or–perhaps more likely– in some way are trying to deny the prejudice they themselves carry.

Prejudice against blacks is still very much a part of our society. White society still denies many Negroes equal opportunities for a decent standard of living, for education, for personal advancement, and for self-expression. In John Howard Griffins Black Like Me we see examples of this type of prejudice and oppression. Although the book was published over 30 years ago, the examples of the prejudice that Griffin encountered are still relevant and worthy of further evaluation today.

Another book worthy of our consideration is Toni Morrison’s, Beloved , which gives us an idea of the life that the slaves led in America before their emancipation, and the price some where willing to pay to make sure neither they nor their children ever had to experience it again.

In this paper I will use the theory of institutional discrimination to critically evaluate Griffin’s, Black Like Me. The theory of institutional discrimination states that discrimination is rooted in the institutions that run our society. I will also evaluate Morrison’s, Beloved using the theories of gendered racism and ideology and oppositional culture. Gendered racism is discrimination based on sex and gender. Ideologies are created by the dominant group to further and legitimatize its actions. Oppositional culture is what the people of color, or others suffering from discrimination do to survive the ideologies of the dominant group.

Griffin’s, Black Like Me takes the reader into the Deep South before the Civil Rights Movement and shows what it was like to be black in the South. In the Preface, Griffin states, “I could have been a Jew in Germany, a Mexican in a number of states, or a member of any ‘inferior’ group. Only the details would have differed. The story would be the same.”

The first example of Institutional discrimination that I will evaluate is when Griffin is at the YMCA coffee shop talking to a small group of men. The elderly man who runs the coffee shop tells him about how the white people are trying to divide the black race. They do this by singling out the lighter skinned, better looking, and more stylishly dressed Negroes, and try and instill in them a condescending attitude toward the darker “Uncle Tom” Negroes. This is a good example of institutional discrimination.

The whites are trying to make the lighter skinned Negroes think they are accepting them more, but in actuality are trying to get the lighter skinned Negroes to help further discriminate against there own racial color. We see later in the book that this has worked. There is the example of Christophe a nicely dressed black man addressing the blacks on the bus as ” punk niggers” (Pg.56) and then speaking in German and telling them how stupid they are. Institutional discrimination has put it in the mind of Christophe that he is some how better than these other blacks because he is more white in looks and learning.

Another example of institutional discrimination occurs on page 46. Griffin is walking down a street in New Orleans:
… I walked toward Brennan’s, one of New Orleans’ famed restaurants . . . I stopped to study the menu . . . realizing that a few days earlier I could have gone in an ordered anything on the menu. But now, though I was the same person with the same appetite . . . appreciation . . . and wallet, no power on earth could get me inside this place for a meal. I recalled hearing some Negro say, ‘You can live here all your life, but you’ll never get inside one of the great restaurants except as a kitchen boy.’

The above passage represents just one of many instances where he was barred from entering an establishment solely based on his pigmentation. As stated before, Negroes were not permitted to enter many restaurants, but libraries, museums, concert halls, and other culturally enhancing places were also barred to him even though by that time there was no formal law against them entering. This is institutional discrimination. These museums, concert halls, etc. are perpetuating the discrimination of blacks.

The many stereotypes of blacks being intellectually inferior made it easier to deny them access because they did not have the mental capacities to appreciate what was being inflicted on them. It became apparent to Griffin that because the black population was widely undereducated, they would never be able to successfully compete in life with whites.

One of the things inhibiting their education was the inferior quality of their “separate but equal” schools and the inability to enter cultural establishments such as libraries and museums. The whites used these culturally inflicted deficiencies to their advantage to keep the black population subordinate–thus perpetuating institutional discrimination.
There is the example of Griffin as a black hitch hiking. He encounters all kinds of stereotypes for blacks, stereotypes that are perpetuated through institutional discrimination. Griffin started getting picked up once it got dark and had this to say on page 87:

A man will reveal himself in the dark, which gives an illusion of anonymity, more than he will in the bright light. Some were shamelessly open, some shamelessly subtle. All showed morbid curiosity about the sexual life of the Negro, and all had, at base, the same stereotyped image of the Negro as an inexhaustible sex-machine with oversized genitals, and a vast store of experiences, immensely varied. They appeared to think that the Negro has done all of those “special” things they themselves have never dared to do. They carried the conversation into the depths of depravity. I note these things because it is harrowing to see decent-looking men and boys assume that because a man is black they need show him none of the reticences they would, out of respect, show the most derelict white man.

These are but a few examples of institutional discrimination Griffin encountered. Black Like Me is full of instances were Griffin is called names, threatened by men on the street, receives hate stares and is subject to questions about his “black” sex life. The details Griffen relates in Black Like Me is of hatred and racism directed toward him and others like him on account of their color of skin. The account he related showed America and the world that race relations in the South were not the pretty pictures they were often painted to be. Instead, he showed the daily struggle of the blacks to survive within the institutional discrimination that was and still is so prevalent in our society.

Beloved is another book that sheds light on a past that has led us to be where we are today in race relations. Beloved is an account of flashbacks, memories, and nightmares with a variety of different characters. That character Sethe is presented as a former slave woman who chooses to kill her baby girl rather than allowing her to be exposed to the physically, emotionally, and spiritually oppressive horrors of a life spent in slavery. Beloved is full of ideologies that the dominate white group uses to keep the blacks down. There are also examples of gendered racism and oppositional culture, as these blacks try and survive the ideologies of the whites.

Beloved gives us potent images of the gender racism perpetrated by Schoolteacher, a brutal overseer, and his nephews in their rape of the slave woman Sethe. What was stolen from Sethe was her sense of herself as a woman deserving of protection and respect from men. Sethe’s rape defiles her before both black and white men. Her husband, Halle, watching from a secret place, goes mad from impotent rage.

He’s impotent to do anything about it. This is an example of gendered racism. Sethe is raped at the hands of white men and can do nothing about it. Sethe has no way to seek compensation for what she endured; the men are her “superiors” and know that they can get away with this rape. If Sethe were a white woman this crime would not have blown over so easily. This is not to say that white indentured servants where never raped, but it is because Sethe was black that made here condition so hopeless and without remedy.

The whites had many ideologies that justified the cruel abuse that they put on black slaves. These ideologies obviously make it easier for the slave owners to mistreat their slaves. A good example of a basic ideology that the whites had can be found on page 190 of Beloved. Schoolteacher is accusing Sixo of stealing some shoat, Sixo insists that he didn’t steal it. He admits that he ate it and then gives his explanation for doing so:
Sixo plant rye to give the high piece a better chance. Sixo take and feed the soil, give you more crop. Sixo take and feed Sixo give you more work.

Clever, but Schoolteacher beat him anyway to show him that definitions belonged to the definers–not the defined.

Sixo tells him that he is just trying to improve Schoolteacher’s property. Schoolteacher has to put him in his place, telling him in a sense, “Don’t think that,” the white man will think and instruct for him. This is an ideology that is seen throughout this time, that the white man will dictate everything that the slaves do, from eating, working, sleeping, family issues and sexual issues.

Another example of the ideologies that where created by the whites is found on page 151. Here you see one way that the whites justified their actions. Sethe has just killed her baby and tried to kill her boys and Denver to keep them from the life Sethe fears at sweet home. Placing her children outside the horror of slavery, even if it meant taking their lives, was in her mind a justified act of love, nothing more. Schoolteacher has just left this disturbing scene, we then read:

All testimony to the results of a little so-called freedom imposed on people who needed every care and guidance in the world to keep them from the cannibal life they preferred.

Here the whites justify the enslaving of blacks by saying that they are incapable of handling freedom, and need to be taken care of by the white “civilized” people. This is an ideology that puts the blacks below the whites, and even below the level of a human being.

The last example of an ideology that I will site is found on page 237. This is where schoolteacher is teaching the boys. He has asked them to describe one of the slaves. One of the boys is describing Sethe. Schoolteacher tells them to put “human characteristics on the left; her animal ones on the right.” This is where the ideologies take root in society. Schoolteacher is putting it into the minds of these young white boys that the slaves are animals–or at least less than fully human. This will aid these young boys in their future abuse of blacks. These boys will grow with an ideology that they are superior to all blacks and that you can treat the blacks as animals.

In order to endure the ideologies that the whites had, the blacks would create an oppositional culture that would serve as a shield against the discrimination and abuse that they suffered at the hands of the whites.

An example of oppositional culture can be found on page 88 of Beloved. Here Baby Suggs preaches the gospel of love in the clearing: “a wide open space cut deep in the woods nobody knew for what.”:

In this here place, we flesh; flesh that weeps, laughs; flesh that dances on bare feet in grass. Love it. Love it hard. Yonder they do not love your flesh. They despise it. They don’t love your eyes; they’d just as soon pick em out. No more do they love the skin on your back. Yonder they flay it. And O my people they do not love your hands. Those they only use, tie, bind, chop off, and leave empty. Love your hands! Love them. Raise them up and kiss them. Touch others with them, pat them together, stroke them on your face ’cause they don’t love that either. You got to love it, you!

This beautiful speech given by Baby Suggs tells her people that they need to love, she gets specific using references to the whites not loving them. Her sermon does not advocate a heaven delayed until death, but the promise of a better life on earth, but that life must come from the people themselves.

Another way the blacks would deal with these white ideologies was through song. There is the song that Sethe sings that her mother sang to her about button eyes (pg. 100). There were the songs Paul D would sing that he learned on the chain gang (Pg. 49-50). Song has been a way for the black people to escape, from their oppression up to present day. Song has taken them to another place and let them tell their story.

Black Like Me and Beloved both sing of the oppression that the white people have put on the blacks. From Griffin being talked to as though he was less than human to Sethe being beaten and raped while pregnant. These graphic illustrations of how institutional discrimination and ideologies in the past have enabled and condoned the terrible treatment white society gave this people may be more crude and open than the prejudice that often exists in American society today, but the difference in outward manifestation is one of degree only–the institutional and ideological bases are still there condoning and sanctioning the unequal treatment accorded blacks in our society today. And the resulting harm to black society, children and adult is still there–often just as scarring and harmful as the earlier physical beatings, rapes, and physical separation.

Black songs still today evoke the pain and suffering that institutional discrimination, gender racism, and discriminatory ideology have left on black society in America. Those songs are a force for the black people still today–a way for them to remember and deal with their past and hope for their future. Ben Harper sings:

Exactly how much will have to burn
Before we will look to the past and learn
We walk along this endless path
Which has led us in a circle
So here we are right back
We can’t let our future become our past
If we are to change the world
Won’t you tell me
Tell me please
How many miles must we march
When I was a baby I was not prejudice
Hey how about you
This was something that I learned in school
Something they taught us to do
We can’t let our future become our past
If we are to change the world

Racism in Wright’s Black Boy

The theme of Richard Wright’s autobiography Black Boy is racism. Wright grew up in the deep South; the Jim Crow South of the early twentieth century. From an early age Richard Wright was aware of two races, the black and the white. Yet he never understood the relations between the two races. The fact that he didn’t understand but was always trying to, got him into trouble many times. When in Memphis, Wright reluctantly assumed the role society dictated for him, the role of a black boy. He became a black boy for the sole purpose of survival, to make enough money to eventually move North where he could be himself. As an innocent child Wright sees no difference between the blacks and the whites.

Yet he is aware of the existence of a difference. “My grandmother who was as “white” as any “white” person, had never looked “white” to me.” (Wright pg. 31). This statement shows his confusion about blacks and whites. When, as a child Wright learned of a white man beating a black boy he believed that the white man was allowed to beat the black child. Wright did not think that whites had the right to beat blacks because of their race.

Instead he assumed that the white man was the black boy’s father. When Wright learned that this was not true, and that the boy was beaten because of his race, he was un able to rationalize it. Even as he got older he didn’t see the color of people. In one instance Richard and a friend are standing outside a shop when some white people pass by, Richard doesn’t move to accomodate the white people because he simple didn’t notice that they were white. As a child, Wright ultimately learned to fear white people.

However, he still did not understand the social differences between the races. Wright’s uncle was killed by white people, and Wright’s aunt and another uncle were forced to flee from the whites. When Wright asks his mother about these incidents she tells him , “You keep your mouth shut or the white folks ll get you too.” As a teenager Wright learns that a friend’s brother was killed by a white man. When he hears about this killing he seems unable to do anything other than sit and think about the incident.

Subsequently Wright’s perception of the relations between blacks and whites becomes even more negative. The whites he encounters while working are resentful of him. They not only beat him, but try to force him to fight other blacks. Wright sees that the whites he encounters will do anything possible to belittle black people. Wright begins to live his entire life in fear of doing or saying the wrong thing and thereby subjecting himself to the wrath of the whites.

He realizes that even a minor mistake in action or word could lead to his death. For most of his life, Wright had dreams of leaving the South. As a young teenager he says, “I dreamed of going north and writing books, novels. The North symbolized to me all that I had not felt and seen.” (Wright pg.186 ). In Black Boy Wright admits that his goal was not to go North, but to escape the South.

Wright believed that the North was a haven from the racial prejudices and injustices that characterized the South. His ultimate and all consuming goal was to reach the North. To achieve this he betrayed his moral beliefs, doing things and succumbing to powers and beliefs that he said he never would. For the first time in his life he stole. More importantly he allowed himself to become a “good nigger” by mindlessly obeying the whites and pretending to have no identity and no intelligence of his own. He did all of this to reach the North and hopefully the life he had always wanted. There are many themes in Black Boy.

All of them are directly or indirectly the product of racism. Wright is hungry because his mother, a black woman, cannot find a job that pays well. Wright tries to rebel against the restraints society placed upon his race. He feels isolated because he questions the relations between the races and because he will not submit to the demands of a racist society.

I liked this book because it tells of the experiences that many people will never encounter. It has enlightened me. Before reading this book I could not have imagined the horrific truths of only a short while ago, in a place not so far away. Everyone could gain something from this book, for me it demonstrates that the human race was not, and is not as civilized as it appears.

Black Boy: Racist Situation

One main point of the United States Constitution was missing from the Jim Crow South: equality. The Constitution clearly states that all men are created equal, but in the Jim Crow era, blacks were continuously persecuted for something that would be acceptable today.

During slavery the South was a place of racial prejudice, discrimination, and hate. Blacks could be punished for simply looking at a white person the wrong way. Punishments included arrests, beatings, even lynchings were a common part of the age. Blacks in this time were considered second class citizens and had basically no rights what so ever.

Blacks that Richard knew, dealt with racism in different ways. One way that Richards friend Griggs dealt with racism was to learn to act how whites wanted him to. He wouldnt do anything to make white people mad. Some advice that Griggs gave to Richard was to, learn how to live in the South (217). He told him to get out of white peoples way and to not make them mad. Griggs main advice was to act like a black boy is suppose to.

Another person who had to deal with racism was the hotel maid at Richards old job at a hotel. She was walking out of the hotel with Richard and a white security guard grabbed her butt. Even though she knew exactly what happened, she just kept on walking. Richard asked her, How could you let him do that (234). She replied, It dont matter. They do that all the time (234). The hotel maid had encountered this abuse a lot so she was used to it, knowing if she spoke up she would be punished. Richard wanted to do something but she just told him, You woulda been a fool if you had done something (234). By this she meant to let whites do whatever they pleased.

Shorty, an elevator operator, dealt with racism in a different way. As he was working the elevators one day, a white man got on. In desperate need of a quarter for lunch, he asked the white man for one. The white man refused, so Shorty stopped the elevator. He wouldnt go to the mans floor until he gave him a quarter. Shorty pulled down his pants and told him he could kick him in the butt for 25 cents. The guy did and gave the money to Shorty.

Richard, who was on the elevator observing everything that had happened, said, A quarter cant pay you for what he did to you (270). Shorty just replied Yeah but my ass is tough and quarters are scarce (270). Shorty is a daring boy and he would do what ever it takes to get ahead in life.

On the other hand Richard himself coped with racism in many different ways. One racist situation that Richard encountered was when he was suppose to read his valedictorian speech at his graduation. A couple of days before Richards graduation the principle of Richards school called him in to his office. The principle gave Richard a prepared speech to read for the graduation.

Richard explained to him that he had already wrote a speech. The principle told him, Listen boy, your going to speak to both white and colored people that night. What can you alone think of saying to them (206). Angered, Richard responded, The people are coming to hear the students and I wont make a speech that youve written (206). The thought of not reading a speech that Richard wrote was terrible to Richard. He wanted to read his own speech so he could feel pride in something that he worked hard on.

Another situation that Richard had to cope with racism was when he worked in a clothing store. He saw his boss and his bosses son beat a black woman half to death. He didnt have much options but to sit there and continue doing his job. When Richard witnessed this he was outside on the sidewalk. I watched out of the corner of my eyes, but I never slackened the strokes of my chamois upon the brass (212), he described. He thought it was right to sit their and not act on anything that was happening.

After a few minutes later the lady stumbled out of the store, only to be accused of being drunk by a white police man who witnessed the whole thing. Richard walked in side and saw blood, hair and pieces of clothing on the ground. My face must have reflected my shock, for the boss slapped me reassuringly on the back (213), he thought to himself. The boss handed Richard a cigarette and he excepted. This saying that if you keep your mouth shut and act like a black boy is suppose to then nothing will happen to you and you might even get rewarded.

In one particular situation Richard was backed into a corner. It occurred when he was working for a black Yankee in an optical factory. Richard had these two co-workers, Pease and Reynolds who accused him of calling Mr. Pease, Pease. This was a battle that Richard could not win. If he confessed and said yes he did call Mr. Pease, Pease. Then he would be in a lot of trouble. If he denied it, that was even worse. That would mean that he was calling them Liars. Reynolds told Richard, You cant call a white man a liar and get away with it (225). Richard had no only one way of getting out of this mess, and it was to leave his job and go up north. He was scared for his life so he had no other choice. This tells you that back during the Jim Crow era, if you have white enemies then you are in some serious trouble.

Richards way of coping with racism was different then other peoples because Richard is more independent. Richards way of coping with racism was to act nice and respectful towards whites. On the other hand, he also thinks that he should not act like that. He thinks that whites dont deserve this kind of treatment. There is nothing he can do because if he acts like blacks are just as equal as whites, then he would probably end up dead.

If he acts like whites are much better then blacks then nothing would happen to him. This makes him burn up inside knowing that he hates whites so much and that blacks should not give whites this sort of respect. In this story, Richard shows that people all have the same feelings and are as alike on the inside as they are different on the outside. He also shows that there is no place in the world for racism.

Native Son by Wright and Their Eves Were Watching God by Hurston – Compare

This paper examines the drastic differences in literary themes and styles of Richard Wright and Zora Neale Hurston, two African–American writers from the early 1900’s. The portrayals of African-American women by each author are contrasted based on specific examples from their two most prominent novels, Native Son by Wright, and Their Eves Were Watching God by Hurston.

With the intent to explain this divergence, the autobiographies of both authors (Black Boy and Dust Tracks on a Road) are also analyzed. Particular examples from the lives of each author are cited to demonstrate the contrasting lifestyles and experiences that created these disparities, drawing parallels between the authors lives and creative endeavors.
It becomes apparent that Wright’s traumatic experiences involving females and Hurston’s identity as a strong, independent and successful Black artist contributed significantly to the ways in which they chose to depict African-American women and what goals they adhered to in reaching and touching a specific audience with the messages contained in their writing.

Out of bitterness and rage caused by centuries of oppression at the hands of the white population, there has evolved in the African-American community, a strong tradition of protest literature. Several authors have gained prominence for delivering fierce messages of racial inequality through literature that is compelling, efficacious and articulate. One of the most notable authors in this classification of literature is Richard Wright, author of several pieces including his most celebrated novel, Native Son, and his autobiography, Black Boy.

A man violently opposed to and deeply enraged by the injustice that is at the roots of the African-American struggle, Wright is also known for his harsh criticisms of any author whose work, in his opinion, downplays or completely ignores the plight faced by the African-American community. One such author, whose portrayal of the African-American woman as a heroine, thus stirring Wright’s bitterest and deepest aversion and condemnation, is African-American female, Zora Neale Hurston. Like Wright, Hurston, also his contemporary, was a prolific artist, yet in a strikingly different style, and with drastically different thematic messages, she strayed from the tradition of bitterness and rage embraced by Wright.

The study of African-American protest literature is useful in comprehending the depth of the racial plight in America. Richard Wright (1908-1960) and Zora Neale Hurston (1891-1960), two African-American authors sharing the same literary era, then, might be expected to produce similar works, if not in plot, then perhaps, and probably more likely, in theme.

Typical African-American literature of this time period, especially that of Black males, carries strong messages of the injustice of racism, oppression and inequality in all facets of society. Zora Neale Hurston, however, chose an inherently different path. In the words of Missy Dehn Kubitschek, “Their Eyes Were Watching God provides an emblem of Hurston’s withdrawal from political concerns in favor of personal relationships” (19).

This course of action has warranted the intense criticism of Black males, among the harshest of whom was Richard Wright. In a review of Their Eyes Were Watching God, Wright contends that “Miss Hurston can write; but her prose is cloaked in that facile sensuality that has dogged Negro expression.”

A major divergence of literary style is discovered when comparing both Hurston’s and Wright’s representations of female characters in their major novels, Their Eyes Were Watching God and Native Son, respectively. This deviation is almost entirely specific to the authors’ portrayal of African-American women. While a female is the central character of Hurston’s novel, Wright consistently portrays women as hindrances to the ability of the African-American male to succeed despite the constraints created by white society.

In order to discover some of the underlying origins of the very different gender roles in these two novels, a complementary comparison of the autobiographies of Wright and Hurston, Black Boy and Dust Tracks on a Road, respectively, is especially useful.

To contrast the gender-related themes employed by Wright and Hurston, and to subsequently analyze the roots of these differences, is to create a portrait of two drastically dissenting views and literary techniques. These views have contributed to the creation of two distinct bodies of literature in the African-American community. The answer to this gender question can only begin to adequately analyze the factors that caused two astoundingly talented African-American artists of the same time period to create literature that is so vehemently contradictory.

Zora Neale Hurston, in keeping with themes dealing with personal relationships and the female search for self-awareness in Their Eyes Were Watching God , has created a heroine in Janie Crawford. In fact, the female perspective is introduced immediately. “Now, women forget all those things they don’t want to remember, and remember everything they don’t want to forget. The dream is the truth. Then they act and do things accordingly” (Their Eyes 1).

On the very first page of Their Eyes Were Watching God, the contrast is made between men and women, thus initiating Janie’s search for her own dreams and foreshadowing the “female quest” theme of the rest of the novel. “Detailing her quest for self-discovery and self-definition, it [Their Eyes] celebrates her [Janie] as an artist who enriches Eatonville by communicating her understanding” (Kubitschek 22).

Janie is a Black woman who asserts herself beyond expectation, with a persistence that characterizes her search for the love that she dreamed of as a girl. She understands the societal status that her life has handed her, yet she is determined to overcome this, and she is resentful toward anyone or anything that interferes with her quest for happiness. “So de white man throw down de load and tell de nigger man tuh pick it up. He pick it up because he have to, but he don’t tote it. He hand it to his womenfolks. De nigger woman is de mule uh de world so fur as Ah can see,” opines Janie’s grandmother in an attempt to justify the marriage that she has arranged for her granddaughter (Their Eyes 14).

This excerpt establishes the existence of the inferior status of women in this society, a status which Janie must somehow overcome in order to emerge a heroine. This societal constraint does not deter Janie from attaining her dream. “She knew now that marriage did not make love. Janie’s first dream was dead, so she became a woman” (Their Eyes 24).

Janie is not afraid to defy the expectations that her grandmother has for her life, because she realizes that her grandmother’s antiquated views of women as weaklings in need of male protection even at the expense of a loving relationship, constitute limitations to her personal potential. “She hated her grandmother . . . .Nanny had taken the biggest thing God ever made, the horizon ” (Their Eyes 85-86).

Nevertheless, Janie is not afraid to follow her instincts, even when this means leaving her first husband to marry her second – without a divorce. “Janie hurried out of the front gate and turned south. Even if Joe was not there waiting for her, the change was bound to do her good” (Their Eyes 31). The gossip that spreads throughout her small town when she leaves with a younger man – after the death of her second husband leaves her a widow – does not slow her down in the least.

Finally, she finds happiness with Tea Cake, and it means so much more, because she has decided to go through with it on her own. Discovering the “two things everybody’s got to do fuh theyselves,” is Janie’s personal victory (Their Eyes 183). “They got tuh go tuh God, and they got to find out about livin’ fuh theyselves,” are the sentiments shared by Janie once her journey is over (Their Eyes 183). Embodying a theme of the novel, this discovery directly contradicts the anti – religion themes employed by Wright.

Hurston has portrayed a female character as an emergent heroine, a creator of her own destiny, and one who has mastered the journey for self-awareness. Says Mary Helen Washington in the Foreword of Their Eyes Were Watching God, “for most Black women readers discovering Their Eyes for the first time, what was most compelling was the figure of Janie Crawford – powerful, articulate, self-reliant, and radically different from any woman character they had ever before encountered in literature.” Janie Crawford is defiant; she defies men, but most importantly, she defies our own preconceived notions of what the role of an African-American woman should be in modern literature.

Richard Wright was adamant in his belief that the African-American intellectuals had a responsibility to all of America to use their talent to convey the suffering of their people to the white world, to collaborate with the white world in the fight against war.

In criticizing writers that did not adhere to his ideals, Wright virtually deemed the Black female experience as nonexistent. He attributed this largely to the lack of political themes and racial tensions in the works of many female Black authors, most notably Hurston.
In choosing to focus on topics other than the racial plight (as well as those that revolve around women), the Black female was often determined to be a traitor by the Black male, who considered her work to be in direct opposition to his own.

Initially, it seems rather ironic that two authors who are considered contemporaries, should create such drastically different pieces of literature. One might expect both Wright and Hurston to possess a need to express, not only their anger at, but also their interpretations of, the oppression that plagued them, their families and their colleagues.

This was Wright’s mission; he considered it his obligation to inform the masses, to educate them, and in doing so, the traumas of his childhood emerged in his work. In the process of conveying the horror of the racial discrimination that threatened his own manhood, Wright included the influences of women as further impediments to his development. Careful analysis of Wright’s autobiography strongly suggests that these portrayals of women paralleled the personalities of real women in his life.

It is interesting then to examine what differences in Hurston’s life urged her to create literature that celebrates the African-American female and vibrantly portrays her search for identity apart from the male community. Hurston was one of these strong women – one who survived adversity, one who survived as an artist, one who survived without defining her identity based on that of a male companion. This, she decided, was worthy of written interpretation.

Wright was decidedly unable to accept the African-American female as an individual – as a feeling, thinking and wondering person who had the ability and often the desire to exist entirely separate from his life, or that of any other male. He never observed an independent female role model and was forced to identify the only women in his life with negative forces and ill will.

Wright and Hurston existed in separate, and very different worlds, resulting in their failure to concur on what was an appropriate portrayal of the African-American woman in modern literature. Hurston’s consciousness of the female experience, especially that of the African-American, is a major factor that sets her apart from her male contemporaries, especially Wright, whose own failure to acknowledge this (due largely to his upbringing) fueled his most intense criticism.

The understanding of prejudice

The understanding of prejudice can lead to us removing of racism and discrimination in our country. Stereotyping, or forming a set of characteristics thought to be common to all members of a certain group, leads to prejudice influencing the observer to be part of a group rather than an individual. Traits that go against the stereotype that could bring an end to prejudices, are ignored. The diversity movement claims that its goal is to halt racism and build acceptance of differences.

But, someone cannot teach students that their identity is determined by skin color and expect them to become colorblind. Someone cannot be exposed to multiculturalism and expect students to see each other as individual human beings. Someone cannot teach the need for self-esteem while destroying the staff that makes it possible. Basically, the diversity movement is a complete contradiction of itself, because after all is said and done, were back to where we started.

Racism in British Immigration

The purpose of this paper is that to highlight what I see as racist, unjust and inhumane elements in Britains immigration system and the culture of secrecy surrounds it. The permanent residents (who has indefinite leave to remain), central to this discussion not the illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers. Also immigrations treatments of people coming over to Britain for a range of other reasons and with papers and visas they expect to be accepted have been highlighted.

Mainly my argument is, compared with other countries, UK is more suspicious of all people entering the country and they discriminate against people from underdeveloped countries. I have read and quoted from various books in the Immigration subject area. Mainly, Ms. Catriona J. MacKenzies dissertation Africans & UK Immigration Controls for the degree of Masters in Social Work & Social Policy, which has been submitted to the University of Glasgow in 1995 greatly helped me to construct this paper.

I also conducted a number of interviews in UK and Turkey with individuals with immigration difficulties. I also made extensive use of the Glasgow University Library. Citizenship The membership of individuals in modern democratic societies is marked by the status of citizenship. Those who belong in a given nation-state have documents certifying their membership. More importantly, citizens possess a wide range of civil, political and social rights. The reality has always been somewhat different.

Most nation-states have had groups on their territory not considered capable of belonging, and therefore either denied citizenship or alternatively forced to go through a process of cultural assimilation in order to belong. Moreover, even those with formal membership have often been denied some of the rights vital to citizenship, so that they have not fully belonged. Discrimination based on class, gender, ethnicity, race, religion and other criteria has always meant that some people could not be full citizens. Securing the participation of previously excluded groups has been seen as the key to democratisation.

Nazism and the Final Solution temporarily stigmatised racial-biological thinking after 1945. However, the New Racism that emerged in the 1970s evaded the opprobrium of biological racism and eugenics by superficially relocating difference away from phenotype and genes and on to culture. This has had dramatic effect on nature and appearance of racism in Britain. By camouflaging hereditary qualities as cultural inheritance, it became possible for mainstream politicians to inject racism back into debates about nationality and citizenship.

The New Racism has made citizenship itself the site of struggle over conceptions of the nation and national identity. In the new discourse of racism, culture was taken to define the differences between the British and non-European immigrants. Ethnicity, religion, language and customs were held to render immigrants unassimilable without it ever being necessary to mention racial types. The shifting locus of racism reflected the new realities in British society: the virtual cessation of primary immigration after 1971 on the one hand, and the consolidation of ethnic minority communities on the other.

These communities, on their own and assisted by certain race relations legislation, as well as policies of central and local government, began to assert their identities and ethnic agendas. The spear-carriers of white, ethnic nationalism found a new battlefield in multiculturalism. Cultural differences relocated the arena of conflict away from the margins of the nation and to its very core: the constitution, law, education and national religion. Citizenship, no less than national identity and nationality, has now acquired racially polarized meanings.

The current emphasis on the family as the training ground for citizenship and building a block of the nation has racial implications, too. Black family life has been systematically stigmatised and declared inadequate. The implication is that dysfunctional or incomplete black families produce bad citizens members of the underclass. Hence, citizenship again becomes divisive, racial concept rather than an inclusive, universal one. Overt linkages between nation, culture, religion and race are present in education policy too.

The 1988 Education Reform Act prescribes the teaching of British history to all pupils and places on schools an obligation to provide an act of Christian worship. Successive ministers responsible for recent education policy have depicted this as necessary for the creation of a homogeneous population of loyal citizens. Conversely, Muslim schools are characterized as a breeding ground for dual loyalty and Fifth Columns as well as an alien fundamentalism. This dangerous recasting of citizenship in the light of a changing sense of nationhood and national identity has not been ameliorated by Britains entry into Europe.

Rather, party politics have led to an accentuation of national chauvinism and the reiteration of a narrow sense of Britishness defined against a farcically demonised Europe. British governments have sought to project on to the European Union their own restrictionist immigration policies and have supported an exclusive, Eurocentric definition of European identity and membership. Sadly, it seems as if the idea of a Europe of diversity is giving way to the notion of European homogeneity behind closely guarded frontiers.

British politicians may yet succeed in making a Little Europe in the image of Little England. Britain after the World War II, like most western European countries, was faced with a chronic shortage of labour. This shortage was in some measure alleviated by the half a million or so refugees, displaced persons and POWs who were admitted to Britain between 1946-1951. Unlike most other European countries, however, Britain was in a position to turn to an alternative and comparatively uncompetitive source of labour in its colonies and ex-colonies in Asia and the Caribbean.

Colonialism had already under-developed these countries and thrown up a reserve army of labour which now waited in readiness to serve the needs of the metropolitan economy. And it is to these vast and cheap resources of labour that Britain turned in the 1950s. The periods of economic expansion led to a rise in immigration, periods of recession to a decline and this sensitiveness of supply to demand characterized the whole stop-go period of the 1950s. But if the free market economy decided the numbers of immigrants, economic growth and the colonial legacy determined the nature of the work they were put to.

It was inevitable that in a period of full employment the indigenous worker would move upwards into better paid jobs, skilled apprenticeships, training programmes etc. leaving the dirty, hard, low-paid work to immigrant labour. The jobs which coloured immigrants found themselves in were the largely unskilled and low status ones which white labour was unavailable or which white workers were unwilling to fill. And since the opportunities for such work obtained chiefly in the already overcrowded conurbations, immigrants came to occupy some of the worst housing in the country.

The situation was further exacerbated by the exorbitant rents charged by slum landlords. In the course of time the immigrants became ghetto-ized and locked into the decaying areas of the inner city. Everyone made money on the immigrant worker from the big-time capitalist to the slum landlord- from exploiting his labour, his colour, his customs, his culture. He himself has cost the country nothing. He had been paid for by the country of his origin reared and raised, as capitalist under-development had willed it, for the labour markets of Europe.

If anything, he represented a saving for Britain of all the expense involved in feeding and clothing and housing him till he had come of working age. But capital and the state were concerned with the maximisation of profit, not with the alleviation of social need. Race Relations Act: The government introduced the first piece of anti-discriminatory legislation in the form of Race Relations Act of 1965, but this was a half-hearted affair which merely forbade discrimination in places of public resort and, by default, encouraged discrimination in everything else: housing, employment etc.

The incorporation, in the Act, of a clause to penalise incitement to racial hatred turned out to be more useful in imprisoning blacks (and right-wing extremists) than in arresting the exalted nativism of the Rt. Hon. Enoch Powell, Ronald Bell Q. C. and others of their ilk and silk. The discrimination provisions of the Race Relation Act were to be implemented by the Race Relation Board and its local conciliation committees. But the concern of integration during this period related more to the Asians than to the West Indians.

The latter, it was felt, had largely been brought up to regard themselves as British, whereas Pakistanis and Indians showed almost no interest in being integrated. The Asians, with their different cultures and customs and language and dress, their extended families and sense of community, and their peculiar preference to stay with their own kind, were a society apart. But they were also a people who were industrious and responsible, anxious to educate themselves.

They may not be assimilable, but they were certainly made for integration a parallel society to be accommodated in a pluralist set-up. The Race Relations board with National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants did not succeed in even getting that integration programme off the ground. The Board was virtually non-starter, so feeble and narrow were the provisions of the 1965 Act. The National Committee discovered discrimination everywhere it went but was frustrated into educating people out of their attitudes.

Education in school and out of school, education of adults as well as children, education of newcomers as well as indigenous population, education through conferences, through committee work, through social activities, through the Press dragged on its first annual report in the tones of a forlorn manifesto. Hence in 1966 both bodies jointly commissioned the PEP (Political and Economic Planning) to investigate the extent of racial discrimination.

Its report, published a year later, produced evidence to show what everybody knew: that racial discrimination varied in extent from the massive to the substantial. The profound effects of racism were already showing in the growing militancy of the West Indian community. Increasing police harassment, particularly of West Indians, mounting discrimination in employment, housing and immigration sparked off militant struggles in the Caribbean community. The state was faced, against all its convictions, with an unassimilable black community.

The West Indians were not a part of British society after all. They even proclaimed that they had a culture and a tradition and a history of its own. They rejected British values and British culture. And worse, especially for the educationalists who had suddenly come upon the discovery that the West Indian child could not/would not speak English English: they rejected the English language itself. Once, as slaves, when they have been forced to accept the white mans language, they had corrupted it so skilfully as to make it unintelligible to the slave master.

Now they sought to blacken the language suffuse it with their own darkness and liberate it from the presence of the oppressor. And out of that assertion of themselves was springing an anti-capitalist ideology and a politics of revolution. They posed a problem from within British society they posed the problems of it. They could not be assimilated and they could not, like the Asians, be integrated. They were a canker in the body politic. The body politic itself was threatened. The need for integration and for anti-discriminatory legislation had assumed a new urgency.

The 1968 Act extended the scope of the 1965 Act to include discrimination in employment (with some exceptions), housing (with some exceptions) credit and insurance facilities and places of public resort. But the breadth of its concerns was believed by the unenforceability of its provisions. The Board would have to rely almost entirely on conciliation to obtain redress. It had no powers of enforcement but could resort to the courts, in extreme cases, to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant from further discriminatory practices.

It could order the payment of special damages and damages for the loss of opportunity. Basically the Act was not an act but an attitude. The 1968 Act also re-formed the existing organisation, the NCCI, to create the Community Relations Commission in order to complement the work of the Race Relations Board. The Commissions task as defined by the Act was to promote harmonious community relations, to co-ordinate national action to this end through its local community relations councils, to disseminate information about matters affecting minority groups and to advise the Home Secretary.

In theory, the Commission attempted to combat racial discrimination, the Board to penalise it. In practice, they were both educational and advisory and tended to overlap each other. In effect, they were to one degree or another both instruments of mediation between sections of the ruling class, between the sectional interests and the blacks and, on the national level, between the whites and blacks. In its seven years of existence the Commissions task was over. The Race Relations Bill (February 1976) sees that its work is good and that its work is done.

It has taught the white power structure to accept the blacks and it has taught the blacks to accept the white power structure. It has successfully taken politics out of the black struggle and returned it to rhetoric and nationalism on the one hand and to state on the other. It has, together with the Board, created a black bourgeoisie, especially West Indian (the Asian bourgeoisie was already in the wings), to which the state can now hand over control of black dissidents in general and black youth in particular. Britain has moved from institutional racism to domestic neo-colonialism.

In terms of the larger picture, what has been achieved in half a decade is the accommodation of West Indian militant politics within the framework of social democracy. The Asians had already settled into the cultural pluralist set-up ordained for them by the state as far back as a decade ago. The strategy of the state in relation to the Asians had been to turn cultural antagonism into cultural pluralism in relation to the West Indians, to turn political antagonism into political pluralism. But there was still the second generation. All the other blacks had been found a place within the system, but the young blacks stood outside it.

As though to confirm the dialectics of history they, the British born, carry the politics of their slave ancestry. And so it is to them that the state now turns its attention in the Race Relations Bill of February 1976. For, the anxiety of the state about the rebellious black youth stems not from the rhetoric of professional black militants, but from the fear of the mass politics that it may generate in the black under-class and in that other discriminated minority the migrant workers and perhaps in the working class as a whole particularly in a time of massive unemployment and urban decay.

The Bills intention is not just to outlaw discrimination but to carry the fight against discrimination in most areas of society. And more significantly, it means to enforce the law. The law is no longer the instrument of education, it is an instrument of compulsion. More, it will redress the balance of discrimination in some areas by discriminating in favour of the disadvantaged blacks.

And that is why the Government believes that it is vital to our well-being as a society to tap these reservoirs of resilience, initiative and vigour in the racial minority groups and not to allow them to lie unused or to be deflected into negative protest on account of arbitrary and unfair discriminatory practices. Hence the new Race Relations Commission which replaced both the Board and the Commission will have major strategic role in enforcing the law in the public interest.

However that interest is defined as the public interest or the national interest or, unashamedly, the ruling class interest- it is certainly the interest of capital. For capital requires racism not for racisms sake but for the sake of capital. Hence at a certain level of economic activity (witness the colonies) it finds it more profitable to abandon the idea of superiority of race in order to promote the idea of the superiority of capital. Racism dies in order that capital might survive.

Issue In Institutional Racism

The history of the United States is one of duality. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, our nation was founded on the principles of equality in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, long before the founders of the newly declared state met in Philadelphia to espouse the virtues of self-determination and freedom that would dubiously provide a basis for a secessionary war, those same virtues were trampled upon and swept away with little regard.

Beneath the shining beacon of freedom that signaled the formation of the United States of America was a shadow of deception and duplicity that was ssential in creating the state. The HSS 280 class lexicon defines duality as a social system that results from a worldview which accepts inherent contradictions as reasonable because this is to the believers benefit. The early years of what would become the United States was characterized by a system of duality that subjugated and exterminated peoples for the benefit of the oppressors. This pattern of duality, interwoven into our culture, has created an dangerously racialized society.

From the first moment a colonist landed on these shores, truths that were self-evident were contingent on subjective interpretation. This discretionary application of rights and freedoms is the foundation upon which our racially stratified system operates on. English colonists, Africans, and Native Americans comprised the early clash of three peoples. Essentially economic interests, and namely capitalism, provided the impetus for the relationships that developed between the English colonists, the Africans, and the Native Americans.

The colonialization of North American by the British was essentially an economic crusade. The emergence of capitalism and the rise of trade throughout the 16th century provided the British with a blueprint to xpand its economic and political sphere. The Americas provided the British with extensive natural resources, resources that the agrarian-unfriendly British isles could not supply for its growing empire. When Britons arrived in North America, the indigenous population posed an economic dilemma to the colonists.

The Native Americans were settled on the land that the British colonists needed to expand their economic capacity. To provide a justificatory framework for the expulsion of Native Americans off their land, the English colonists created a ideology that suited their current needs. The attitude of Anglos toward the Native Americans began as one of ambivalence and reliance. When the English first arrived in North America, they needed the Indians to survive the unfamiliar land and harsh weather.

Once the English became acclimated to their surroundings and realized that the Indians were living on valuable land, it was only a matter of time before guns and shackles replaced treaties and handshakes. In the name of Christianity and capitalism, the English colonists quickly turned their backs on the short lived missionary zeal that characterized the early colonial period. Now, the savage Indians were iewed as unable to save themselves and extermination would be a worthy enterprise in the sight of the Lord.

The idea that one possesses a God-given right to mistreat others runs through much of Western culture and became especially acute in North America after the emergence of capitalism. For example, in New England many settlers rejoiced at the extraordinary death brought upon the Native American population by the introduction of epidemic diseases. It was viewed as a way of thinning out the population. In the world of the New Jerusalem, where a city was to be build upon a hill, such trite concerns were of little consequence for hose with divine providence.

Duality, and its means of placing the truth and its allied freedoms in the hands of the powerful, furnishes the chosen ones with wide latitude to create theoretical arguments that justify and perpetuate systemic arrangements of inequality. John Winthrop outlined his reasoning for the British right to North American land in terms of natural rights versus civil rights. Natural rights were those that men enjoyed in a state of nature (i. e. Native Americans). When some men began to parcel land and use tilled farming, they acquired civil rights (English colonists). Inevitably, civil rights took precedence over natural rights.

This method of thinking enabled privilege to the English and provided a justification for the institutional and systemic extermination of the indigenous people (Growth 83). Before addressing the subjugation of African-Americans by the English, I think it is important that I make an important theoretical point in my argument. All political systems are rational, in the sense that there is a logic and a thinking that guides those making the rules. White supremacy and its associated beliefs (Christianity, patriarchalism, etc) rovided the rationale for the creation of a system of duality that institutionalized racism.

Robert Smith writes about the inherent contradiction of espousing the self-evident equality of men and their God-given right to liberty while at the same time sanctioning genocide and slavery (Smith 8). The only way this incongruity could be remedied was to deny the fundamental humanity of those being oppressed. That negation of one group humanity by another is the crux of duality and a principle tenet of all forms of oppression and subjugation. To objectify a group of people provides an oppressor with a recourse for he actions one takes.

In the case of the United States, subjugated groups are often reduced to a stereotype that is not based in fact: Native Americans were wild savages; Africans were lascivious, lewd beings that engaged in bestiality with apes; Asians were sneaky, mysterious and not to be trusted. What is important is the stereotype fit an institutional definition that allows the group to be oppressed without self-reflection about ones perverse actions. Professor Turner mentioned in class the Sarte quote, To be a stone, you must make all around you stone.

And to act as a savage, one must make those around neself savages. To address the enslavement of Africans, it becomes necessary to once again look at the economics that fueled the decision to bring slavery to the United States. In capitalism, a driving force is to minimize costs and, as a result, maximize profits. The labor intensive tobacco and cotton fields presented the need for a low cost labor supply. Impelled by white supremacy, the English began to move away from the system of indentured servitude that characterized the early years of colonialization and towards slavery.

By definition slavery must be sanctioned by the society in which it xists and such approval is most easily expressed in written norms and laws. From the moment Africans set foot in North America, they faced a system that perpetuated and encouraged their enslavement. Throughout the 17th century, laws and regulations regarding slaves were becoming more explicit in their dehumanization. All questions of whether these men and women would be seen as such were erased with a number of legislations that sough to erase any ambiguities.

By 1705 the only real question remaining was what type of property the slave was to his captor.. Ringer writes by 1705, Virginia had rationalized, odified, and judicially affirmed it exclusion of blacks from any basic concept of human rights under the law (Ringer 67). Intrinsic to the subjugation of Africans was an ideology that reduced Africans to lesser beings. Reasoning behind this idea has gone from Christian beliefs to scientific evidence to current day beliefs in African-American laziness (an idea whose roots are as old as white supremacy) and the use of IQ tests as measures of innate intelligence.

What has stayed constant is a manipulation of the truth and a myopic self-interest by those parties with an interest in keeping privilege. White supremacy and it dualistic vision of society became institutionalized in colonial North America, emanating from the base and structure of society. The Civil War Amendments to the Constitution were no more than words on paper, with short lived legislative muscle. From the vision of Forty Acres and a Mule, the newly freed African-Americans moved on to sharecropping, lynchings, and segregation. The mid to late 19th century witnessed the beginning of Chinese migration to the United States.

Immediately, they were met by various laws and ordinances designed to restrict their economic, political, and social advancement. This was combined with racial commentaries that echoed those levied against Native Americans and Africans. The Chinese were heathen, morally inferior, savage, and childlike. The Chinese were also viewed as lustful and sensual. Often Chinese immigrants were depicted in cartoons with devil-like features and devious expressions. Economics also played an important role in the discrimination Chinese faced in the United States.

Chinese exclusion, a policy initiated in 1882, banned U. S. entry to Chinese laborers. After the U. S. acquisition of California in 1848, there arose a need for cheap labor, and Chinese locked there to work on the railroads. By 1867 they numbered 50,000; their number increased after the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, which permitted Chinese immigration but not naturalization. Anti-Asian prejudice and the competition with American workers led to anti-Chinese riots in San Francisco in 1877, then to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which banned Chinese immigration for 10 years.

Once again inherent contradictions were seen as reasonable because it was to the believers benefit. A scarcity of employment opportunities combines with prejudices to create a atmosphere of hatred and political blame irected toward the Chinese immigrants (The Heathen Chinese 230-240). Another case of dualistic application of justice towards the Asian-American community is the case of Japanese-American internment during the Second World War. In 1942, Lt. Gen. John L. De Witt rationalized the deportation of Japanese nationals and Japanese-Americans with A Jap is a Jap.

When second-generation Japanese-Americans in the nations ten concentration camps were drafted for the war effort for cannon fodder, outraged Japanese-Americans formed the Fair Play Committee to protest the conscription of those who were ot guaranteed the least bit of civil rights. In reply, the US government jailed those who refused to serve, questioning their loyalty and admonishing them for not embracing the opportunity to discharge the duties of citizenship. Perverse logic such as this often guides racist policies and the institutions they uphold in a dualistic society (Okihiro 118-20).

Latino Americans have faced similar obstacles other disadvantaged groups have endured within the United States system of duality. A prime example was the relations between the United States government and the island of Puerto Rico. When the Puerto Rican people joined the United States in its war against Spain, they were promised the blessings of the liberal institutions of our government. What they received was the Foraker Act, which made the island the first legally defined unicoroporated territory without any promise of statehood or protection of the Constitution.

Since the Northwest Ordinance of 1790, all previous conquered lands had been treated as colonist extensions of the United States, with the promise of eventual statehood. But for commercial and industrial interests, the island of Puerto Rico was enied this right of self-governance. Combine those interests with good old fashioned racism and you have a pretty damn punitive system. Beliefs such as that Puerto Ricans were inherently incapable of government for the people and by the people provided justification for an authoritarian system.

The inability to engage in effective self-government was based on theories of racial purity and proximity to the equator (Puerto Rico 947-1001). A contemporary issue that illustrates the relationship between individual attitudes about race and the consequences of institutional acism is the debate over affirmative action in admissions to institutes of higher education. The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was the last definitive statement the Supreme Court has made on affirmative action in an educational setting.

It allowed race to be a factor in admissions to universities and colleges but forbid the use of quotas. In response to those that argued that the Constitution should be color-blind, Thurogood Marshall wrote in the Bakke decision, that for several hundred years Negroes have been discriminated against not as individual, but rather solely because of the color of their skins. While interpretation is widespread and diverse on what that decision actually meant, it has generally been interpreted as accepting the prevalence of institutional racism.

Justice Blackmun stated in his opinion that to overcome racism it may be necessary to take into account race, not in order to subjugate a race but for the purpose of ending subjugation (Smith 158). So the question I would like to address is the furor over so-called reverse racism brought on by affirmative actions programs. A conservative argument against these programs states that any program that addresses race is racist in nature. But the basic equation Professor Turner outlined in dealing with racism was: Power + Privilege + Prejudice = Racism.

Preconditions for racism include the ability to define the requirements of participation and the power to subordinate a certain disadvantaged group. In this academic framework, it is absurd to consider affirmative actions that seek to increase participation of African-American and other disadvantaged minorities in education racist because of the nature of the power and of the privilege relationships involved in these policies. Unfortunately, the individual view of racism, defined in arrow personal terms, has come to dominate the public debate.

No longer are politicians and the courts willing to address the institutional basis of racism. This brings me to the final point of the paper: Should public policy be color blind in a race conscious society? In The Truly Disadvantaged, William Julius Wilson brought to the forefront the crisis of the underclass. Robert Smith critiques Wilson for his lack of recognition of racism as a factor in perpetuating an underclass. Placing the blame for poverty and the underclass on economic causes, Wilson supports universal policy initiatives.

But this does not address the fact that African-American poverty is more severe than white poverty. And most importantly it does not address the structure of racism and, consequently, of poverty. Institutional racism is a problem that lies at the heart of the African-American underclass. In the American Dilemma , Gunner Myrdal defined the cumulative nature of discrimination, where discrimination in one area can result in discrimination in another and then another, creating what is commonly called the vicious cycle (Smith 160). Specific programs are needed to try to break this cycle.

A recent Cornell Review article, addressing affirmative action in the California school system, stated that African-American students were admitted to the universities with an average SAT score of 300 points below what the average white, accepted student achieved. While this article attacked affirmative action policies as unfair to white applicants, I think as a society we need to address the question of why there is a 300 point gap between the two groups. In Myrdals framework, it makes perfect sense to attack a link in the cycle, by providing an educational opportunity that will pay dividends in the long run.

In a 1965 speech to Howard University, Lyndon Johnson provided this argument for affirmative action programs to address institutional racism: We seek not just freedom but opportunity – not just legal equity but human ability – not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and as a result (Smith 160). Institutional racism is embedded in our society and will be most difficult to extricate because it involves a forfeiture of privilege. But the stakes are high and the consequences of inaction seem to be severe. Freedom is only the first step towards the establishment of true equality.

Racism… it’s Lingering

What would you do if the Constitution said you were just as good as everyone else but some people still acted as if you were something they had just scraped off their shoe? This sort of thing happens to millions of people on a regular basis. Americans of African, Asian, or Mexican descent are all subject to this kind of treatment. Caucasians are as well, but it is not as publicly notarized as the aforementioned. Most of these feelings towards another of a different skin color are deeply rooted in our minds from previous generations. Many, many years ago, African-Americans were used as slaves.

The slave owners treated them badly. The owners own children then grew up with the same ideals and passed them on to the new generation. Through the years, people have spoke out about these ill-conceived ideas making the ominous threat of racism more discreet than ever before. While in a search online, I discovered a numbered list of Klu Klux Klan, Aryan, Skinhead, and many other white supremacist groups. I was shocked when I saw how many this one list had. It listed over 800 different groups. I know that number is not nearly accurate because there are many smaller groups that have not yet made themselves known publicly.

Even people that do not belong in these racially biased groups perform some acts of racism. Racial profiling- the discriminatory practice by police of treating blackness (or brown-ness) as an indication of possible criminality. “Driving While Black (or brown)” is a campaign started by the American Civil Liberties Union because a study showed that minorities only make up 16% of all drivers, yet they are 74% of all drivers stopped and searched. Generally, only 12 to 13 percent of the U. S. citizens are African American, although Black inmates make up 40. percent of death row’s population.

As of 1996, there have been 232 citizens executed under the death penalty since 1977. Only one white person has been put to death for the murder of a black person. One perfect example of true racial profiling and discrimination is this next story. Danny Glover, a famous African-American actor, was in New York City. It was late at night and he was trying to hail a cab. None of the cabs would stop and pick him up because of the fact that he was an African-American male. Stereotypical views like those of the cabbys are not rare.

When a black person does not wear baggy jeans or say slang phrases such as, “Yo homie, sup”, people would often describe that particular person as being too “white”. Similarly, if a white person plays basketball or listens to rap music, we might think of him or her as being too “black”. All because of the stereotypical views implanted by the media and our ancestors in our brains. Movies, music, and yes, even Looney Tunes, all put these ideas in our heads. Movies with the constant violence committed by minorities against whites are ridiculous.

As aforementioned, Looney Tunes also bring these ideals into the heart of our youth. You wake up early on a Saturday morning to watch you favorite cartoon. When it comes on you gasp in horror as a Hillbilly tickles one of the “Natives” until he backs off a cliff, plummeting hundreds of feet to his death. Have you ever noticed how all of the Chinese characters have slanted eyes, buckteeth, and were accompanied by a ringing gong in the background? I have. Then theres little Sambo, he was one of the few African-American characters on Looney Tunes.

Racism – The Future

People see it everyday across America. A group of whites burn down a black church, someone gets hurt or murdered from a racial slur, or fights break out at school or in public. These are the extremes of racism. Racism is definitely not a good thing, its a power that has taken over through the last two years. In doing research on Racism, I hope that my feelings towards blacks would improve and they have. What will the future bring for Racism? What are the main problems of racism? Can we get a hold on racism throughout America or will we self-destruct in our own hate?

Racism is everywhere, as much as today tries to hide it or say that we resolved it forty-to-fifty years ago. Racism is still all over the place. Racism first showed it teeth in America, when the segregation of blacks and whites came along. The segregation shut down all activities or actions from whites and blacks. It absolutely separated whites and blacks from being close to each other in public and blacks having no rights. Then the movement took place when Rosa Parks wouldnt give up her seat to a white man on a bus. At the time she was tired of the treatment her and fellow African-Americans were getting.

She said she was tired and on this fateful day she bgan the turning wheels of the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights Movement took place and gave blacks their future as they have now. It gave them the freedom that they deserved and needed. They were given the ability to vote; not having to be separated in such insane ways against whites, as they were. Positive helpers in the role of blacks rights were Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. King had a dream that little black boys and girls would be able to join hands with little white boys and girls.

His dream came true. On April 4th 1968, King was leaving his motel room. When he was shot and killed (Schulke). 2 Everybody knows what racism is, but there are so many other factors that tie in with racism. If someone is a racist they are of course, prejudice. Prejudice is when someone doesnt like someone for the way they look. A big problem with racism is many live in racist conditions and dont even see it. It flies right over their heads. Schools, the workplace, our community, our friends house, even our homes. We hear a racial slur, oh well, it’s just a joke.

Hardly. If you think racist joke are harmless than you should take a reality check. Racist jokes are just the start of it. Many people think the jokes are funny. Maybe they are, but they still hurt the people the jokes are about. Some of the worst racists are the ones who think that they are not racist, and they really are. They really have to come to grips with reality. Why are they some the worst racists? They are, because they can’t comprehend what is happening. They don’t realize what they are saying and doing are racist. Until they come to grips with it, there is no problem.

No problem, in their minds. They say that they aren’t racist, even when they don’t hire the East Indian employee who was the most qualified of the candidates. Even when the basketball team that they coach is all white. And even the time when they moved from their seat at the movie theater because of the black person next to them. Well, gee, they could have been a criminal. A robber from “the hood. ” After all, isn’t that what most of “them” are. No one deserves to be prejudged like that. The prejudice of people in the world is disgusting.

The worst part of it all is that they don’t even know that they are doing it. They think it’s normal behavior, it doesnt even phase them when they do it. Born of the civil rights movement three decades ago, affirmative action calls for minorities and women to be given special consideration in employment, education and contracting decisions. In its modern form, affirmative action can call for an admissions officer faced with two similarly qualified applicants to choose the minority over the white, or for a manager to recruit and hire a qualified woman for a job instead of a man.

Affirmative action decisions are generally not supposed to be based on quotas, nor are they supposed to give any preference to unqualified candidates (Froomkin). And they are not supposed to harm anyone through “reverse discrimination. ” 3 Then there are those who are completely unaware of racism in the world. They walk down the streets, through the stores and working at their job, completely oblivious. They’re so blind! Why can’t they see what is happening around them? Have they really lived such sheltered lives? Or do they just not want to believe it is happening?

If you take someone and put them in the heart of a racist area, they still won’t notice the problems. They will see it with their own eyes, but it won’t register in their mind. If these people don’t open their eyes, they will never see what is happening. What is going to happen to the world if people don’t start realizing what is happening? Will we be plunged into a time where racial tension is everywhere? Will we soon start having racial wars? Will racial violence be a normal every day occurrence? I don’t know. No one could know.

Unless we start taking action and helping people come to grips with the way they are, we can’t combat racism. Today we are living in a load of social issues that we have to deal with and racism is one of them. For some reason many people cant figure out, is why are many standards being lowered? The government has given blacks many ways to get in and out of college and its not fair for the average white person. Throughout history blacks havent always been the smartest people. They have consistently under performed in IQ (Emeagwali).

A black athlete then doesnt have to be as smart as the average white athlete to get into college. Blacks blame their faults and disappointments against society and the whole race in which they live in. They say that since they grew up in a poor family, they cant do good or excel, but anyone can do good or excel if they put their mind to it. This is not a one sided situation though. Whites can be the same way. Many whites grow up in poor families, and they cant use excuses either. Some whites live in a trailer so they say that they cant succeed in anything. I have friends that act this way.

How Racism Has Been Shaped by Evolutionary Ideas

Racism has been perpetuated falsely by evolutionary ideas throughout history. Since the beginning of intelligent life mankind has discriminated against others of it’s own species. The “in group” mentality may be a genetic psychological trait. However, evolutionary theory has been used to justify unfair treatment of certain groups. Literature and other forms of influence have used evolutionary ideas to perpetuate racism. The ideas of Charles Darwin and other respected evolutionists have been misconstrued to serve the racist hate of many leaders, writers and clergy.

Given that species evolved over time. Darwin strove to deduce a means by which descent with modification might occur. He cleverly named his mechanism natural selection, because it was familiar to anyone acquainted with the breeding of domestic stock, dogs or horses, for this was the insight that showed Darwin how the whole mechanism of evolution might operate. Although nothing was known of modern genetics, DNA, or chromosomes, it was apparent to most that offspring often inherited the characteristics, physical and mental, of their parents.

Darwin’s most convincing proof of his theory, to many readers, was the evidence of breeding practices that were put into use every day, with important consequences. In summary, Darwin claimed that as some horses are selected by their owners for breeding because they are faster runners, and some cows for their higher yield of milk, so too do the different variations in physique or ability among a wild species sometimes enhance or damage the reproductive success of particular individuals.

It was a commonplace in Darwin’s day that any good horseman looks for the best stallion to breed to his prize mare, hoping that their offspring will enjoy the best qualities of each. Advertisements for the services of particular stallions appeared regularly in newspapers in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries, In fact, the benefit of selective breeding was so irrefutable, that English mares had been segregated from stallions except for planned breedings since the 1100s (Shipman, Pg. 21).

Darwin could see that his natural selection would fuel the process of adaptation to differing habitats by differential survival and reproduction-this group living in a more arid area than that one, or the one population coping with denser vegetation than the other. Adaptations would, of course, be manifested physically, in longer or shorter limbs, thicker of thinner fur, more pointed of blunter beaks, and so on, each set of traits typifying a different group according to it’s ecological niche. If this were so, then the process of evolution occurred over vast amounts of time.

If this were so, there ought to be intermediates, traditional forms, species caught in the act of evolving from one thing to another. Where was this ” infinitude of interconnecting links”? Darwin mulled over this stumbling block for a long time. Eventually he came to believe that most of these transitional species of populations would have been exterminated, because the linking populations would be by definition less well adapted than their adaptive neighbors, whose superior numbers and more suitable adaptations would overwhelm the intermediates, It was to be expected that the links would be missing, Darwin concluded contentedly.

Once the intermediates or links were destroyed, what was left formed a diverse array of separate species, all sufficiently similar to be grouped into a single genus and each beautifully adapted to its habitat, Time and natural selection are the only two prerequisites. Darwin never imagined that his idea would influence so many racist ideas. It was simply meant to explain how so many organisms came to be. He simply had a theory that hereditary modification was possible.

However, the future held that several people would use his theory to perpetuate their hatred for others. People would use evolutionary theory to ease the guilt of enslavement and murder. Darwin did not intend this to happen. Perhaps, it was inevitable. In fact, Darwin stated that there is no living less evolved species. He wrote that any intermediaries would become extinct due to the better-adapted species winning resources. Therefore, only the best-adapted species have survived and currently inhabit the earth. The first of several examples is the African.

Imported as slaves, treated as property to be bought and sold, denied citizenship rights, and considered less than human for much of American history, most African Americans have not been able to enjoy the benefits that come with living in the United States. The legacy of two hundred years of slavery, thirty years of post Civil War oppression, and another century of systematic discrimination in housing, employment, education, and virtually every social sphere persists. Even as many of the old forms of discrimination have been dismantled since the 1960s, discrimination remains a part of the African American experience.

Being black poses a problem in a white world. Blacks are perceived as an opposite color than whites. Skin color is, in the biological sense, a minor genetic trait, but in the sociological sense it is anything but minor. Identifiability makes people easy targets of discrimination; Most members of white ethnic groups look like the dominant population. Black people cannot shed their color. However, assimilation has occurred since the Africans were pressed into slavery, resulting in generations of individuals with various degrees of dark skin pigmentation.

Negative beliefs about African Americans in the early days of slavery had portrayed them as “uncivilized heathens”, “bestial”, “sexually aggressive”, and as suffering ” the curse of god” who made them black (Jordon 81-90). Slavery was considered a positive good because it protected Africans from their “savage instincts”. The following is an excerpt from a speech given by John C. Calhoun given to the U. S. Senate in 1837: “I hold it [slavery] to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition.

I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually. ” During this period the “Black Sambo” stereotype evolved, which portrayed the African as childlike, helpless, shuffling, and fumbling, yet aggressive (Jordon, 83). Even after slavery was abolished, Africans were thought of as inferior because they had not excelled financially like their white ethnic counterparts.

Treatment of African Americans has historically been based on the belief that black people are biologically inferior and should be segregated. Consider this quote by Henry Fairfield Osborne, a prominent American anthropologist and director of The American Museum of Natural History written circa 1926: “The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the body characters, such as teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but the instincts, the intelligence.

The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo Sapiens. ” Between the world wars, from 1914-1941, evolutionary theory and results on intelligence tests were interpreted to confirm as scientific fact the inferiority of Africans. During this time a test that supposedly measured intelligence was gaining popularity. The test was known as the Stanford-Binet test. It was believed that high scores were correlated with intelligence, success, and morality while low scores with criminality and pauperism.

The testing of all children, military personnel and Africans became strongly urged. The idea was that the tests would place each individual in tasks and responsibilities that were commensurate with their ability (Shipman, 128). However, these tests were culturally biased toward literate, English speaking whites. This reinforced the prevailing belief that segregation was necessary to keep blacks from diluting the superior white biological stock. Evolution was used by some to oppress in the name of the survival of the fittest. The strongest survive.

Therefore any group that has an advantage over another has the right to oppress or exterminate the weaker group. This removes the weak genes from the gene pool, making the species stronger as a whole. As far as these racist evolutionists are concerned, it is perfectly acceptable for whites to dominate blacks, Ariens to dominate Jews, Serbs to dominate Albanians ETC. One of the most ironic happenings in the story of racism is that Adolph Hitler’s extermination of one million Jews aided American repulsion of racism. The genocide of Jews in Nazi Germany may have been perpetuated by evolutionary theory as well.

Friedrich Nietzsche adapted Darwin’s ideas and promoted a “superman” or “super-race” philosophy. He took the idea of natural selection further, suggesting that warfare, eugenics, and the merciless extinction of inferior races was appropriate. Another German of influence was the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). Haeckel is known for his “Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny” (the embryo re-traces evolution) contribution to the field of evolution, a theory which is now discredited but still lingers on. Haeckel became one of Germany’s major ideologists for racism, nationalism, and imperialism.

The ideas of racial supremacy and the survival of the fittest race reached its zenith with the National Socialist party of Nazi Germany. The legacy of Haeckel and Nietzsche turned many German scientists into racist evolutionists. Adolph Hitler himself was an evolutionist. His book “Mein Kampf” (My Struggle) has a strong theme of the necessity of struggle, a struggle between the races. Hitler likened Jews to parasites. Which if left alone would kill its host, The Nordic race. Throughout Mein Kampf Adolph Hitler uses evolutionary theory to perpetuate hatred for Jews.

In volume 1, Chapter 6 of Mein Kampf he writes about the superiority of the Aryan race. Hitler portrays races as a hierarchy, encouraging that no Aryan capitulate with a lesser race. The consequence would be offspring inferior to that of the Aryan but still superior to the race of the lesser parent. Such mating is contrary to nature’s intentions of higher breeding of all life. Others in Nazi Germany were evolutionists as well. The notorious head of the Gestapo, Heinrich Himmler stated that the law of nature must take its course in the survival of the fittest. This statement was surely influenced by the writings of Philosopher Herbert Spencer.

A school of thought led by Spencer, an influential contemporary of Darwin’s, held that some people were naturally superior to others, and that the perfection of the species required that the inferior ones bite the dust, leaving the future of humanity to their betters. This theory merged conveniently with aspects of nineteenth-century capitalism to justify economic policies sacrificing social welfare in favor of rampant capitalism and the rich getting richer. Traces of that thinking persist in one form or another to this day. To Spencer, Evolution was not only a theory of species, but also one that applied every aspect of reality.

Spencer argued that everything went through a progressive development. Everything from the solar system to animal species and human society were the end result of evolutionary progress. Human products, such as art, science, industry, and language, also evolved, going from the lower, homogeneous stages to ever increasing differentiation. Simplicity and uniformity give way to heterogeneity and “individuation. ” This was an inevitable and good process that functioned best when left largely undisturbed, Spencer believed, so he advocated an extreme form of laissez-faire government.

Some might suffer along the way-indeed, it was inevitable that they would suffer-but the outcome was for the greater social good, the overall improvement of mankind and society. It was a view of life reminiscent of the Protestant perspective of previous generations. Worldly success had been accepted as evidence of goodness or divine approval. Now that a scientific rather than a religious standard was to be met, worldly success was obviously an indicator of Darwinian fitness and genetic superiority. The poor and the working classes, which lived in poverty and misery, suffered because they were made of inferior genetics.

Their struggles were simply the manifestation of nature’s plan, of natural selection, and to interfere was to doom the society, the race, or even the species as a whole. Society and the economy would be led by those most fit to lead, those who had been selected over long generations of superior performance, and it was absurd to contemplate any rapid of profound changes. The ideal meshed neatly with the long-standing practice of judging a new acquaintance by inquiring after his or her family; if you knew someone’s “people,” it was believed, you knew what tendencies and personality traits that individual was likely to have inherited.

Of course Spencer’s ideas certainly must have evolved from those of Malthus and the mathematical certainties of overpopulation followed by mass death, If the unfit, lower classes persisted in breeding, they would reap the inevitable consequences of their imprudence. He actually believed that the poor probably deserved to starve, but allowed that a minimum of charity so benefited the character of the donors that it would probably do no lasting harm. (Shipman, PG. 108)

Prior to the genocide of German Jews and the enslavement of African Americans, American Indians were being discriminated against under the assumption that they were less evolved wild animals. Many Europeans disregarded them as animals without souls. Thus, making it acceptable to displace, enslave, and even kill them. If they were animals, why should they be treated any different than oxen? European whites believed that it was the will of god that their superior race, made in god’s image, should seize and occupy the land in America.

The scientific attack on the Indian as inferior and expendable, which thrived from 1830 to 1850, gave many Americans the authoritative backing they needed for long assumed beliefs (Horsman 190). Frontiersmen were as pleased to accept the scientific condemnation of the American Indians as slave owners were to accept scientific attacks on the blacks. The dominant scientific position by the 1840s was that the American Indians were doomed because of innate inferiority, that they were succumbing to a superior race, and that this was for the good of America and the world.

The extermination of American Indians was viewed as acceptable because it followed the widespread intellectual view that the replacement of an inferior race by a superior one was fulfillment of the laws of science and nature. Consider this story about Indigenous Americans and the voyage of The Beagle. The history of Jemmy Button and his compatriots Fuegia Basket, York Minster, and Boat Memory exemplifies the nineteenth-century Englishman’s view of the humanness (of lack thereof) of different races.

Jemmy Button and the others were members of the Yahgan or the Alacaluf, two hunting and gathering tribes that eked precarious livings out of the marine coast of Tierra del Fuego, the southernmost tip of South America. Encountered on a voyage of the Beagle previous to Darwin’s, these four Indians were removed from their families and homes and transported to England by Captain FitzRoy. FitzRoy had initially seized the two adult men, York Minster and Boat Memory, as hostages after numerous episodes of thievery and assault.

Fuegia Basket, About nine Years old, had been apparently abandoned by her parents, and Jemmy Button, a youth, came aboard voluntarily out of curiosity. FitzRoy soon decided to take them back to England as curiosities, a course of action unthinkable if they were sentient humans like himself. FitzRoy’s hope was that, once these Indians spoke English and had seen the wonders of the civilized world, their return to their native environment might spark a lively and profitable trade, His high handed kidnapping was neither unique nor shocking. One of the four Indians died of smallpox and the others learned only rudimentary English.

Three years after their departure, Jemmy, Fuegia, and York returned to Tierra del Fuego on the Beagle with Darwin; Richard Matthews accompanied them. Horrified by the savagery of the people, among whom he found himself, he feared for his life and begged to be taken aboard again. His perception of danger probably right, Some twenty years later, in November of 1859, Jemmy and several hundred Yahgans brutally massacred a group of English missionaries during a hymn service. The assault followed months of classic, cross-cultural misunderstandings and conflicts, The event was half a world away in terms of behavior.

When the tale of this dreadful carnage in South America reached the ears of a shocked and Victorian England, the moral was clear. Darwin might say that humans had evolved, but here was proof positive that such primitive creatures as Jemmy were barely human at all. (Shipman, PG. 25) Racism is a deep-rooted evil. For centuries racial inferiority has been professed by scientists, Written into law by politicians, and worst of all, race inferiority has been taught in schools. Racism has been taught in public schools as well as at the university level.

It was professed by Yale Professor, William Graham Sumner, that people were biologically, and more important morally unequal. Natural selection must be left to take its course, he maintained, and he felt a deep animosity for the social meddlers who were always trying to help the unfit. Poverty was simply the natural result of innate inferiority and a lack of thrift, industry, honesty, and sobriety. To alleviate it was to encourage bad behavior, to foster the spread of undesirable traits in the population, and to burden unfairly those who had succeeded through hard work.

The only justifiable role for government was to defend the property of men and the honor of women. Natural selection might be harsh, Sumner believed, but it was just, He once quipped that the only alternative to survival of the fittest was survival of the unfit(Shipman 110). Evolution, like any other scientific theory, is simply an attempt to explain observed natural phenomena. People who do use the Theory of Evolution to support their own political agendas are simply trying to add a stamp of authority to their offensive prejudices. Basically, racists will latch onto anything if it appears to support their views.

You find racist Christians using the Bible to “prove” that blacks are inferior to whites (e. g. God cursed the children of Ham and turned their skin black, therefore all blacks are cursed by God), or trying to use evolution to scientifically “prove” the same thing (e. g. God created the white “race” in His image, but blacks evolved from monkeys). Their ideas cannot stand up on their own, so they must try to find some well-known respectable ideas that appear to back them up. There is not really such a thing as “race”. We are all members of one species.

The genetic differences between, Nelson Mandela, Louis Farrakhan and Bill Clinton are insignificant. Go back up your family tree a few dozen generations and you are probably related to most people in your town. Back a few hundred and you’re related to most people in your country. Back a few thousand and you are a cousin of everyone on your continent. Goback far enough and it’s easy to see that every human on the planet is related. Blacks, whites, browns, yellows and reds did not all evolve separately. We are all descended from common ancestors. Keep going.

Back several thousand more generations and you’re related to all the mammals on the planet, from rats to whales. Back more and you are a cousin of all vertebrates. The theory of evolution tells us how things work, not how we should treat each other. People who try to use religion or science to discriminate against others do so simply because, on their own, their beliefs can not stand up to any scrutiny. Accepting the theory of evolution does not mean that you have to start killing people of a different color, homosexuals, the physically or mentally disabled or people who disagree with your beliefs.

Accepting the theory of evolution is simply a case of understanding the world as it really is. The theory of evolution should encourage people to have more respect for each other. Someone is not inferior to you because they have a different skin color or slightly different facial characteristics. You are directly, if distantly, related to them. All this stuff that people come out with, like “Well, I’m not a racist, but it’s a known fact that blacks have smaller brains. ” is simply nonsense. It’s a fact that blacks have darker skin than whites.

Racism & Hate Crimes in America

Blacks were introduced to American soil during the 17th and 18th centuries via the triangular trade route, and were welcomed by whips, chains, shackles, and all the horrors of slavery. Slavery was legitimized by our government and continued for a few hundred years, taking a civil war and sixteen presidents before it was abolished. To this day, there is still much hatred between blacks and whites despite emancipation, desegregation, and integration; some would argue that the condition of African Americans in the United States is still one of a subservient nature.

Federal law defines a hate crime as whenever a victim is attacked on the basis of his or her race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender; hate offenses are directed against members of a particular group simply because of their membership in that group (Levin 4). Last year, a black man was brutally murdered in east Texas by three young white males. There are over a hundred homicides committed every year, but the manner in which this life was taken and the apparent motive of his perpetrators leaves no doubt that this crime was one rooted in hate.

In this brutal murder, the motivation is obvious and clear-cut, the bigotry so blatant that it virtually hits you in the face. James Byrd Jr. ‘s death is America’s shame: another man tortured for no reason- other than the color of his skin. This essay will use the Byrd murder to explore the cause and effects of hate crimes, and attempt to draw meaning from it so that a tragedy like this will not happen again. In the early morning of June 7, 1998, a black man was walking down a road in Jasper, Texas. James Byrd Jr. had just left a niece’s bridal shower at his parents’ house, and was trying to hitch a ride home.

Three men drove by and the owner of the vehicle, Shawn Berry, offered Byrd a lift in the back of the pickup. Byrd, handicapped in one leg, didn’t hesitate to accept the apparently kind gesture; little did he suspect his fate that was to follow. Angered, one of the passengers by the name of John King grabbed the wheel and drove to a dark deserted road outside of town. What happened thereafter undoubtedly has to be one of the most gruesome and horrifying crimes this country has seen since the day’s slavery was legal.

King and the final member of the trio, Lawrence Brewer, got out of the truck and began beating and kicking Byrd until he was nearly unconscious. Afterward, they chained him by his ankles to the back of the truck and dragged him so violently down the winding asphalt road, tearing off his head and right arm from his body. Police found Byrd’s dentures torn from his mouth, lying a few hundred yards down the road from the rest of his body. Blood smeared a trail over a mile long. Research strongly suggests that hate crimes reported to the police have certain characteristics that distinguish them from other types of offenses.

First, hate crimes tend to be excessively brutal; the hatred in such crimes is expressed when force is exercised beyond what is necessary to subdue victims or make them comply. Classifying the murder of James Byrd as brutal is definitely an understatement. A second characteristic of hate crimes is that they are often senseless or irrational crimes perpetrated at random on strangers. Finding a random black man walking down the road late at night and dragging him to death is not a common circumstance.

Another characteristic of hate crimes is that they are usually perpetrated by multiple offenders; it is a group crime frequently carried out by young perpetrators operating together for the purpose of attacking the members of another group (Levin 16). The murder of James Byrd Jr. satisfies these characteristics, and unmistakably qualifies as a hate crime. Byrd’s hometown of Jasper is a racially mixed town of 8,000 people located in a rural section of Texas; a Southern town with built in biases, but not racist.

Despite of the nature of Byrd’s murder, you cannot stereotype a community because of the actions of a few. According to the Mayor of Jasper, there had been no unusual racial problems in the town in the past (Cropper A16). The kind of racial problems we had here were the kinds of things where you wouldn’t get the promotion or the right jobs, said Byrd’s sister Mary Verrett. In all the time I grew up, there was never any outright bigotry, and none of us were afraid to walk the street. In fact, you could say we were pretty happy.

Many people seemed to believe the crime did not reflect a deeper problem. On the other hand, Gary Bledsoe, president of the state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said that the eastern part of Texas surrounding Jasper has been considered a problem area and a hotbed of Klan activity for years. Jasper lies 55 miles north of the town of Vidor, where a Klan group in 1993 tried to prevent the integration of an all-white housing development, threatening the first black residents as teen-agers dressed in sheets confronted black newcomers (Cropper A16).

Certainly, the racist environment that Byrd’s perpetrators were forced to grow up in contributed greatly to their bigoted ideology. Reporters say Byrd’s perpetrators were three troubled men riding and drinking on a Saturday night. John William King, 23, was the trio’s unofficial leader, a foul-mouthed convicted burglar whose prison nickname was Possum. Shawn Allen Berry, also 23, was King’s former high school classmate and partner in crime. Lawrence Russell Brewer, 31, had served seven years on a cocaine conviction, released on condition he be treated for an undisclosed mental illness.

All three had tattoos or personal items with the special markings of a white supremacist (Pressley A1). For all of his personal problems- alcoholism, petty thievery, an inability to hold a job- James Byrd was well liked and had never been involved in any kind of racial incident. What then set the three Jasper men off and led them to commit a crime so violently atrocious? It may have been a case of unfortunate circumstances, too much to drink, nothing to do, influence of Klan propaganda, a lone black man on a dark street giving shape to all the thoughts the men had absorbed in prison (Pressley A9).

Without a doubt, these men were not transformed into racists overnight. In his book, Hate Crimes, Jack Levin proposes several factors that may cause one to commit a crime rooted in hate. Levin writes, Learning to hate is almost as inescapable as breathing. The hate crime offender grows up in a culture that distinguishes certain people as righteous, while designating others as sleazy, immoral characters who deserve to be mistreated (Levin 21). One cannot be disillusioned to think that we live in a society free of stereotypes.

The three men who murdered James Byrd grew up in an environment that stamped all blacks as being inferior subordinates. So when they saw James Byrd walking down the road on the night of his death, they weren’t looking at James Byrd the individual; all they saw was a black man that gave shape to the nasty stereotypical images in their heads. All that mattered to them was that the person’s skin was black and different from theirs. Unfortunately, for James Byrd he was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Historically, economic hardship has inspired racial tension and violence, and may have been a factor in the murder of James Byrd (Levin vii). The local economy around Jasper is struggling, and young white men there see minorities competing against them for jobs with what they perceive as unfair advantages, such as affirmative action and other government programs. According to Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization which tracks the activities of hate groups, the three men who murdered Byrd match the stereotype of perpetrators of hate crimes.

All three were going through tough times struggling to stay afloat: King, Brewer, and Berry were high school dropouts unable to hold a steady job, working variously as yard workers and lumber company employees, and they were about to be evicted from the apartment they shared (Pressley A9). According to the SPLC’s Klanwatch Project, the number of organized hate groups has grown significantly during the last few years, perhaps because of hard economic times.

The particularly depressed economic conditions in rural areas of the United States since the early 1980’s have provided a fertile breeding ground for organized hate groups, playing on a theme that has special appeal to downtrodden farmers and small town residents (Levin 113). Racist forces are appealing because they offer simplistic solutions for the problems of our society by providing obvious scapegoats- blacks, immigrants, and other minorities that threaten their well being.

Dees points out, however, that perhaps most significant in their downward spiral were the racist influences they encountered and embraced in prison. Larry Fitzgerald, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, said that while all three men were serving time, they were suspected of belonging to white supremacy groups, specifically the Confederate Knights of America, a prison gang aligned with the Ku Klux Klan (Bragg 17). Likewise, King was disciplined in 1995 while in prison for his involvement in a racial disturbance between whites and Hispanics (Pressley A9).

In his statement to police, Berry supplied a clue about the depth of King’s racist beliefs. While dragging Byrd’s body behind the truck, King allegedly said, We’re starting the Turner Diaries’ early. The Turner Diaries are a fictional account of race war in America and antigovernment-conspiracy, and is seen as the bible of hate groups. The murder of James Byrd Jr. was not a random act of violence. King, Berry, and Brewer were on a mission, a mission they were brainwashed with after years of exposure to white supremacist ideology: to rid the world of evil by disposing of all blacks (Levin 89).

For the past several years, white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the National Association for the Advancement of White People have been claiming that they are not racists. They say that they are not motivated by hate, but are simply proponents of white rights, trying to redress what they claim is current discrimination against white people (Novick 21). Members of the KKK believe the notion that they are biologically superior, and justify their violent behavior toward innocent people as defense.

In a recent issue of a White Aryan Resistance newspaper, Tom Metzger asserts We have every right to use force in self-defense, in retaliation, and in preemptive strikes against those who openly threaten our freedom. Many white supremacists believe that their violence toward blacks is defensive, aimed at protecting their American way of life or God-given Aryan advantage. Hate crimes represent one extreme on the continuum of prejudice and bigotry (Levin 97). Whether it is for economic or psychological reasons, there are countless individuals who feel resentful toward those of a certain group.

They have suffered some loss in self-esteem or status; rather than accepting responsibility for their hapless situation, they are eager to place the blame elsewhere. Millions of people, however, have suffered a decline in their quality of life or standard of living, and would never commit a criminal act against those who are different from them (Novick 24). Fortunately, not every member of society buys into the culture of hate; some have enough self-control to stop themselves from behaving in a deviant or violent manner, no matter how great the appeal.

Still for some individuals, as in the case of John King, Shawn Berry, and Lawrence Brewer, the desire to commit a hate crime is overpowering. A recent study indicated that the number of white supremacists in America consist of just under fifty thousand people; when compared to the population of our nation as a whole, that number is a relatively small percentage. In a country founded in life, liberty, and equality, that is fifty thousand too many. In her book Trauma and Recovery, Judith Herman writes the ordinary response to atrocities is to banish them from consciousness (Herman 1).

With a crime as horrifying as the James Byrd murder, society cannot afford to sweep this issue underneath the rug. Perhaps it takes an event as traumatizing as the Byrd murder to bring society’s problems to the forefront. James Byrd Jr’s death should be a wake-up call for America that sparks a self-examination and reflection. While some may argue that it is an isolated incident, the Byrd murder should serve as a stark reminder that racial hatred continues to be a national problem. Those who track hate crimes say that while the incident here may be isolated, the apparent thinking behind it is not.

Joe Roy, directory of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, says Jasper is a reminder that no matter how well we think we’re handling our problems, there’s always something out there (WSJ A8). The murder of James Byrd Jr. was an act of barbarism, a crime that should be incomprehensible. No one deserves to be treated that way no matter what the color of your skin is. To kill a man for something he cannot help, such as the color of his skin, is worse a motive that to kill him because he is rich, unsuccessful, or owes you money.

Our society must join together across racial lines to demonstrate that an act of evil such as this one is not what America is all about. We must not retaliate with violence, as the Black Muslims and Panthers urged in the wake of the murder (Bragg A17). Surprising to many, the town of Jasper did not erupt in racial conflict after the murder; instead blacks and whites joined together in prayer vigils, rallies, and discussion groups, showing the world that what happened in Jasper hurt and outraged all the town’s people, not just its blacks (Bragg A8).

A community forced to experience that kind of trauma must not waste any time binding up the wounds caused by the crime. It is disheartening to note that the Ku Klux Klan used the Byrd murder to talk about white pride and used the press attention as a stage to explain their platform. After nearly four centuries of violence between whites and blacks in America, race remains this nation’s most divisive and intractable problem. The fight against hate crime demands the attention of every member of society.

For legislators, it means refining laws to address the serious threat of hate crime. For educators, it means developing ways to open channels of cultural understanding among children. For police, it means increased attention to acts of hate violence. For neighborhoods, it means strengthening the bonds of community to embrace diversity and reject acts of bigotry (Levin viii). Society as a whole must accept the fact that we are all a part of the problem, if we are not a part of the solution.

Racism Today Essay

“… Everybody jumped on him, beat the hell out of him… Everybody was hitting him or kicking him. One guy was kicking at his spine. Another guy hitting on the side of the face… He was unconscious. He was bleeding. Everybody had blood on their forearms. We ran back up the hill laughing… He should have died… He lost so much blood he turned white. He got what he deserved” (Ridgeway 167. ) The skinheads who performed this random act of racial violence in 1990, had no reason to brutally beat their victim other than the fact that he was Mexican (Ridgeway 167).

Racism is objectively defined as any practice of ethnic discrimination or segregation. Fortunately, racial violence is steadily declining as the turn of the century approaches. Now a new form of racism, covert racism, has recently sprung from the pressures of political correctness. This new form of racism, although slowly declining, still shows signs of strong support (Piazza 86). Covert racism assumes a form of civil disobedience against politically correct thought and speech. Essentially, covert racism is a “hidden” racism, or a racism not easily detected Piazza 78).

Racism is still strongly prevalent in today’s society” (Gudorf 3). The three different basic forms of racism, open racism, violent racism, and covert racism all express forms of hatred towards distinct ethnic groups (Bender 47). These basic forms of racism, although different in form, all have the same main purpose, to promote racism. Open racism expresses freedom of racial thought and speech. Open racists promote their views through strictly persuasionary tactics. This form of racism is allowed in our society because of the First Amendment.

Open acism is currently almost nonexistent and steadily declining, because it is considered politically incorrect and socially unacceptable. Violent racism promotes racism through violence, fear, and persuasionary tactics (Leone 49) This form of racism is not protected by the First Amendment because it promotes violence to express its ideas. Unfortunately many violent racial groups claim they do not promote violence, and therefore these groups are protected by the First Amendment because not enough sufficient evidence exists to prove their violent intent (Ridgeway 123).

Covert racism expresses ideas of racism in disguised forms; sometimes the covert racist is not even aware of the fact that he is racist. “Racism, it is asserted, is no longer blatant: people nowadays are reluctant to express openly their dislike of and contempt for minorities, indeed are not prepared to express publicly a sentiment that could be interpretted as racist. Racism, it is said, is subtle: it is disguised, kept out of sight” (Enrlich 73) “The suggestion that there is a new racism–a racism that has a new strength precisely because it doesn’t appear to be racism–deserves serious consideration” Piazza 66).

Avoiding minorities on the street and denial of a public benefit to a minority which would be awarded to a white are examples of covert racism. “Since it is no longer politically correct to openly express one’s racist views, people therefore favor disguised, indirect ways to express their bigotry” (Piazza 68). Covert racism is the most abundant form of racism in our society today. What causes racism? Unfortunately, the answer is much longer and detailed than the question. The three main causes for racism are: racism has become part of our heritage, right-wing acial and political groups, and pride in one’s own race.

Practically since the dawn of man’s existence man has undoubtedly noticed differences between races. “Racism’s presence throughout the formation of our culture is quite evident” (Tucker 17). Frequently throughout history the ethnic group with the most power has assumed that its race and culture are superior to others. The same incident even occurred in America with the introduction of slaves. Throughout American history, racism has been strongly prevalent. “Racism’s roots lie deep within the foundation of our society” (Tucker 19).

These roots undoubtedly re the source for a great many of the racist groups and covert racism ideas found throughout our society. Extremist social and political groups, particularly those advocating right-wing policies of racial inequality, promote racism as well. These groups serve as the epitome of racial thought and speech (Ridgeway 10). The following represent various racist groups found throughout the United States: John Birch Society, Ku Klux Klan, Knights of the KKK, Invisible Empire, NAAWP, White Aryan Resistance, American Front, Nazi Skinheads, Posse Comitatus, Aryan Nations, The Order, and National Alliance Ridgeway 15).

All of these groups are given the freedom to express their ideas of racism because of the First Amendment (CIEQ 16). Although the First Amendment protects the speech of these groups, many none the less find it necessary to use violence to promote their cause. Racist groups now make extensive use of covert racism to extend their message of racism throughout our society. This form of racism has proven quite effective, in the past ten years, at persuading others to adopt racist ideas (Piazza 69). These groups serve as a symbol of racism itself to many in our soci ety (Ridgeway 29).

A large source of the racism present in our society stems from one’s pride in his own race. Many people, especially those associated with racist groups, find it necessary to put down other ethnic groups in an attempt to strengthen their own (Bender 113). This mode of thought and reasoning usually results in extreme hatred of other races and an overall sense of bigotry. Reasoning in this manner equates to many associated with racist groups. Pride in one’s race may eventually lead to covert racism thought (Piazza 87).

Covert racism affects our society in a variety of different manners. Indeed it should be said that covert racism has permanently scarred our society, both politically and socially” (Piazza 1). Racial politics have changed since the era of the civil rights movement, when the issue of race, at its heart, came down fundamentally to whether whites were prepared to accept other races as their equals (Bloom 29). “Now, however, the issue of race has become more complex^? more complex because there are now multiple agendas including affirmative action, quotas, and set-asides” (Piazza 34).

The main agenda revolves around affirmative action, steps taken by an employer, chool, or other institution to expand oppurtunities for blacks, hispanic people, women or other minority groups. “The clear implications of the most recent Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action programs is that such programs will be upheld in certain circumstances to remedy past discrimination” (Bloom 48). However, many whites view this special treatment of minorities for past discrimination as discrimination towards themselves. This “reverse discrimination” has lead to many debates and controversies concerning race and racial politics (Piazza 30).

Unfortunately this sort of political environment encourages covert racism in many whites as a counterattack against affirmative action. Our political system must first become racially unbiased before our society may become more ethnically diverse. If all men are created equal, then why should differences in race matter? Unfortunately our society has not lived up to the standards set by its forefathers. Racism, especially covert racism, still affects our society socially. Covert racism is a form of civil disobedience for racists to spread ideas of racism throughout our society (Piazza 68).

What will the future bring for Racism

People see it everyday across America. A group of whites burn down a black church, someone gets hurt or murdered from a racial slur, or fights break out at school or in public. These are the extremes of racism. Racism is definitely not a good thing, its a power that has taken over through the last two years. In doing research on Racism, I hope that my feelings towards blacks would improve and they have. What will the future bring for Racism? What are the main problems of racism? Can we get a hold on racism throughout America or will we self-destruct in our own hate?

Racism is everywhere, as much as today tries to hide it or say that we resolved it forty-to-fifty years ago. Racism is still all over the place. Racism first showed it teeth in America, when the segregation of blacks and whites came along. The segregation shut down all activities or actions from whites and blacks. It absolutely separated whites and blacks from being close to each other in public and blacks having no rights. Then the movement took place when Rosa Parks wouldnt give up her seat to a white man on a bus. At the time she was tired of the treatment her and fellow African-Americans were getting.

She said she was tired and on this fateful day she bgan the turning wheels of the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights Movement took place and gave blacks their future as they have now. It gave them the freedom that they deserved and needed. They were given the ability to vote; not having to be separated in such insane ways against whites, as they were. Positive helpers in the role of blacks rights were Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. King had a dream that little black boys and girls would be able to join hands with little white boys and girls.

His dream came true. On April 4th 1968, King was leaving his motel room. When he was shot and killed (Schulke). 2 Everybody knows what racism is, but there are so many other factors that tie in with racism. If someone is a racist they are of course, prejudice. Prejudice is when someone doesnt like someone for the way they look. A big problem with racism is many live in racist conditions and dont even see it. It flies right over their heads. Schools, the workplace, our community, our friends house, even our homes. We hear a racial slur, oh well, it’s just a joke. Hardly.

If you think racist joke are harmless than you should take a reality check. Racist jokes are just the start of it. Many people think the jokes are funny. Maybe they are, but they still hurt the people the jokes are about. Some of the worst racists are the ones who think that they are not racist, and they really are. They really have to come to grips with reality. Why are they some the worst racists? They are, because they can’t comprehend what is happening. They don’t realize what they are saying and doing are racist. Until they come to grips with it, there is no problem.

No problem, in their minds. They say that they aren’t racist, even when they don’t hire the East Indian employee who was the most qualified of the candidates. Even when the basketball team that they coach is all white. And even the time when they moved from their seat at the movie theater because of the black person next to them. Well, gee, they could have been a criminal. A robber from “the hood. ” After all, isn’t that what most of “them” are. No one deserves to be prejudged like that. The prejudice of people in the world is disgusting.

The worst part of it all is that they don’t even know that they are doing it. They think it’s normal behavior, it doesnt even phase them when they do it. Born of the civil rights movement three decades ago, affirmative action calls for minorities and women to be given special consideration in employment, education and contracting decisions. In its modern form, affirmative action can call for an admissions officer faced with two similarly qualified applicants to choose the minority over the white, or for a manager to recruit and hire a qualified woman for a job instead of a man.

Affirmative action decisions are generally not supposed to be based on quotas, nor are they supposed to give any preference to unqualified candidates (Froomkin). And they are not supposed to harm anyone hrough “reverse discrimination. ” 3 Then there are those who are completely unaware of racism in the world. They walk down the streets, through the stores and working at their job, completely oblivious. They’re so blind! Why can’t they see what is happening around them? Have they really lived such sheltered lives? Or do they just not want to believe it is happening?

If you take someone and put them in the heart of a racist area, they still won’t notice the problems. They will see it with their own eyes, but it won’t register in their mind. If these people don’t open their eyes, they will never see what is happening. What is going to happen to the world if people don’t start realizing what is happening? Will we be plunged into a time where racial tension is everywhere? Will we soon start having racial wars? Will racial violence be a normal every day occurrence? I don’t know. No one could know.

Unless we start taking action and helping people come to grips with the way they are, we can’t combat racism. Today we are living in a load of social issues that we have to deal with and racism is one of them. For some reason many people cant figure out, is why are many standards being lowered? The government has given blacks many ways to get in and out of college and its not fair for the average white person. Throughout history blacks havent always been the smartest people. They have consistently under performed in IQ (Emeagwali).

A black athlete then doesnt have to be as smart as the average white athlete to get into college. Blacks blame their faults and disappointments against society and the whole race in which they live in. They say that since they grew up in a poor family, they cant do good or excel, but anyone can do good or excel if they put their mind to it. This is not a one sided situation though. Whites can be the same way. Many whites grow up in poor families, and they cant use excuses either. Some whites live in a trailer so they say that they cant succeed in anything.

I have friends that act this way. There isnt but one 4 true pure science that blacks have furthered in. Phillip Emeagwali programmed the worlds fastest computer in 1992, due to his exceptional mathematics. Superiority is a big part of racism. Blacks think that they are superior to whites, and whites think they are superior to blacks. Thats one of the main reasons racism is very bad across America. Blacks think they are a better race and whites think they are the better race. Therefore, we fight and create violence to justify who is the greater race. Gangs can be associated with this view.

In the sense that every gang thinks that they cant be stopped. And if someone wears the wrong colors on the wrong street or neighborhood they are going to get hurt or killed. That follows the same scenario, if a white man walks in a black community, its generally unsafe in the inner cities or slums. Or if a black man walks in the presence of one or several KKK members, it would be unsafe for the black person. The scenario could go many different ways, but the reality is, that it doesnt matter who you are or what color you are, its unsafe to be who you are.

Hate in America is getting worse and worse everyday. Every hate crime that happens has to do with race or being prejudice. No less than one month ago, two teenage boys committed the worst school shooting this country has seen, killing 13 helpless teenagers and 1 courageous teacher. These two boys made it clear, that they hated blacks, Christians, athletes and foreign people (ODonnell). They killed a black for his color and a Christian for saying that she believed in God. They went on a rampage and tore up thousands of people lives on one Tuesday morning.

All because they didnt like types of people. Everyone is different, thats the way that God made us. He didnt intend for us to do this to each other though. History has had their share of hate crimes, dating back to the start of the Klu Klux Klan (KKK), a group of whites that hate and terrorize blacks. They wear all white, ghost looking outfits. And in their earlier years were known to ride on horses and kill blacks for no reason, just hate. The KKK was more of a southern cult, then became known worldwide, and are still located in the southern parts of the country.

The KKK committed hate crimes such as burning down of black churches, and putting crosses to fire. Not to mention torturing blacks and creating brutal 5 deaths such as the death seen last June in Jasper, Texas. A 49 year old black man by the name of James Bryd Jr. was dragged by the back of a pickup truck (Boven). Police got the call of a dead body and the mans torso was found first, right arm second. The brutal death started by two young men picking up Bryd, he hopped in the back of the truck and one of the men became enraged that he picked up a black man.

They then drove to a clearing and beat Bryd severely. Then he was chained to the truck and dragged, to his death. The two men who had many white-supremacist tattoos were charged with a capital crime offense (Boven). The Texas born Dennis Rodman paid for the funeral for his stand against racism. The future, when you hear that word you start to think about advancing our technology and furthering science. You think of exploring new boundaries and seeing new places. A better world, but a worse world is what I see.

The technology may improve as we go into the next century, but what about the children of today that are responsible for the future? Right now, we are only hurting ourselves with racism and hate. We have taken many steps in controlling this disease, but like most diseases, they spread. Where there is a problem, there is a solution. The only solution that seems to be found is to stop the hate. Plain and simple. If only that feeling of walking in public and being looked at the wrong way could end. Its not even safe to be a Christian anymore, and thats when you know somethings wrong. Prejudice is human nature.

It will never be stopped. The government can control it with specific penalties for hate crimes, but surely cant end it. It seems that people would respect someones life enough not to take it. Everyone is different; therefore, we have to live with it. We dont have to associate with that certain someone if they are black or white, but we just have to respect them, and where they come from. God put us on this Earth to love one another and to be kind to your brother. To hate someone is just like an insult to God. So remember, next time youre in public, just be kind and generous. Thats the start to the answer.

The Topic Of Racial Profiling

The topic of racial profiling amongst minority individuals in the state of New Jersey has been a heated issue for the past several years. This department has been charged with numerous allegations of racism and is the main focus for racial based events in police departments nationwide. Although racial profiling amongst police officers in the state of New Jersey has been a major issue for many years, it has not been until recently that action has been taken in order to investigate the alleged profiling that has occurred.

Hence, until recently, “African American drivers on the New Jersey turnpike stood a much greater chance than white drivers being stopped by the state police for a random drug search. “(Cohen) However, racial profiling is not only holding victims of minority simply on the road, but also minority-based officers within the department are being victimized as well. Moreover, the issue of racial profiling has been raised in the courts and will continue to be analyzed.

On April 21, 1999 Governor Christie Todd Whitman spoke at a press conference in Newark, NJ. She stated that, evidence of racial profiling is not something the state had any reason to anticipate. “(Whitman) In contrast, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey stated, “officials have been fighting this issue for more than five years. (ACLU) Moreover, Based on statistical evidence presented to the courts in 1994 and 1995, they found in a 1996 decision that “a policy of racial profiling was in operation on the New Jersey Turnpike”(Diamond).

Moreover, the state has consistently disputed the courts’ findings, yet up until one week before the state’s appeal was to be argued in court, the state had dropped all charges of its appeal. In evidence, reports presented at trial in the case of State vs. Soto, it revealed that although African Americans “comprised only 13. 5% of drivers and 15% of the vehicles speeding along the stretch of the turnpike in South Jersey, they comprised 46. 2% of the people stopped by the State Police”. (Diamond) Furthermore, State vs.

Soto was the case in which broke the ice when addressing the problem of racial profiling in New Jersey. After the case of State vs. Soto was ended in the courts, the U. S. Justice Department led allegations against he New Jersey State Police. In order to rectify the situation, reports stated, “the State Police do not consider race ethnicity or national origin in deciding who is stopped. “(Cohen)

Thus, in lieu of the accusations forced upon the state police the department, they were ordered to implement racial hiring quotas imposed by the U. S. Department of Justice. However when addressing this issue it was stated by Carson Dunbar, Superintendent of Policing in New Jersey that, “many of the minority applicants still failed the easier application requirements”. Furthermore, due to the rigorous accusations, officials implemented rules that required minority officers. However, they claim that they were unable to reach their quota due to their lack of qualified minority applicants.

Hence, the statistical breakdown of the applicants in 1999 was as follows, out of 5,023 candidates, “57% were white, 18% black, 15% Hispanic and 3 % Asian. “(Diamond) However, out of the 105 recruits that were selected for training , “85% were white, 10% Hispanic, 4% black, and 1% Asian. (Diamond) Consequently, under the terms of the legal agreement set forth by the Department of Justice, the state police were mandated to recruit at least 22% black candidates and 11% Hispanic.

As figures above state, even if combined black and Hispanic recruits, the number would still not amount to 22%. Thus, although legal documents are created, they are respectively not being implemented. Besides implementing new quota regulations on hiring, Christie Todd Whitman made the decision to replace 58 year old white Superintendent Williams with black FBI Agent Carson Dunbar Jr. ho became the first minority to lead the states predominately white 2,700 member trooper force.

Many still debate that the only reason Williams was replaced was to take the issue of racial profiling out of the limelight. Furthermore, about 4 months after firing Williams, Whitman echoed comments in a New York Times Magazine article that quoted her saying, “troopers can use race as one of several factors when determining who is suspected of committing a crime. ” (Ruderman) That statement however, seemed inconsistent with the firing of Williams whom was terminated specifically on the above statement.

Hence, O. W. Wilson once stated, “Some of the desirable personal qualities of patrol officers”. They included (1) initiative; (2) the capacity for responsibility; (3) the ability to deal alone with emergencies; (4) the capacity to communicate effectively with persons of diverse social, cultural, and ethnic background; (5) the ability to learn a variety of tasks quickly; (6) the attitude and ability necessary to adapt to technological changes; (7) the desire to help people in need; (8) an understanding of others; (9)emotional maturity; and (10) sufficient physical strength and endurance.

Thus, these tasks can be implemented by a majority of the population no matter what ones ethnic background happens to be. Hence racial profiling has been occurring for many years. Furthermore, the strong voices of the American people are refusing more and more every day to tolerate this issue. Thus is why an age-old issue of racism is being disputed within our nations justice department. This topic has reached every other industry within the United States since the beginning of the Civil War and will continue to sweep the nation until justice prevails.

Prejudice and Racism in Canada Sociology

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character” (Martin Luther King Jr. ) Ku Klux Klan. Neo Nazis. The Aryan Nations. The American Nazi Party. What are these groups? Why are they present in a land of supposed equality of all men? They are there because there are millions of Americans that believe in their message of white pride. The African American population is growing and Americans are now a mixed group of people. Black people are white people’s neighbours, doctors, friends.

With a growing unity between the two races, why does racism continue? The answer is simple. Racists from many years ago raise their kids in clans and white supremacy groups and teach them the ways of hatred. These kids grow up “brain-washed” that black people are their enemies and, taught by example, will continue this trend (The Volume Library; 1988). The Ku Klux Klan has been around since the end of the civil war. It is a roller coaster of a history. From extreme power, to rapid decline, and slow reemergence (Software Toolworks Encyclopedia; 1992).

The clan, who is notorious for its violence, has a relatively innocent beginning. It was formed from some veterans from the confederate army and was first called the Kuklos Clan which, in Greek, meant Circle Clan. One person thought it would be a good idea to call it the “Ku Klux Klan” as a parody of the fraternity names which always had three Greek alphabet letters in it. They created the Clan to be mischievous and to do it without anyone knowing who they were which accounts for their costumes and masks. They, like most whites, were upset that the black people were ree because black people were a constant reminder of the bitter defeat of the South. So to have fun they terrorized black people.

Eventually the group grew, fluctuating, but grew to become the first white supremacy group in America and with that growth, their hatred grew as well into what was seen in the early and middle 1900’s and what is seen today. Along with the KKK, other anti-black, pro-white groups formed and stemmed out all over the U. S. A. The Neo Nazis who are more commonly know by the term “Skin Heads”, are a growing force in hate groups. There hatred of Hispanics, Jews, Blacks, and others are now the fastest growing force in America.

The Skin Head movement is usually done by the younger kids. These kids are drawn to the Aryan Nations and Neo Nazis by the promise of free drugs, free booze, heavy metal music, ultimate freedom and rebellion. A lot of these kids stay because of family troubles at home and, like in a gang, feel like they have a family with the group and feel loved. “The skinheads are a family… A lot of us don’t have what you’d call a home” commented Joshua, who is a 16 year old recruiter in California (United They Hate; Michael Kronenwetter).

The race war was in full force by the 1960’s. With the growth of white supremacy and their groups, black too had a weapon. Martin Luther King Jr. lead his people to march in Washington to end segregation and to form black unity for an equal and better America. Malcolm X, who was a Muslim, may have come from a different religion than his Christian counterpart, but had a very similar message and a similar fate. Both were assassinated. Today the hate groups of America have spread into Canada and are particularly common in Manitoba.

The major sects are of the same name as their American cousins with a very similar message. Racism, despite much opposition, will never end. As long as there is fighting among a Jew and a Palestinian or hatred between a white and a black, Racism will be there. Only a utopian society can achieve such a dream. It is in human nature to have a few people that do not understand or possibly hate those who are different but, in fact, we are not different, we are judgmental and we are discriminatory, we segregate. We are unique individuals but among races we are equal and the same.

To Kill a Mockingbird: Racism

In Harper Lees book, To Kill A Mockingbird, there are many examples of racism. During this time in history racism was acceptable. Racism is a key theme in her book. Not only those who were black, but also those who affiliated with blacks, were considered inferior. Atticus, a lawyer, who defended blacks in court, was mocked. An example of this is when Mrs. Dubose said, Your fathers [Atticus] no better than the niggers and trash he works for! Mr. Dolphus Raymond was also criticized for affiliating with blacks, especially black females.

Example is when Jem said, He likes em [blacks] better n he likes us [whites], I reckon. Basically, you were black if you liked blacks. Blacks, because they were considered inferior, were expected to do everything for whites. Everything had to be perfect, without excuse. Even when Calpurnia, a Finch family friend, did not make the perfect cup of coffee, she was mocked. Book excerpt, She [Calpurnia] poured one tablespoon of coffee into it and filled the cup to the brim with milk. I [Scout] thanked her by sticking out my tongue….

Even when blacks did do good, they were still mocked. An example is when Aunt Alexandra said, Jems growing up now and you are too. We decided that it would be best for you to have some feminine influence. Even though Calpurnia was a female, Aunt Alexandra over-looked this, because of her race. People were so biased, it didnt matter how good a job a black person did. Since there was such strong racism in Maycomb, there were excuses made for whites. In the book, it was obvious that Bob Ewell was a mean man.

It was also obvious that he was abusive to his daughter, Mayella, and he was the one who violated her, not Tom Robinson, because what the evidence showed. But, the people of Maycomb over-looked the evidence in favor of Tom Robinson, just because he was black. In Harper Lees book, To Kill A Mockingbird, there are many examples of racism. The legal barriers to racial equality have been torn down, and racial exclusion from the benefits of society and the rights of citizenship is no longer nearly total, as it once was.

But discrimination still limits the opportunities and stifles the hopes of many black Americans and other minorities. In the realms of housing, employment, medical care, education and the administration of the criminal justice system, we are still, as the 1968 Kerner Commission Report on civil disorders warned, two separate Americas. At this moment in our nations history, it is critical that we move definitively forward in remedying the effects of discrimination.

But tragically, the most successful civil rights remedies have come under attack from conservative politicians and pundits. Affirmative action, for example, which is to be credited with the creation of an increasingly diverse workforce, has come under intense criticism. Voting rights laws, which have begun to integrate the halls of Congress and state legislatures, are also under attack. As long as our society is ridden with race-based problems, we will need race-based remedies. And while we have come a long way, we still have a long way to go.

Stowe and Truth

The Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. His brain is not fitted for the higher forms of mental effort; his ideals, no matter how laboriously he is train and sheltered, remain hose of a clown. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner [sic] born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations a head of him. Around the 1850’s many whites perceived this statement to be true.

Not only did they believe in it, but they also had science and the doctors behind the science supporting this belief (Typically white males in the profession). African-Americans, as well as women were considered to be of lower intelligence, not able to perform in “higher forms of mental effort” and in the case of blacks “able to perform in a civilized manner”. These two different causes gradually found themselves merging throughout history sharing one common cause, equal rights. When many of us hear about the civil rights movement we generally tend to think of the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.

With many well know leaders of the time, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, many would say that the Civil Rights movement was at its’ peak. With all of the things that were going on during the time, and the fact that it was televised though the eyes of millions via television. It’s No wonder The Civil rights movement of the 1960’s is thought of as the peak and or beginning of the movement. One could say that the civil rights movement started in 1680’s, right at the beginning of slavery. Part of the Civil Rights movement was slavery and or Anti-slavery.

Before Blacks could be considered equal, they first had to be depicted as humans. This would prove to be no easy task. Slavery roughly started around 1619, that’s when the first indentured servants arrived in Jamestown, and ended totally in the US around 1865 with the emancipation proclamation. There were many heroes in the battle against slavery that were both black and white. Around the 1800’s slavery was more openly being expressed as being wrong. Many blacks started to speak against their master, some rebelled, some spoke out, and a few literally went out and took action.

Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas and Sojourner Truth, were all leaders around the time of the 1800’s fighting for the suffrage of black-Americans. Sojourner Truth especially was a strong advocate for equal rights around the 1850’s, not only just for blacks, but for women as well. Sojourner Truth is well known for her famous “ain’t I a Woman? ” speech at the 1851 women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio. Their Sojourner Truth spoke of the injustices of our society, within which women as well as Black-Americans were at the back end.

No formal record of the speech exists, but Frances Gage, an abolitionist and president of the Convention, recounted the speech. Several ministers attended the second day of the Woman’s Rights Convention, and were not shy in voicing their opinion of man’s superiority over women. One claimed “superior intellect”, one spoke of the “manhood of Christ,” and still another referred to the “sin of our first mother. ” Suddenly, Sojourner Truth rose from her seat in the corner of the church. “For God’s sake, Mrs. Gage, don’t let her speak! half a dozen women whispered loudly, fearing that their cause would be mixed up with Abolition. Sojourner walked to the podium and slowly took off her sunbonnet. Her six-foot frame towered over the audience. She began to speak in her deep, resonant voice: “Well, children, where there is so much racket, there must be something out of kilter, I think between the Negroes of the South and the women of the North – all talking about rights – the white men will be in a fix pretty soon.

But what’s all this talking about? ” Sojourner pointed to one of the ministers. That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody helps me any best place. And ain’t I a woman? ” Sojourner raised herself to her full height. “Look at me! Look at my arm. ” She bared her right arm and flexed her powerful muscles. “I have plowed, I have planted and I have gathered into barns. And no man could head me. And ain’t I a woman? ” “I could work as much, and eat as much as man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman?

I have borne children and seen most of them sold into slavery, and when I cried out with a mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me. And ain’t I a woman? ” The women in the audience began to cheer wildly. She pointed to another minister. “He talks about this thing in the head. What’s that they call it? ” “Intellect,” whispered a woman nearby. “That’s it, honey. What’s intellect got to do with women’s rights or black folks’ rights? If my cup won’t hold but a pint and yours holds a quart, wouldn’t you be mean not to let me have my little half-measure full? ” “That little man in black there!

He says women can’t have as much rights as men. ‘Cause Christ wasn’t a woman. ” She stood with outstretched arms and eyes of fire. “Where did your Christ come from? ” “Where did your Christ come from? “, she thundered again. “From God and a Woman! Man had nothing to do with him! ” The entire church now roared with deafening applause. “If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back and get it right-side up again. And now that they are asking to do it the men better let them. ”

There is debate about the accuracy of this account because Gage did not record the account until 1863, and her record differs somewhat from newspaper accounts of 1851. However it is Gage’s report that endures and it is clear that, whatever the exact words, “Ain’t I a woman? ” made a great impact at the convention and has become a classic expression of women’s rights. When Sojourner said this speech it spoke for blacks, women and all others that were not getting their just dues. Because of this speech, she and many other blacks started to find an alie in the women’s movement.

Personally Sojourner found an alie by way of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, an especially Harriet Beecher Stowe, a well known advocate for the women’s civil rights movement. “The object of these sketches is to awaken sympathy and feeling for the African race, as they exist among us; to show their wrongs and sorrows, under a system so necessarily cruel and unjust as to defeat and do away the good effects of all that can be attempted for them, by their best friends, under it” (Stowe). Harriet Beecher Stowe was the noted author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the book that introduced the realities of slavery to the entire world.

Harriet was called by Abraham Lincoln “the little lady whose book started the civil war. ” It is believed by some that Uncle Tom’s Cabin helped jump start the civil war. When Harriet Beecher Stowe lived in Cincinnati, she became acquainted with abolitionist and the runaway slaves, helping several to escape through the underground railway. It is believe during this time in Cincinnati, she came across Sojourner Truth. Many books fail to show or state when the two met but it could be assumed, because during this time they both were around Ohio. And Sojourner made many trips to and from Ohio to free slaves.

But basically the exact moment when the two met is still kind of in the air. However what is stated is the famous conversation the two had, known today as “Sojourner Truth, The Libyan Sibyl” written by Harriet Beecher Stowe. “The Libyan Sibyl” is a writing that was written by Harriet Beecher Stowe. A writing that was based off of a weeklong stay that Sojourner had with Mrs. Stowe and her husband. During the course of Sojourner Truth’s stay she spoke to Harriet Beecher Stowe along with a few of her scholarly friends. In this writing Harriet Beecher Stowe 1. Conversation the two had (the famous ”

By reading the Libyan Sibyl you could clearly see the amount of respect that Harriet Beecher Stowe had for Sojourner Truth. “I put in this whole hymn, because Sojourner, carried away with her own feeling, sang it from beginning to end with a triumphant energy that held the whole circle around her intently listening” (Stowe). Throughout the writing Stowe speaks of Sojourner highly as if she was a student speaking of a great teacher. 2. Go into the relationship that the two shared A. How it compares to the movement at the time as a whole The relationship that Harriet and Sojourner share was slowly becoming a trend throughout America.

More and more women organizations started to help the black movement, and vice versa. They figured by joining together the numbers alone would allow them their fare share in the America Society. B. Briefly how women through out African-American played a big part in helping The truth of the matter is that white women throughout the history of African-American history have been helping slaves. Many white women knew slavery was wrong, but just like African-Americans had no say of the matter at home and in society. Many women knowing that there was nothing they could do to, helped in their on little way.

Many would teach slaves how to read and write (which was illegal at the time), and some would write slaves passes to help them along there journey to a free state. 3. The pros and cons of the movement publicly stating that they were one With any and everything you have your pros and cons, and the two movements joined were no exception to this rule. Many women especially women in the south were upset that blacks were getting more benefit out of the two groups joining. Since blacks had more to fight for they in a since received more of benefit from.

Many women in the women’s movement got the filling that by the two groups joining it had put a hindrance on the women’s movement. A. Finally, briefly speak of the problem the two groups faced when they were joined, and how it lead them to slowly drift apart. But still let it be known that for the time they were behind each other it still go a lot more accomplished with the numbers. As time went on more and more women groups were complain of the unequal “Land of the free and home of the brave” is one of the most popular and heart felt mottos of American History.

However, this saying most people take for granted, but in reality America was not always the land of the free for many of the American Inhabitants. Normally, white women & blacks are not paired in the same category, but they both share a piece of history. With obstacles of prejudice they both had, and in some respects, still have to over come. “All men are created equal” are they? When our forefathers wrote the constitution what happened to this notion? In the days of the constitution, all were created equal, as long as you were a white male.

Did the constructors of these revolutionary documents intend for present America to apply this praise to the entire human race? This is the most important document that our country was founded on, as the constitution is the supreme law of the land. When the Europeans came over to America they came here to escape persecution, but eventually manifested into the people they fled from. Europeans became the founding fathers of persecution in what was to become the USA. Sojourner Truth and Harriet Beecher Stowe were two women who went about to change the unjust treatment, for not just women but for blacks as well.

The relationship that Harriet Beecher Stowe and Sojourner Truth had was very uncommon at that time. Even the causes that they supported joining were very much uncommon but yet same. Sojourner Truth and Harriet Beecher Stowe set a trend in American society that is still present today. A trend that two causes could find alimentation with one another. Many may argue as to whether or not Sojourner Truth and Harriet Beecher Stowe started the merging of the two movements but it can be assumed that the two reflected the relationship of the two parties at the time.

Racism Today

“… Everybody jumped on him, beat the hell out of him… Everybody was hitting him or kicking him. One guy was kicking at his spine. Another guy hitting on the side of the face… He was unconscious. He was bleeding. Everybody had blood on their forearms. We ran back up the hill laughing… He should have died… He lost so much blood he turned white. He got what he deserved” (Ridgeway 167. ) The skinheads who performed this random act of racial violence in 1990, had no reason to brutally beat their victim other than the fact that he was Mexican (Ridgeway 167).

Racism is objectively defined as any practice of thnic discrimination or segregation. Fortunately, racial violence is steadily declining as the turn of the century approaches. Now a new form of racism, covert racism, has recently sprung from the pressures of political correctness. This new form of racism, although slowly declining, still shows signs of strong support (Piazza 86). Covert racism assumes a form of civil disobedience against politically correct thought and speech. Essentially, covert racism is a “hidden” racism, or a racism not easily detected (Piazza 78). Racism is still strongly prevalent in today’s ociety” (Gudorf 3). The three different basic forms of racism, open racism, violent racism, and covert racism all express forms of hatred towards distinct ethnic groups (Bender 47). These basic forms of racism, although different in form, all have the same main purpose, to promote racism. Open racism expresses freedom of racial thought and speech. Open racists promote their views through strictly persuasionary tactics. This form of racism is allowed in our society because of the First Amendment.

Open racism is currently almost nonexistent and steadily declining, because it s considered politically incorrect and socially unacceptable. Violent racism promotes racism through violence, fear, and persuasionary tactics (Leone 49) This form of racism is not protected by the First Amendment because it promotes violence to express its ideas. Unfortunately many violent racial groups claim they do not promote violence, and therefore these groups are protected by the First Amendment because not enough sufficient evidence exists to prove their violent intent (Ridgeway 123).

Covert racism expresses ideas of racism in disguised forms; sometimes the overt racist is not even aware of the fact that he is racist. “Racism, it is asserted, is no longer blatant: people nowadays are reluctant to express openly their dislike of and contempt for minorities, indeed are not prepared to express publicly a sentiment that could be interpretted as racist. Racism, it is said, is subtle: it is disguised, kept out of sight” (Enrlich 73) “The suggestion that there is a new racism–a racism that has a new strength precisely because it doesn’t appear to be racism–deserves serious consideration” (Piazza 66).

Avoiding minorities on the street and enial of a public benefit to a minority which would be awarded to a white are examples of covert racism. “Since it is no longer politically correct to openly express one’s racist views, people therefore favor disguised, indirect ways to express their bigotry” (Piazza 68). Covert racism is the most abundant form of racism in our society today. What causes racism? Unfortunately, the answer is much longer and detailed than the question. The three main causes for racism are: racism has become part of our heritage, right-wing racial and political groups, and pride in one’s own race.

Practically since the dawn of man’s existence man has undoubtedly noticed differences between races. “Racism’s presence throughout the formation of our culture is quite evident” (Tucker 17). Frequently throughout history the ethnic group with the most power has assumed that its race and culture are superior to others. The same incident even occurred in America with the introduction of slaves. Throughout American history, racism has been strongly prevalent. “Racism’s roots lie deep within the foundation of our society” (Tucker 19).

These roots undoubtedly are the source for a great any of the racist groups and covert racism ideas found throughout our society. Extremist social and political groups, particularly those advocating right-wing policies of racial inequality, promote racism as well. These groups serve as the epitome of racial thought and speech (Ridgeway 10). The following represent various racist groups found throughout the United States: John Birch Society, Ku Klux Klan, Knights of the KKK, Invisible Empire, NAAWP, White Aryan Resistance, American Front, Nazi Skinheads, Posse Comitatus, Aryan Nations, The Order, and National Alliance (Ridgeway 15).

All of these groups are given the freedom to express their ideas of racism because of the First Amendment (CIEQ 16). Although the First Amendment protects the speech of these groups, many none the less find it necessary to use violence to promote their cause. Racist groups now make extensive use of covert racism to extend their message of racism throughout our society. This form of racism has proven quite effective, in the past ten years, at persuading others to adopt racist ideas (Piazza 69). These groups serve as a symbol of racism itself to many in our society (Ridgeway 29).

A large source of the racism present in our society stems from one’s pride in his own race. Many people, especially those associated with racist groups, find it necessary to put down other ethnic groups in an attempt to strengthen their own (Bender 113). This mode of thought and reasoning usually results in extreme hatred of other races and an overall sense of bigotry. Reasoning in this manner equates to many associated with racist groups. Pride in one’s race may eventually lead to covert racism thought (Piazza 87).

Covert racism affects our society in a variety of different manners. Indeed it should be said that covert racism has permanently scarred our society, both politically and socially” (Piazza 1). Racial politics have changed since the era of the civil rights movement, when the issue of race, at its heart, came down fundamentally to whether whites were prepared to accept other races as their equals (Bloom 29). “Now, however, the issue of race has become more complex^more complex because there are now multiple agendas including affirmative action, quotas, and set-asides” (Piazza 34).

The main agenda revolves around affirmative action, steps taken by an employer, school, or other nstitution to expand oppurtunities for blacks, hispanic people, women or other minority groups. “The clear implications of the most recent Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action programs is that such programs will be upheld in certain circumstances to remedy past discrimination” (Bloom 48). However, many whites view this special treatment of minorities for past discrimination as discrimination towards themselves. This “reverse discrimination” has lead to many debates and controversies concerning race and racial politics (Piazza 30).

Unfortunately this sort of political nvironment encourages covert racism in many whites as a counterattack against affirmative action. Our political system must first become racially unbiased before our society may become more ethnically diverse. If all men are created equal, then why should differences in race matter? Unfortunately our society has not lived up to the standards set by its forefathers. Racism, especially covert racism, still affects our society socially. Covert racism is a form of civil disobedience for racists to spread ideas of racism throughout our society (Piazza 68).

Views of Racism in Heart of Darkness

What is the meaning of racism? According to the American Heritage Dictionary, it means hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad, is a treasure for criticism on the authors stand on racism. Many believed him to be a racist writer, and many others believed that the novel only implicated the beliefs of his time. He was not only believed to be a racist but also ignorant. All the critics accusing him for being racist and others defending him present very strong arguments, but in the end, it is always up to the reader to decide from which point of view he/she wants to interpret the novella.

If the novella is, infact, viewed under the lens of today’s beliefs, it appears to be a very racist work. The language of the story would strongly represent the racist views of the writer in today’s times. Joseph Conrad develops themes of personal power, individual responsibility, and social justice in his book Heart of Darkness. His book has all the trappings of the conventional adventure tale – mystery, exotic setting, escape, suspense, unexpected attack. Chinua Achebe concluded, “Conrad, on the other hand, is undoubtedly one of the great stylists of modern fiction and a good story-teller into the bargain” (Achebe 252).

Yet, despite Conrad’s great story telling, he has also been viewed as a racist by some of his critics. Achebe, Singh, and Sarvan, although their criticisms differ, are a few to name. Chinua Achebe, a well-known writer, once gave a lecture at the University of Massachusetts about Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, entitled “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. ” Throughout his essay, Achebe notes how Conrad used Africa as a background only, and how he “set Africa up as a foil to Europe,”(Achebe, p. 51) while he also “projects the image of Africa as ‘the other world,’ the antithesis f Europe and therefore of civilization. “(Achebe, p. 252) By his own interpretations of the text, Achebe shows that Conrad eliminates “the African as a human factor,” thereby “reducing Africa to the role of props. “(Achebe, p. 257) Normal readers usually are good at detecting racism in a book. Achebe acknowledges Conrad camouflaged racism remarks, saying, “But Conrad chose his subject well – one which was guaranteed not to put him in conflict with psychological pre-disposition… ” (Achebe, 253).

Having gone back and rereading Heart of Darkness, but this time reading between the lines, there are many elements in the book that seem racist hat didn’t seem before. Racism is portrayed in Conrad’s book, but one must acknowledge that back in the eighteen hundreds society conformed to it. Conrad probably would have been criticized as being soft hearted rather than a racist back in his time. In supporting these accusations against Conrad, Achebe cites specific examples from the text, while also, pointing out that there is a lack of certain characteristics among the characters.

Achebe then compares the descriptions of the Intended and the native woman. Explaining that the savage “fulfills a structural requirement of the story: a savage ounterpart to the refined European woman,” and also that the biggest “difference is the one implied in the author’s bestowal of human expression to the one and the withholding of it from the other. “(Achebe, p. 255) This lack of human expression and human characteristics is what Achebe says contributes to the overflowing amount of racism within Conrad’s novella.

Human expression is one of few things that make us different from animals, along with such things as communication and reason. This of course, being that without human expression, the native woman is considered more of a “savage… ild-eyed and magnificent,” (Achebe quoting Conrad, p. 255), possibly even “bestial. ” Conrad constantly referred to the natives, in his book, as black savages, niggers, brutes, and “them”, displaying ignorance toward the African history and racism towards the African people. Conrad wrote, “Black figures strolled out listlessly… he beaten nigger groaned somewhere” (Conrad 28). “They passed me with six inches, without a glance, with the complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages” (Conrad 19). Achebe, also, detected Conrad’s frequent use of unorthodox name calling, “Certainly Conrad had a problem with niggers. His in ordinate love of that word itself should be of interest to psychoanalysts” (Achebe 258). Conrad uses Marlow, the main character in the book, as a narrator so he himself can enter the story and tell it through his own philosophical mind.

Conrad used “double speak” throughout his book. Upon arriving at the first station, Marlow commented what he observed. “They were dying slowly – it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now, nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation lying confusedly in the greenish gloom” (Conrad 20). Marlow felt pity toward the natives, yet when he met the station’s book keeper he changed his views of the natives. “Moreover I respected the fellow. Yes. I respected his collars, his vast cuffs, his brushed hair.

His appearance was certainly great demoralization of the land he kept up his appearance” (Conrad 21). Marlow praised the book keeper as if he felt it’s the natives’ fault for living in such waste. The bureaucracy only cared about how he looked and felt. The bookkeeper did not care for the natives who were suffering less than fifty feet from him. He stated the natives weren’t criminals but were being reated as if they were, but at the same time he respected the book keeper on his looks instead of despising him for his indifference. Conrad considered the Africans inferior and doomed people. Frances B.

Singh, author of “The Colonialistic Bias of Heart of Darkness”, said “The African natives, victims of Belgian exploitation, are described as ‘shapes,’ ‘shadows,’ and ‘bundles of acute angles,’ so as to show the dehumanizing effect of colonialist rule on the ruled” (Singh 269- 270). Another similar incident of “double speak” appeared on the death of Marlow’s helmsman. Marlow respected the helmsman, yet when the native’s lood poured into Marlow’s shoes, “To tell you the truth, I was morbidity anxious to change my shoes and socks” (Conrad 47). How can someone respect yet feel disgusted towards someone?

Singh looks into this question by stating, “The reason of course, is because he (Marlow) never completely grants them (natives) human status: at the best they are a species of superior hyena” (Singh 273). As I have mentioned before, Conrad was not only believed to be racist but also ignorant. He would often mix ignorance with racism when he described the natives. “They howled and leaped and spun and made horrid aces, but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity – like yours – the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar.

Ugly” (Conrad 35). “The prehistoric man was cursing us, praying to us, welcoming us – who could tell? ” (Conrad 37). The end result of Conrad’s ignorance of not knowing the behavior of African people concluded his division of the social world into two separate categories: “us,” the Europeans, and “them,” the Africans. Achebe concludes Conrad’s ignorance towards the natives by stating, “Heart of Darkness projects the image of Africa as ‘the other world,’… place where man’s vaunted intelligence and ferment are finally mocked by triumphant bestiality” (252). Heart of Darkness was written, consciously or unconsciously, from a colonialistic point of view” (Singh 278). Conrad didn’t write his book to the extreme of racism. Overall, the natives appeared better humans than the Europeans in Heart of Darkness. Conrad’s ignorance led to his conformity to racism. His ignorance of not completely “granting the natives human status” leads him to social categorization. C. P. Sarvan wrote in his criticism, quoting Achebe, “Racism and the Heart of Darkness,” “Conrad sets up Africa as a foil to Europe, a place of negations… n comparison with which Europe’s own state of spiritual grace will be manifest. ‘ Africa is ‘the other world,’… ” (281). In an attempt to refute Achebe’s proposed difference between the two women, C. P. Sarvan said that Conrad perceived the native woman as a “gorgeous, proud, superb, magnificent, terrific, [and] fierce” person whose “human feelings [were] not denied. “(Sarvan, p. 284) In comparing the two views, one must step back and consider that both views are only interpretations on what Conrad may have intended.

Since no one can ever eally know what his actual meanings were for these two women being so similar (in their movements), and yet so different (in their character), only individual explanation can be brought up. This in particular, is what brings me to question both Achebe and Sarvan’s points. By reorganizing Conrad’s descriptive words, Sarvan was able to propose that Conrad did not intend for the mistress to be perceived as the “savage counterpart. “(Achebe, p. 55) Yet, at the same time, both Sarvan and Achebe each write about what they think to be the right thing. It seems to me that Achebe was looking for racism in this short novel, and that Sarvan was so aken back by Achebe’s accusations, that he himself, went and looked for ways to defend Conrad. However, this particular shortcoming of the native woman is not the only one that Achebe finds. As stated earlier, communication is very important in our society and to “civilization” (as known by the Europeans of the time).

While reading Heart of Darkness, I noticed a significant difference in the levels of communication that were allotted between the Europeans and the Africans. This drastic difference in speech was at the core of Achebe’s argument that Conrad deprived the Africans of human qualities. Achebe pointed out that “in place of speech they made ‘a violent babble of uncouth sounds,'” also saying that “it is clearly not of Conrad’s purpose to confer language on the ‘rudimentary souls’ of Africa. ” (Achebe, p. 255) Here lies the problem that I have with Achebe’s article.

Assuming that the lack of speech (in Conrad’s eyes) is a racist factor–which is a valid assumption–Achebe still did not support his comment that “Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist. “(Achebe, p. 257) Without outside knowledge (beyond the book), Achebe had no basis to charge Conrad with this rather harsh comment. By completely agreeing with either writer, one would be denying him/herself the right to find their own opinion regarding racism in Heart of Darkness. As it is presented by the critics, the arguments clearly state that racist statements are present in the novella.

It is also believed that during the time that this novella was written, Conrad lived in a society where African people were not considered equal, to man, they were even considered sub-human. Not to excuse Conrad, but racism was everywhere and what came from it was people who wrote about it naturally and who did not think of a “politically correct” way to put things. It is my opinion that Chinua Achebe searched for things that he felt could be considered racist, and when they were found, he’d call the author some harsh names and accuse him of slander.

Of course, that is only my opinion, and I point this out, because Achebe did not–he only wrote what he felt. Belief that Conrad was a racist is not hard to come by, especially after reading Achebe’s convincing essay. However, interpretation is the key word. Many agree that Conrad did have quite a few racist passages in his story, but they also believe that Achebe does not open his mind completely, in his analysis of the work. Travelers with closed minds can tell us little except about themselves”(Achebe, p. 60) is what Achebe points to in explaining Conrad’s journey and how it turned into the novella. This particular passage can be used to describe Achebe himself. It seems that Achebe was closed-minded in his essay regarding racism. He did not propose any other possibilities regarding the novella, only to say that a conceivable reason for this is that “it is the desire… in Western psychology to set Africa up as a foil to Europe. “(Achebe, p. 251) Achebe only set forth his views and did not take into account other nterpretations of the same passage, as did Sarvan.

Conrad was a master of prose as many critics admitted, even those who proclaimed him a racist. The writing of Heart of Darkness was not only to show the potential of what man could become, but what he already was. Marlow is the everyday man, longing to become something that he cannot even fathom. Kurtz was the ideal man that Marlow, or any man for that matter, longed to become. Kurtz was tormented in his last days because he saw the evil that was in European trade and imperialism. In this, he finds a reassuring simplicity in the ways of the natives.

Conrad conveys this theme to those who search for a quality that resides in all men, rather than seeking the errors of one group or person, which is what Achebe accused Conrad of doing as he portrayed the natives as “niggers” and “common savages. ” The evils of society set in motion for what Conrad sought to banish from human thought. All men have the capacity to be evil or good, yet the one ideal that determines this state of being is the realization of what good and evil truly are. If every person accepted what one man said to be the truth, our world would be completely turned upside down.

The individual must decide for him/herself. Both Chinua Achebe and C. P. Sarvan did just that. Each read something that he did not like and wrote about what he thought to be true. When Achebe found Conrad to be a racist, he directed his arguments towards proving his point. When Sarvan found Achebe to be misleading, he presented his case. If the novella was written in today’s times, it could be considered a very racist piece of work. Readers decide for themselves about whose arguments are more convincing or more appealing to them. Every person is a critic with a different point of view on the issues of this novella.

Organized Racism

Most people only know of one or two racist organizations but there are many, many more. Although we rarely see it in real life, racism lurks all around us. The most famous organization and normally the only one known of are the Ku Klux Klan or KKK. However there are many more racist organizations and religions many anti-racism organizations. Many people are racist without even realizing it. Racism organizations are everywhere, and more will keep on growing until someone is able to stop it. The most commonly known racist organization is the KKK or Ku Klux Klan.

The Ku Klux Klan has extreme hatred to all Jewish, Negro, and Asian people. They believe that the pure White Christian people should rise above all other people. The Ku Klux Klan promotes protectionism in foreign trade, closing the southern border, and laws prohibiting foreigners from purchasing American property and industry. History proves that the Ku Klux Klan is America’s oldest and most effective White Christian Fraternal organizations. The Klan believes that it is doing successfully now because people are beginning to realize that equal rights for all people is just a myth, still people pretend that they believe in it.

The Ku Klux Klan official web page address is www. kkk. com. Another racist organization is the Posse Comitatus. The Posse Comitatus is an intermittently active, loosely organized group of Christian identity activists dedicated to survivalism, vigilantism, and anti-government agitation. Following the pseudo-religious tenets of the “Identity” movement, Posse members typically proclaim Jews to be the “synagogue of Satan,” blacks and other people of colour to be subhuman “mud-races” and Northern European whites to be the “Chosen People” of Biblical prophecy.

The name of the group Posse Comitatus translates from Latin to mean “power of the county,” and the Posse believes that all governmental power is rooted at the county, not Federal, level. Posse Comitatus is the term Gordon Wendall Kahl, a North Dakota farmer, gave to his far-right militia organization of local farmers and ranchers. He founded the organization in the early 1970’s to fight the federal and state encroachment into their local affairs. The posse has attracted many Klan members and other anti-Semites.

The Nation of Islam is an anti-white and anti-Semitic religion based on the teaching that whites are devils created in an evil scientist’s experiment. The Nation of Islam identifies itself as Islamic. Members call god “Allah” and call themselves Muslims, they teach and worship in mosques, and they appeal to the prophet Muhammad. The chief leaders of the Nation of Islam are Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, and Minister Farrakhan. They believe that the devil is the white man, the Caucasian race. They think that the black race is trillions of years old and the white race is only six thousand years old.

The Nation of Islam thinks that the white race is not equal to the black race because the God of Righteousness created the black race and Yakub created the white race. They believe Yakub was an original black man who was the father of the devil. As the father of the devil he created the white race, the race of devils, which are enemies to the black race. Therefore the white race is not made by nature to accept righteousness. World Church of the Creator is a white supremacist organization that preaches a theology called Creativity.

That religion was established for the survival, expansion, and advancement of the white race exclusively. Their reason for white supremacy is that they figure that since the white race is responsible for all of earth’s advancements throughout history, it should be the only race that should expand and advance. They feel that the white race is facing a huge threat because only 1 in every 12 people on the earth is white. The ratio has dropped tremendously and they feel that it will only get worse. They think that it is disgusting that white people are marrying people of other races and are only harming their fellow race.

The National Alliance is a Neo-Nazi organization based in West Virginia. They believe that there should only be Aryan advancement and that other races a without purpose. Their beliefs contradict most other beliefs. Most people believe that they are on higher levels than all of nature, but the National Alliance doesn’t. They think that belief in other gods and beliefs different from theirs will only cause the believers to be punished. They believe that multiculturalism is destroying America, Britain and every other Aryan nation. They think that there must be no non-whites in order for their race to survive.

The National Alliance’s goals are that all of Europe, temperate zones of America, Australia, and southern Africa should only be inhabited by Aryans. They want all Aryan nations to be swept clean of other races. After they are clear of multiculturalism they plan to further develop their people. They want all white schools, white residential neighborhoods and recreational areas, white workplaces, and white farms. They want no non-whites in their living areas, and want the space around them clear for expansion. National Alliance wants the world to have only Aryan beliefs.

They thinks that the world in impure because of all the other religious beliefs. They want only white entertainers, only white people on television, and only white people in movies. They think the government should only be based upon the Aryan race. The white people should have economic benefits. To wrap it all up, they think that the earth must be changed into a complete Aryan society. There are many racist groups. There are groups that are racist against whites and there are groups that are racist against blacks. There are groups that are racist against Jews and groups that are racist against Muslims.

If it is against a colour or religion, racism is evil. Now the amount of racism in the world is growing everyday. More and more people are joining racist organizations and more organizations are being made. However more anti-racism organizations are being made. There are websites that monitor and try to stop racism everywhere. The biggest one on the net is www. hatewatch. org. If you want to learn more about racist organizations or how to help anti-racism groups visit that site. In conclusion racism is everywhere and anti-racism organizations must figure out a way to stop it.

Racism In America

There is surely no nation in the world that holds “racism” in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. “Racism” is never shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about “racism.

If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism. Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism? Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one’s own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this.

Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil. The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation?

Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state. All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today’s Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday’s Whites must have oppressed them.

If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of White people. The logical consequences of this are clear.

Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions.

First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else.

The reverse is also true. Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the word “nigger” while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-Whites as “racist,” but ignore scurrilous attacks on Whites.

At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 “historically black” colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of… the same thing. To resist would be racist. “Black pride” is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of hatred.

It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver’s tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist. Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism. All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected “civil rights” organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist. At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists.

Recently, when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is branded as racist. Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is “celebration of diversity.

It has begun to dawn on a few people that “diversity” is always achieved at the expense of Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity.

Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group – a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood – is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has “diversity” been achieved. Let us put it bluntly: To “celebrate” or “embrace” diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of Whites.

Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to “diversity. ” It is, of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this kind of “diversity. ” It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being “culturally enriched? ” What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren’t citizens, who clamored for “affirmative action” in jobs and schooling? Would Mexico – or any other non-White nation – tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation?

Of course not. Yet White Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to “celebrate” their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist. There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of “hating” another group. Blacks can join “civil rights” groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers.

They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are “anti-white. ” Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of “diversity” and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures.

To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism. Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one’s people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them?

Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain? No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests.

Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one’s own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow “hatred” of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred.

All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies. What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be “racist.

What then, is “racism? ” It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history – but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites. Racism In America

There is surely no nation in the world that holds “racism” in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. “Racism” is never shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about “racism.

If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism. Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism? Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one’s own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this.

Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil. The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation?

Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state. All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today’s Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday’s Whites must have oppressed them.

If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of White people. The logical consequences of this are clear.

Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions.

First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else.

The reverse is also true. Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the word “nigger” while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-Whites as “racist,” but ignore scurrilous attacks on Whites.

At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 “historically black” colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of… the same thing. To resist would be racist. “Black pride” is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of hatred.

It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver’s tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist. Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism. All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected “civil rights” organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist. At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists.

Recently, when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is branded as racist. Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is “celebration of diversity.

It has begun to dawn on a few people that “diversity” is always achieved at the expense of Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity.

Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group – a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood – is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has “diversity” been achieved. Let us put it bluntly: To “celebrate” or “embrace” diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of Whites.

Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to “diversity. ” It is, of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this kind of “diversity. ” It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being “culturally enriched? ” What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren’t citizens, who clamored for “affirmative action” in jobs and schooling? Would Mexico – or any other non-White nation – tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation?

Of course not. Yet White Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to “celebrate” their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist. There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of “hating” another group. Blacks can join “civil rights” groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers.

They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are “anti-white. ” Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of “diversity” and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures.

To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism. Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one’s people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them?

Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain? No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests.

Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one’s own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow “hatred” of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred.

All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies. What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be “racist.

What then, is “racism? ” It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history – but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.

Racism in Canada

The common belief that Canada is far less racist then their neighbors to the south is perhaps one of the greatest falsehoods of North American society today. Through out history, Canada has been home to many race-based atrocities. Because of time and lack of media attention these events have been buried. To such an extent have these issues been neglected that the general public now cannot recognized them or discern them as part of their countrys past. Although recently over the past thirty to forty years Canada has been on the leading edge with human rights and in areas of equality between people/sexes, this has not lways been the case.

Canadas history has been just a recently blemished as that of the infamous United States. Three examples that depict this downfall are: the Chinese head tax, the internet of Japanese Canadians during world war two and the open anti-Semitism of the early though mid nineteen hundreds. It is important that people begin to recognize the downfalls of our marvelous country rather then living in ignorance. The first example of open racism in Canada was shown shortly after the completion of the Canadian Nation Railway in 1885. The government chose to enact law designed to restrict immigration access of Chinese to Canada.

This law stated that any immigrant of a Chinese heritage was required to pay a head tax in order to become a resident of the country. The law was enacted primarily because the need for cheap laborers was no longer necessary due to the completion of the railway. Unlike most other laws concerning immigration, this new tax was only directed towards people of a Chinese decent consequently singling out one minority group and purposely restricting their access. The head tax started an amount of fifty dollars but was increased to one hundred dollars y 1900, it was again increased to a small fortune of five hundred dollars per person in 1903.

On top of this, Newfoundland imposed an additional three hundred-dollar provincial head tax on top of the already high five hundred-dollar federal tax. Through the use of head tax, it is estimated that the Canadian government collected over 24 million dollars from approximately 81,000 Chinese immigrants. At the same time that this tax was being collected, the Canadian government was offering European immigrants financial and property incentives to move to Canada. This only showed the clear bias of the Canadian overnment towards the Chinese people.

This tax continued to be in effect until 1923 when it was replaced by the exclusion act. This exclusion act was set in place to prevent access of the Chinese to Canada entirely. The exclusion act was part of active law for nearly a quatrer of a century and during that time, only a total of seven people of Chinese descent were allowed into the country. The law was eventually revoked years after the end of World War 2 but, strictly enforced quotas were placed on Chinese immigrants, hence limiting the number of Chinese who were allowed into the country.

In addition, the Chinese were last to gain the right to vote in federal elections (1951) and even up to this point, the Canadian government refuses to compensate the remaining people who were effected by the unjust head tax of the past. Another example of Canadas racist history is the treatment of the Jewish. Unlike the underground racism of the United States during the 1920s, the Canadian attitude was quite open towards that of anti-Semitism. It wasnt uncommon to see signs on beaches or in public places, which read No dogs or Jews Allowed.

Signs such as these were commonly found in major urban areas uch as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Furthermore, prominent political figures were openly attached to anti-Semitism groups. Some examples include: Edouard Plamandon, Adrian Arcand and perhaps best known, Mackenzie King one of the prime ministers of Canada. These powerful people in Canadian society took the stance of openly praising Hitler, justifying German pogroms on the Jewish and denying safety in Canada to Jewish fleeing Nazi Germany.

Furthermore, there were public newspapers which carried hate articles directed towards the Jewish community; perhaps most notably was the Semain religieuse de Quebec. Although fully aware of the practices taking place, the government chose not to halt the obviously racist practices. As a result of the governments lack of intervention, the practices continued through World War Two until they finally declined to their loss of acceptance from the Canadian society.

The final example and perhaps the most prominent was the World War Two internment of Japanese Canadians. This event took less then sixty years ago during World War Two. Due to the involvement of Japan in WW2 and the bombing of Pearl harbor in 1941, people of Japanese descent were sought out by the overnment and placed into internment camps located in the interior of the country. All possessions including homes, valuables, shops, boats etc were auctioned off. All proceeds from the auctions went not to the owners but rather to the Canadian government.

When told of the internment, the government stated that the camps would be similar to small rural communities but in reality they were more similar to POW camps. Unlike the U. S. who attempted to keep families together, Canada decided to separate the men from the women and children. The work camps that men were sent to, were designated by the government to be controlled onditions of productive work and settlement for the duration of the war”. In reality Japanese men were subjected forced labour in fields on government farms and building the countrys infrastructure.

Women and children were sent to other camps where they lived in poor living conditions for nearly two years till until the completion of the war. What made this a prime example of Canada racism was that earlier on in the war although some Germans and Italians had been detained, it was on an individual basis. The primary difference is that, in the Japanese case, is that an entire group of was deprived of their freedom ecause they were Japanese. Furthermore, many of these potential threats were actually second generation Japanese who had never been to Japan or for that matter could speak Japanese.

This internment was in direct violation of the freedom of over 28,000 people not because of their actions but rather, because of their appearance/race. Although there arent rows of endless crosses or fields filled with poppies to act as reminders to us today as to these events of our past, it is imperative that we as a people are not ignorant of their existence. Much like any war, hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens fought for a better life not just for hemselves but also for generations to come.

Today perhaps more then ever it is important that we remember and accept these events of our past rather then burring them in history books. Events such as the Chinese head tax, the Japanese internment, the open anti-Semitism of 1920s, Ukrainian internment, should be spoken and taught about before they are forgotten. Canada has not always been a country of tolerance and acceptance of multiculturalism and, we should not take it for granted. As stated in the common adage: If we dont learn our history, were subject to repeat it.

Racial Profiling and Murder by Police Sociology Racism Prejudice

This is America, home of the free. Here “law and order” is kept by a vigilant police force armed with semi-automatics and nightsticks. Here it is “law and order” to lynch blacks. Two-hundred years since this country was founded on principles of equality before the law, the meaning of equality remains the same. Amadou Diallo was equal to all other poor urban blacks, and he got his punishment by the law. His killers were equal to all other guardians of the white elite, and they got… acquited. The principle is well understood, invoking a strong Nazi-like patriotism in some.

It fills me with profound respect for being an American and for living in a country that has a trial by jury,” announced New York Mayor Giulani after the acquital of four police officers who fired 41 shots at Guinean immigrant Amadou Diallo as he stood outside his home in the Bronx. Giuliani, of course, clearly understands what it means to be “American. ” Liberal apologists who seek to explain the meaning of the shooting and the acquital are the ones who are missing the mark. Forty-one shots are not a mistake. The acquital was not just a flaw in the system.

This is the system, and it is one rooted in white male dominance and the rule of force. The system is working perfectly fine as long as cops stay out of prison and are free to use deadly force at will. “But the system is supposed to treat people equally,” some will say. Right-wingers eat this one up. They understand that equality, in any meaningful sense of the word, is not one of the tenents of American capitalism. Indeed, it is inequality which maintains the system. The majority must never enjoy the same rights and priveleges that the wealthy few do.

A police force, whose function is to protect property and those who own property, is needed to enforce minority rule. As guardians of property and the class structure, police must enjoy rights afforded only to the minority, including the right to kill. The need to protect property rights over all others had been realized well before the founding of the United States of America and finds expression in the Constitution. James Madison’s writings on the rights of minorities were speaking most often of “the minority of the opulent. ” Diallo was a “minority,” just not the right kind.

The Bronx is not known for its wealth. Its people are not the owners of property and can therefore only be a threat to those who are. Diallo was an “enemy” as soon as the cops saw him. The implications of all this are that there will continue to be Diallos and Louimas and Kings because a poor black can never be equal to a white cop. The system would no longer work. In life Amadou Diallo possesed only the right to obey. In death there is still no justice. The acquital of his killers seems to have effectively shown the NYPD, and surely other police, that killing civilians is acceptable.

Indeed, the murders are mounting in New York as Giuliani continues to push his aggressive policing policies and continues to shield his killer cops from justice. The lesson was learned long ago, however, and Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond are only some of the more recent examples. It is a lesson that was taught in the days of plantation slavery and in the murders of Black Panthers in the 60’s and 70’s. It’s really quite simple: The rich and their guardians have the right to kill, the poor have the right to obey.

Racism and the Ku Klux Klan

Since the early development of society in the United States, racism has always been a divisive issue faced by communities on a political level. Our country was built from the immigration of people from an international array of backgrounds. However, multitudes of white supremacists blame their personal as well as economic misfortunes on an abundance of ethnic groups. African-Americans, Jews and Catholics are only some of the of groups tormented by these white supremacists.

As the amount of ethnic diversity gradually increased in the political systems of Louisiana and the United States, rganizations rapidly formed to challenge the new ethnic variation in government. The Ku Klux Klan is one of these groups that were formed by people who were angered by the increase of diversity in political office and in the workplace. Local and state officials that were members of the Klan aided in providing influence, money, and information to the racist organization. As the civil rights movement became accepted, it seemed as if the power of racist organizations deteriorated.

However, with the Klan demanding freedom of speech, with political figures related to the Ku Klux Klan still bringing prejudice o politics throughout the country, and with multitudes of African-American churches being burned to the ground, it seems as if the Ku Klux Klan is still a threat to the citizens of this country. The Ku Klux Klan has played a major role in United States history. As the south was undergoing the era of Reconstruction after the Civil War, the votes of newly emancipated black Southerners put the Republicans in power throughout the state.

White Southerners resorted to brute force to preserve the white supremacy they once had. The Klan was originally arranged into secret societies that terrorized ocal white and black Republican leaders. They also threatened all African Americans who violated the old ideas of black inferiority. Sworn to secrecy, its members wore white robes and masks and adopted the burning cross as their symbol. The Klan members seemed to be most active during election campaigns, when they would either scare people into voting for their candidate or get rid their opponents entirely.

They were noticed for their horrible acts of violence that they called nighttime rides. These attacks included murder, rape, beatings, and warnings and were designed to overcome Republican majorities in the outh. Due to the fear of a race war, state officials were unable to suppress the violence. Law enforcement officials were Klan members themselves and even when the law officers were legitimate, Klan members also sat on juries where criminally accused members were often The Klan was popularized through literature and film in the early nineteenth century. Its influence spread with help from Thomas B. Dixon’s The Clansman (1905) and D.

W. Griffith’s movie The Birth of a Nation (1915). (Harrel, 85) Harrel felt that this eventually “led to the establishment of a new Ku Klux Klan, which spread throughout the ation and preached anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-black, antisocialist, and anti-labor-union Americanism” (87). Harrel stated that the Klan’s two million adherents exercised great political power, “often taking the law into their own hands, mobs of white-robed, white-hooded men punished immorality and terrorized un-American The Klan erupted as a secret organization employing its secrecy to mislead the public and inquiring newspapers.

Therefore, they were labeled the invisible empire. Harrel urges the idea that in certain regions the Klan did not have enough influence to become But where it was strong the Invisible Empire elected scores of local officials, state legislators, a few governors, several national representatives, including Earle B. Mayfield of Texas, William J. Harris of Georgia, and Hugo Black of Alabama, to the United States Senate. ” (Harrel, 307) The Klan was extremely hungry for political gain.

The best way to promote the growth of an organization of this sort would be the expansion of a network with prominent political and investment “The limitation of immigration, maintenance of national prohibition, restriction of the political influence of the Catholic Church and minority groups, clean government, and maintenance of community morals, were goals which violence and intimidation alone could not achieve. ” It is seemed necessary that in order to have a prosperous organization, the Klan would have to infiltrate the political offices held by the liberals. This is a task easier said than done. The Invisible Empire excluded from membership, and thus insulted, Catholics, Jews, Negroes, and the foreign born, groups which totaled forty per cent of America’s population during the twenties… Despite the fact that Klansmen looked upon the roups they excluded from membership as ‘second class citizens,’ America’s minority groups together constituted a potentially powerful voting bloc which could grind the Klan under if sufficiently aroused. ” An effort to enlist officials with both local and state authority was adopted in this state of Louisiana from successful attempts in Atlanta. They first enrolled the Adjutant General of the State of Louisiana, L. A. Toombs, and then inducted several members of the state legislature, a number of local and district judges, sheriffs, district attorneys, and police officers. (Harrel, 309) The idea of public officials having involvement in the Ku Klux Klan is frightening, and still today it is present. In the early decades of the nineteenth century people were not sensible in their views of society as they are now. In present time people are more open minded, racism does exist, but it is totally unacceptable for society to tolerate bigotry from a political figure.

A native of Louisiana, David Duke has been a considerably active politician. As Duke introduces a broad political campaign he does not leave behind his ties to bigotry. Still affiliated with white supremacist groups Duke has been “convicted of inciting to riot.. ” (“Lousisiana’s… 27). His history has linked him to a variety of neo-nazi organizations. “As a member of the KKK at Louisiana State University, where he received his BA in history in 1974, he became an enthusiastic admirer of Adolph Hitler, and by 1975, he had risen to grand wizard of the Louisiana Ku Klux Klan” (Mackenzie, 40).

Duke was always searching for a different approach to express his ideas. Methods of the Klan were no longer effective in stopping civil rights as they were in the sixties Mackenzie,40). “Duke quit the Klan in 1980, and founded the National Association for the Advancement of White People” (Mackenzie,40). Duke broke into the national spotlight in 1987, when he was elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives, from the district of Jefferson Parish. While serving his term as a state legislator, “he was caught selling Nazi books from his legislative office. One of them, “Did Six Million Really Die? attempts to discredit the Holocaust” (Turque 53).

Duke then made an attempt to unseat J. Bennett Johnston from his position in the United States Senate in 1990. He gave Johnston quite a scare, forcing a run off election and receiving almost forty percent of the vote in that election. Encouraged by that performance, Duke gave up his House seat to run for governor. Even though his strategy was hardly original, he managed to rally an entire campaign around the folklore that welfare spending was responsible for high taxes and blacks were taking away jobs from whites.

Yet, in reality, the total outlay on aid to families with dependent children amounted to less than two percent of the entire state budget. He received thirty-two ercent of the primary vote, which was enough to knock-off incumbent Buddy Roemer, who received twenty-nine percent, and get in a run-off with Edwin Edwards, who led with thirty-five percent. During this runoff, Duke received most of his media attention as he appeared numerous times on CNN and other political shows.

Duke still lost the runoff to Edwards in 1991, yet he decided he would shoot for the White House the following year. But when Pat Buchannan entered the election, Duke lost the ultra-conservative, angry white male vote he was to capitalize on. Racism in the United States is outlined in elections of characters like David Duke. “The Rev. Jesse L. Jackson recently condemned former Ku Klux Klan Wizard David Duke’s election to the Louisiana House of Representatives, calling it the result of a national problem of racism and one “the entire nation has to deal with” (“Duke election… 7).

It is the cooperation of leaders nation wide that use basis of moral understanding in striving to erase bias Today, the Ku Klux Klan does not just threaten minority groups on the political level. Nearly 100 African-American churches have been urned to the ground in the past year in a half. While some arrests made have not linked the Klan with the fires, many have. Two South Carolina Klan members have been arrested for burglarizing and setting ablaze two churches, the Mount Zion African Methodist Episcopal of Greeleyville and the Macedonia Baptist church of Bloomville.

The two men, Timothy Welch and Gary Cox, had attended a Klan meeting only weeks before the fires. Welch was arrested with his Ku Klux Klan identification card in his wallet. The other, Gary Cox, lived with another Klan member in a trailer. When a local newspaper asked Welch’s other to comment on what her son did, she replied, “Those boys felt the blessing of the Klan… They take these young country boys who don’t really know a lot and have never been out in the world, and they corrupt them” (Fields, 30 June 1996).

The two men were not only charged with theft and arson, but were also charged with the beating and stabbing of a mentally handicapped black man who was waiting for a There is also Ernest Pierce and Brian Tackett. Pierce, an Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and farmer, was convicted and sentenced to 51 months in a federal prison for ordering Tackett to ncinerate the Barren River Baptist Church in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Tackett, a younger member of the Klan, was sentenced to 115 months for conspiracy, arson, as well as auto theft, for stealing the car he used for his night’s act.

The African-American church arsons is the largest investigation the Bureau of Alcohol, Tabacco, and Firearms is conducting; even larger than that of the TWA Flight 800 investigation. President Clinton signed a bill giving 12 million dollars to the ATF to investigate the fires. It also happens to be the FBI’s largest civil rights investigation under way. (Fields, 7 Aug. 996) The Ku Klux Klan is not only a threat politically and physically, but they also incite riots.

In June of last year in Greenville, Texas, the Klan held a rally in which they “waived Confederate flags and complained about the U. S. government” (Taylor). Michael Lowe a leader in the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan was stated in saying, “It ain’t about hate, it’s about white pride” (Taylor). Another member was quoted in saying, “It ain’t the white people, it’s the damned government, the Jews, whose bringing this country down. It ain’t the white people” (Taylor). Over 150 state and local policemen ere present to control the crowd of anti-KKK as well as different KKK factions.

Some policemen were dressed in riot gear, some were on horseback as they tried to control the mobs behind the barricades set The United States is known as the melting pot. Since its beginnings as small settlements, this country has always been a haven to those who need it. When many think of America they think of the land of opportunity, the land of the American dream. Where one can, no matter who they are or where they are from can make it rich. The Ku Klux Klan is everything the American dream is not. They are a sign of igotry and hatred.

They have strived for over a hundred years to shatter the dreams of so many people. Many believe that since the civil rights movement the KKK is no longer a danger. But, we must not forget racism and bigotry does not die with an amendment to the Constitution. There are still people like David Duke in office. There are still people like Gary Cox setting fires to churches. And there are still people like Michael Lowe who believe it is the Jews who bring this country down. We must not forget that the KKK is still alive, and we, as Americans, should do everything in our power to

Racism In America

There is surely no nation in the world that holds “racism” in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. “Racism” is never shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about “racism.

If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism. Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism? Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one’s own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this.

Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil. The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation?

Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state. All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today’s Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday’s Whites must have oppressed them.

If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of White people. The logical consequences of this are clear.

Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions.

First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else.

The reverse is also true. Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the word “nigger” while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-Whites as “racist,” but ignore scurrilous attacks on Whites.

At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 “historically black” colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of… the same thing. To resist would be racist. “Black pride” is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of hatred.

It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver’s tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist. Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism. All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected “civil rights” organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist. At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists.

Recently, when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is branded as racist. Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is “celebration of diversity.

It has begun to dawn on a few people that “diversity” is always achieved at the expense of Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity.

Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group – a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood – is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has “diversity” been achieved. Let us put it bluntly: To “celebrate” or “embrace” diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of Whites.

Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to “diversity. ” It is, of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this kind of “diversity. ” It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being “culturally enriched? ” What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren’t citizens, who clamored for “affirmative action” in jobs and schooling? Would Mexico – or any other non-White nation – tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation?

Of course not. Yet White Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to “celebrate” their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist. There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of “hating” another group. Blacks can join “civil rights” groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers.

They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are “anti-white. ” Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of “diversity” and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures.

To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism. Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one’s people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them?

Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain? No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests.

Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one’s own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow “hatred” of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred.

All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies. What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be “racist.

What then, is “racism? ” It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history – but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites. Racism In America

There is surely no nation in the world that holds “racism” in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. “Racism” is never shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about “racism.

If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism. Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism? Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one’s own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this.

Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil. The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation?

Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state. All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today’s Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday’s Whites must have oppressed them.

If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of White people. The logical consequences of this are clear.

Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions.

First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else.

The reverse is also true. Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the word “nigger” while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-Whites as “racist,” but ignore scurrilous attacks on Whites.

At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 “historically black” colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of… the same thing. To resist would be racist. “Black pride” is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of hatred.

It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver’s tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist. Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism. All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected “civil rights” organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist. At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists.

Recently, when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is branded as racist. Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is “celebration of diversity.

It has begun to dawn on a few people that “diversity” is always achieved at the expense of Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity.

Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group – a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood – is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has “diversity” been achieved. Let us put it bluntly: To “celebrate” or “embrace” diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of Whites.

Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to “diversity. ” It is, of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this kind of “diversity. ” It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being “culturally enriched? ” What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren’t citizens, who clamored for “affirmative action” in jobs and schooling? Would Mexico – or any other non-White nation – tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation?

Of course not. Yet White Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to “celebrate” their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist. There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of “hating” another group. Blacks can join “civil rights” groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers.

They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are “anti-white. ” Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of “diversity” and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures.

To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism. Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one’s people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them?

Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain? No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests.

Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one’s own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow “hatred” of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred.

All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies. What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be “racist.

What then, is “racism? ” It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history – but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.

Racial Targeting and Profiling

The practice of targeting individuals for police investigation based on their race alone in the last few years has been an increasingly prominent issue in American society. Numerous magazines, newspapers, and journals have explored the issue of race-motivated police actions. Recently, the ABA Journal did a study of New Jersey and Pennsylvania traffic stops from 1998 to 2001, concluding that black drivers were more likely to be pulled over and arrested than whites.

The study also delves into the legal ramifications of the 1996 United States Supreme Court ruling in the Whren v. United States case, which held that police officers subjective motivation for stopping a motorist on the highway was irrelevant as long as a probable cause was present – such as a traffic violation existed for making the stop. The Whren court decision validated the pretext stop, which occurs when police officers ostensibly stop motorists for traffic violations but are in fact motivated by the desire to obtain evidence of other crimes.

Police officers, however, argue that racial profiling is common sense and is sensible, statistically based tool that enables them to focus their energies efficiently for providing protection against crime to law a-biding citizen. In Taylor and Whitney, a study investigating the existence of an empirical basis for racial profiling and crime, they concluded that society must acknowledge the statistics behind crime rates in order to understand the concept of racial profiling; such information is available in annual crime reports.

Statistics are facts and numbers which cannot be disputed and provide the experiential basis for racial profiling. The FBI Bulletin also addressed the necessity to consider statistics in addressing the issue of racial profiling. However, unlike Taylor and Whitney who argue for the use of statistics to support racial profiling, the FBI Bulletin promotes the usage of statistics in order to reduce and hopefully eliminate racial profiling. The FBI Bulletin states that if agencies were mandated to keep consistent statistical reports on the attributes and nature of their traffic stops, then racial profiling will not be as rampant.

A written record of all traffic stops would do so by attributing individual responsibility to the police officers involved in such violations. The issue of profiling, not only racial profiling is one that affects both the local and national levels. There are many different perspectives that people are taking toward the idea of race-motivated police traffic stops. The frequency of traffic stops among college students and whether or not race is a cause in such traffic stops has many other factors that that need to be taken into consideration, such as gender, age, vehicle, location, and attire.

The issue of racial profiling in America is one of great importance to the future of American society. This issue is not new to our society; racism and stereotyping are issues that date back to many years ago. Racial profiling in America is on that needs to be addressed by the government and society if we ever want America to truly be, The Land of The Free. One of the main examples of racial profiling is called DWB (Driving While Black). This is a term starting to show itself a lot in cases of racial profiling. This name is meant to be a shot at he already known DWI (Driving While Intoxicated).

In todayfs society, the perception is that most drug traffickers are minorities. This is very untrue. Racial profiling is based on the premise that minorities commit most drug offenses. Because police look for drugs primarily among African Americans and Latinos, they find an uneven number of them actually in possession of contraband. Therefore, these people are arrested, reinforcing the idea that drug trafficking is primarily a Latino or African American thing. At the same time, white drivers receive far less police attention; many of the drug dealers and users among them get away.

This just feeds to the perception that whites commit fewer drug offenses than minorities. This often results in the persecution of innocent people based on skin color. This also causes a huge distrust and minorities are less willing to cooperate. Driving While Black is not an issue that just arose its just now gaining a name. The practice of racial profiling by our nations police is the consequence of the rising concern about the war on drugs. Drug use and drug selling are not limited to minorities in the US; in fact, five times as many whites use drugs.

This war on drugs since it began targeted minorities. According to the governments own reports 80 percent of the country cocaine users are white and the typical cocaine user is a white middle class suburbanite. However, law enforcement tactics are concentrated in the inner city. This continues to feed the perception that most drug dealers and users are black. This prompted the drug courier profile, with racial overtones to take hold. Media coverage of this issue has begun to increase in the last couple of years or so.

In the past year, front-page stories and editorials have appeared in every major national newspaper and many local papers. Even though media fascination with a problem does not make it real, lack of media coverage does not make a problem nonexistent either. However, because of the many stories and statistical reports, the lawsuits and even recent action by the government, make a good argument that, driving while black, is not just an occasional problem. Some of these stories are ridiculous there is so many cases its crazy. Racial profiling unbelievably is a big problem among the news media itself.

When the media covers a story about drugs, they often show the black drug dealer, abuser, criminal, or the undeserving affirmative action recipient. When we look at the ways the national media has covered or failed to cover recent stories or studies we get a better understanding of the practice or racial profiling in the media. In a recent poll taken by the child advocacy group Children Now the children included said that, the news media tends to portray African American and Latino people more negatively than white and Asian people. Most of the major news media did not cover this story and the ones that did said, that the children were influenced by television newsh. (Media Blackface) News One of the major and most well known cases of racial profiling is the case of Amadou Diallo, where four white officers members of the anti street crime unit fired 41 shots at Diallo hitting him 19 times. The officers contended that they fired in what they though at the time was self defense. Amadou Diallo was shot 19 times for reaching for his wallet not a weapon.

Diallo was just another black man that fit the profile of a drug dealer simply because he was black. In Pennsylvania Johnny Gammage was pulled over while driving his cousinfs Jaguar. As Gammage pulled over five police cars arrived on the scene. One of the officers said that Gammage ran three red lights before stopping after the officer flashed his lights at him. The officer took Gammage out of the car and saw him grab something that was reportedly a weapon, but was his cell phone.

The officer knocked the phone out of Gammage hand and they scuffled. The other officers beat Gammage with a flashlight, a collapsible baton, and a blackjack as one put his foot on Gammage neck. Johnny Gammage died, handcuffed, ankles bound, facedown on the pavement shortly after the incident began. Again, this man was unarmed. Although the officers in both instances were punished, one must think if they were not officers would the punishment have been more severe, or if there were white officers would the punishment also have been more drastic.

If the suspects in both instances had been suburban white males would the officerfs reactions been so dramatic. Even former President Clinton recognized racial profiling within our police departments. gPresident Clinton called racial profiling by police, a morally indefensible deeply corrosive practiceh. (Clinton Associated Press) He also said that, gpeople of color continue to have less confidence and less trust, and believe they are targeted for actionh. Clinton Associated Press) Clinton recounted that he once asked a group of black journalists if the police had ever stopped them and they all raised their hands. Racial profiling is a problem that needs to be addressed by the government and the people of America. The subject of racial profiling is not only a problem; it is an age-old disease. This disease that has plagued America for a long time, and until we decide to grow up and get past stereotypical and bias views of other races and ethnic backgrounds, this problem will continue to exist with possible fatal results.

Origins of Racism

There are many theories that attempt to identify the precise origins of racism. The three articles that were designated for reading each try to answer the question of what are the sources of racism. Of the three, I found that both Loewenberg?s and Allport?s arguments combined best explain where racism stems from. By using the aforementioned articles I will assert my opinion of the subject, and use past and current class readings to support my argument. In doing so, some light may be shed upon what are the actual derivations of racism.

In Allport?s article, Formation of In-Groups, there is a social psychological approach taken. He uses in-groups and reference groups to aid in his defining of the origins of racism. He defines an in-group as ?any cluster of people who can use the term ?we,? with the same significance. ? He then defines a reference group as ? in-groups that is warmly accepted, or a group in which the individual wishes to be included. ? By forming in-groups and reference groups, people are often segregated or discriminated against because they aren?t part of a whole.

Groups do so by forming a common enemy, which every group member can relate with each other in despising. Groups label out-groups in order to assure camaraderie among members and security. The existence of an outsider is in the beginning an essential condition of any warmth or togetherness within the group (Allport 99). Since whites are the dominant race in American society, being in the white in-group means having people of color as their common adversary. Feelings of prejudice arouse from the need of white people to feel comfortable with themselves and their surroundings.

This may mean that the in-group of whites was formed in order to satisfy the needs of individual whites. In-groups are often recreated to fit the needs of individual group members, and when the needs are strongly aggressive, the redefinition of the in-group may primarily be in terms of the hated out-groups (Allport 94). The hated out-group in terms of racial relations of whites is people of color. Reference groups sometimes have the same meaning as in-groups. This is mostly when the reference group accepts the individual.

An example of this is when a black wants to be part of the white majority, and isn?t able to because of his color and affiliation with the black in-group. This is brought on by the demand for people color to adapt to white culture. In doing so, people of color are forced to rid themselves of taking pride in their ethnicity and culture. By doing this, a person of color may develop self-hate for themselves as individual or for their group. The minority group member is forced to make the dominant majority his reference group in respect to language, manners, morals, and law.

He may be entirely loyal to his minority in-group, but he is at the same time always under the necessity of relating himself to the standards and expectations of the majority (Allport 95). The dominant majority is for him a reference group. It exerts a strong pull upon him, forcing attitudinal conformity. Thus, both in-groups and reference groups are important in the formation of attitudes (Allport 97). All humans have needs, and these needs can be satisfied by associating oneself with a group. The group can help gratify personal wants and needs for individuals as well as the group as a whole.

In joining a group to accomplish what is desired, a individual will has to adopt the values, beliefs, and customs as the group. All groups develop a way of living with characteristic codes and beliefs, standards, and enemies to suit their own adaptive needs . The theory holds that both gross and subtle pressures keep every individual in line. The in-groups preferences must be his, and its enemies his enemies (Allport 99). Thus an individual must be similar to those who form the in-group. Without similarity, a group can?t be strongly bonded together.

People still may develop their own views and prejudices, but these are usually shown and shared in the group which an individual is a member. No individual would mirror his groups attitudes unless he had a personal need, or personal habit, that leads him to do so. The most frequent source of prejudice lies in the needs and habits that reflect influence of in-group members upon the development of individual personality (Allport 99). I think this may help explain why children of racist or prejudice parents tend to mirror their parents own beliefs.

A child wouldn?t be racist if he don?t know what being racist was. Becoming socialized by parents sometimes includes the teaching of racism to children of racist parents. The same could go for groups of friends, who are in a predominantly white area. The group members feed each others need for security and identity. Allport indicated that we form groups for a sense of security. When the sense of security fades away, prejudices are created ignored to strengthen the bonds of membership and satisfy needs of security. Hostility towards out-groups helps strengthen our sense of belonging.

Because of their basic importance to our own survival and self-esteem, we tend to develop a partisanship and ethnocentrism in respect to our in-groups (Allport 100). By doing this we create barriers between groups. This barrier makes others foreign. These boundaries bring about racism and the discrimination of one group from the other. People don?t seem to like anything that is contradistinctive to their own ideals and characteristics. Thus, what is alien is regarded as somehow inferior, less ?good,? but there is not necessarily hostility against it (Allport 100).

Group members are able to protect the groups identity and strengthen itis may mean that the in-group of whites was formed in order to satisfy the needs of individual whites. In-groups are often recreated to fit the needs of individual group members, and when the needs are strongly aggressive, the redefinition of the in-group may primarily be in terms of the hated out-groups (Allport 94). The hated out-group in terms of racial relations of whites is people of color. Reference groups sometimes have the same meaning as in-groups. This is mostly when the reference group accepts the individual.

An example of this is when a black wants to be part of the white majority, and isn?t able to because of his color and affiliation with the black in-group. This is brought on by the demand for people color to adapt to white culture. In doing so, people of color are forced to rid themselves of taking pride in their ethnicity and culture. By doing this, a person of color may develop self-hate for themselves as individual or for their group. The minority group member is forced to make the dominant majority his reference group in respect to language, manners, morals, and law.

He may be entirely loyal to his minority in-group, but he is at the same time always under the necessity of relating himself to the standards and expectations of the majority (Allport 95). The dominant majority is for him a reference group. It exerts a strong pull upon him, forcing attitudinal conformity. Thus, both in-groups and reference groups are important in the formation of attitudes (Allport 97). All humans have needs, and these needs can be satisfied by associating oneself with a group. The group can help gratify personal wants and needs for individuals as well as the group as a whole.

In joining a group to accomplish what is desired, a individual will has to adopt the values, beliefs, and customs as the group. All groups develop a way of living with characteristic codes and beliefs, standards, and enemies to suit their own adaptive needs . The theory holds that both gross and subtle pressures keep every individual in line. The in-groups preferences must be his, and its enemies his enemies (Allport 99). Thus an individual must be similar to those who form the in-group. Without similarity, a group can?t be strongly bonded together. People still mareal source.

People use these two concepts to take the focus of themselves. They posit negative characteristics on others to remove the guilt that they feel. When forbidden desires emerge in a white man, he can facilitate their repression by projecting them onto blacks or members of other racial minorities. In the unconscious of the bigot the black represents his own repressed instincts which he fears and hates and which are forbidden by his conscience as it struggles to conform to the values professed by society (Loewenberg 114). Fear of revenge by oppressed groups is common among racial bigot.

They fear that the oppressed will retaliate and do onto them as they have done onto the oppressed. Whites fear begin put in the same place that they positioned people of color for years. The process of projection becomes dangerous to the bigot when he perceives that he is hated as the exploiter and oppressor and that he must fear the revenge of blacks. Bigoted whites cannot imagine blacks who are not vengeful because they identify productively with the targets of their prejudice and they know how revengeful they themselves would be in similar circumstances (Loewenberg 115). Projection agrees with and is complementary to displacement.

Frustration caused anger that could not effectively or immediately be directed at an abstract social and economic system, and that this hostility was instead discharged by being displaced onto blacks (Loewenberg 116). This can help explain why blacks are looked down upon. They are blamed for the mishaps of whites. Whites blame people of color because of their insecurity. They can?t take the blame themselves, so they posit it onto others. Like Allport, Loewenberg states that feelings of personal insecurity, deprivation, anxiety, and hostility are all linked to prejudice (Loewenberg 119).

These feelings lead to the use of false information to identify people of color. An individuals needs are expressed by his prejudicial attitudes. The prejudiced person needs hate to maintain feelings of selfhood (Loewenberg 120). This is very similar to Allports statement that we form hatred of out-groups to preserve feelings of security. Loewenberg states that anxiety plays a role in forming prejudices. The greater the underlying anxiety of a person, the more prejudiced he is, because the pressure of his anxiety weakens his personal controls.

Thus weakened, he seeks relief through prejudice, which serves to reduce anxiety because prejudice facilitates the discharge of hostility. Thus prejudice can help a person protect his individuality and maintain the emotional balance of a distorted personality (Loewenberg 120). Prejudice helps individuals function better in society. It satisfies their needs of a strong sense of ethnicity, sexual orientation, social status, personal identity, emotional strength, and personal control. By acting prejudicially, people gain control over their instinctual forces.

It also lets a person feel better about themselves. This argument is similar to that of Cherrie Moraga?s La Guera. She states that it is not really difference that the oppressor fears so much as similarity. He fears he will discover n himself if the same aches, the same longings as those of the people he has *censored*ted on. He fears the immobilization threatened by his own incipient guilt. He fears he will have to change his life once he has seen himself in the bodies of the people he has called different. He fears the hatred, anger, and vengeance of those he has hurt (Moraga 32).

Loewenberg is similar in the way that they both mention how whites fear similarities with people of color, guilt of oppressing, and fear of retaliation. In the article Oppression, Marilyn Frye states how displacement and projection are used in real life. She mentions how minorities are perceived by the majority, and how those perceptions affect the way people of color are treated by whites. Loewenbergs argument is very attractive. I think it carries a lot of weight. It only takes common sense to see that people give undesirable characteristics and actions to others.

People don?t like to be in relation with something negative. The article clearly illustrates how people only want positive characteristics attributed to them. The third and final argument was made by James Boggs? in the article, Uprooting Racism and Racists in the United States. Boggs doesn?t use a psychological and/ or sociological explanations to discover the origins of racism. He states that racism is the result of historical and cultural forces that have provided racism with an easy mode of travel through the years. He mentions that systematic racism didn?t exist before the rise of capitalism.

Slave oppression had always existed in earlier times, but this was usually on the basis of military conquest and the conquerors did not develop a theory of racial superiority to rationalize their right to exploit their slaves (Boggs 138). He also contends that the slave trade brought about feelings of superiority and inferiority. It assigned people roles which would shape the way in which people of color were viewed for many years to follow. Boggs wrote that African culture was erased during the slave trade era. Whites told themselves that blacks had no culture to begin with so they weren?t doing anything wrong.

They tell themselves that in order to cancel the guilt they feel from holding people captive against their will. The more instrumental the slave trade in destroying African culture, the more those involved directly and indirectly in the slave traffic tried to convince themselves and others that there had never been any African culture in the first place. Thus, step by step, in order to justify their mutually reinforcing economic exploitation and forceful subjugation of blacks, living, breathing white Americans created a scientifically cloaked theory of white superiority and black inferiority (Boggs 139).

This is very similar to Loewenberg?s argument in the way that whites told themselves that there was no African culture to erase the guilt that would have been felt if they were conscious of what they were doing. During the times of slavery in the United States, people had a lot of money tied up in slavery and they didn?t want to lose there investments. Racism served as a catalyst. Racism was real because there were real people with a stake in racism- racists- and these real people were ready to resort to force to protect their stake (Boggs 141).

Because slavery was a means of income, whites used racism to put blacks down. In doing so, they took all ambition and drive away from black people. Since they had all of the power, their views were seen as truth. This argument isn?t as affective as the other articles, yet is still informative. I think that racism was aro, sexual orientation, social status, personal identity, emotional strength, and personal control. By acting prejudicially, people gain control over their instinctual forces. It also lets a person feel better about themselves. This argument is similar to that of Cherrie Moraga?s La Guera.

She states that it is not really difference that the oppressor fears so much as similarity. He fears he will discover n himself if the same aches, the same longings as those of the people he has *censored*ted on. He fears the immobilization threatened by his own incipient guilt. He fears he will have to change his life once he has seen himself in the bodies of the people he has called different. He fears the hatred, anger, and vengeance of those he has hurt (Moraga 32). Loewenberg is similar in the way that they both mention how whites fear similarities with people of color, guilt of oppressing, and fear of retaliation.

In the article Oppression, Marilyn Frye states how displacement and projection are used in real life. She mentions how minorities are perceived by the majority, and how those perceptions affect the way people of color are treated by whites. Loewenbergs argument is very attractive. I think it carries a lot of weight. It only takes common sense to see tpitalism, people of color have to struggle just to obtain an occupation, which is predominately held by whites. In A Different Mirror, Donald Takiki takes a very similar approach to that of Boggs.

The both use historical context to explain racism and how we can rid our society of it. Boggs? argument isn?t coherent with any of the other articles. He doesn?t address the problem in the same way as Allport and Loewenberg. The other two have few similarities which make one argument complement the other. I think that without in-groups and reference groups, people would have a need to displace negative aspects about people onto others. By assigning an out-group, people create an enemy that they can assign negative characteristics to.

This takes the negative characteristics and actions off of themselves, so that they can feel better about themselves and their group. This is yet another correspondence between the two authors. Both believe that prejudice arises from the need of an individual to satisfy his personal needs, which may be security, ethnocentrism and/ or release of guilt. They also state that we need hate to keep ourselves in line. Hostility towards others seems to make our emotional and group ties stronger. They are also alike in the way they speak of women, also.

The two of these arthors are very influential and persuasive in their respective articles, yet with the two combined, the origins of racism would be much easier to comprehend. Combining the two would only make the argument stronger and more concrete. Boggs? argument has truth in it, but it isn?t as practicable as the other two. His argument is coherent with the other two in the way that he describes how whites dominated blacks and how the assigned them roles and attributes that are false or are more applicable to whites. Slavery deeply segregated our society into groups.

Whites being the in-group and blacks being the hated out-group. Since whites were the majority they had their way with blacks, by either murder, rape, or taking their livelihood away. Then they decided to assign these tasks to black and began labeling them as what the whites were at the outset of slavery. It seems as if all of the articles, if put together explain what the sources of racism are. By placing them together we have a clearer picture of how racism has polluted our nation and the minds of its citizens. Racism has been around for hundreds of years.

It didn?t always deal with race relations either. It was dealt with sex relations and people from different cultures. Being white skinned didn?t make a difference as long as you weren?t part of the group. Ethnocentrism and need to satisfy wants and needs lead to racism. It helped people justify their actions and their beliefs. It helps people come together. Only by looking at the three articles can one person really identify the source of racism. One argument may address the beginning while the others address the end. Only on a complementary basis can these arguments define the source of racism accurately.

Should Racist Speech Enjoy Protection under the First Amendment

Prejudice and racial stereotyping are two of this country’s greatest problems today. Many people in our society have tried to find ways to eliminate or at least limit these types of behavior, but have met with very limited, if any, success. Because of the complex nature of racism and racist acts, coupled with the fact the first amendment prohibits the government from limiting the publics’ right to free expression and speech, the Federal government has been ineffective in eliminating racist actions that pervade our society.

State governments and institutions have attempted to et up their own laws condemning such actions, but have been wholly unsuccessful. Some of those waging a war on racism have established anti-discrimination policies, and have had these policies challenged as a result. Central Michigan University, for example, had instituted a discriminatory harassment policy, only to have it shot down by the Supreme Court in 1995 on grounds that the policy “necessarily requires [the] university to assess racial or ethnic content of speech. ” Since Central Michigan University is a State school, the First

Amendment prohibits it from enacting regulations that would limit an individual’s right to free speech unless the regulations, according to a 1986 ruling by the Supreme Court, are “narrowly and precisely designed. ” As you can imagine, precisely tailoring any statute in order to prohibit racist speech is nearly impossible – and as many other speakers have already said, banning the current racial slurs will only create new ones. Additionally, an outright ban on racist speech and ideas could likely lead to a higher level of violence in our society.

A number of other supreme court rulings have come out in favor of protecting all speech, including racist speech, such as: A 1941 ruling on the case of Sullens v State, stating that the “Freedom of speech includes freedom to speak unwisdom or even heresy. ” A 1949 ruling on the case of Terminillo v Chicago, stating that “Attacks on racial and religious groups are protected by right of free speech in absence of showing of serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest” A 1952 ruling on the case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. Wilson, stating that: “[The] First Amendment rohibits [the] state from banning communication of ideas deemed by some to be blasphemous or sacrilegious. ” A 1965 ruling on the case of Cox v Louisiana, stating that “Freedom of speech is of paramount importance and may not be denied merely because it may create dispute. ” Thus with these rulings, and with the only notable exception being in the case of the utterance of “fighting words,” which are defined as “words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite immediate breach of peace,” racist speech is currently protected under the First Amendment.

Some would argue, however, that any racial slur or racist speech has no place in today’s society, and that the general public does not want to hear and should not be subjected to hearing such outright bigotry. But does the right to speak one’s mind outweigh the listener’s rights? Apparently, yes, it does. According to the supreme court in the case of the National Labor Relations Board v Montgomery Ward & Co. 1946), the “First Amendment is concerned with freedom of thought and expression of [the] speaker or writer, not with conditions under which [the] auditor receives the] message [the] First Amendment does not require that [an] audience shall have volunteered to listen. ” This ruling essentially invalidates the argument, and forces the listener into a position where he must decide what to listen to and what to ignore, which is what we all do anyway. Allowing racist speech is an important thing, though. Without it we would have no ‘litmus test’ available to test the racial tension in our country, and would therefore have no way to combat it.

By allowing free speech to continue and by researching other methods of ending racism, we can get at the root of the problem and stop racism before it tarts. The key is not to limit or control action, but rather to influence reason and thought. There are a number of methods that the government could employ to attempt to eliminate racism from our country. Campaigns promoting more multi-cultural events and celebrating the differences of everyone in our country may be effective in changing people’s perspective of other races, as the more contact you have with people outside your ‘circle’ the more comfortable you generally become.

A “Task Force” could also be created to research the problem of racism, to determine when and how it starts in people, and to find ways to combat it. The most effective immediate solution, I believe, would be to encourage every business in the country to adopt zero-tolerance policies regarding racism, and perhaps even have the general policies outlined by the Federal Government.

By passing a law which would establish general guidelines for racism, and by making acceptance and employment of these guidelines in the workplace criteria for qualifying for certain business tax breaks, the government would second-handedly affect the use of racist slurs and expression of views. Now you may ask: “But doesn’t that violate the First Amendment since the government would essentially be putting imitations on speech? ” No, not exactly. Much like the Congressional Act passed in 1973 which essentially made the maximum speed limit in the country 55MPH, the act would be voluntary.

In the case of the 1973 Act, Congress did not outright limit setting speed limits above 55MPH, but instead greatly reduced the amount of Federal Highway Funds that a state received if it did not set its maximum limit at 55. Thus, the voluntary acceptance and employment of these regulations by private businesses around the country would help to reduce or eliminate racist behavior in the workplace, and would also help by carrying over into the home environment. But doesn’t private infringement on freedom of speech still violate the first amendment? No, it doesn’t. According to a 1996 ruling by the 9th Circuit California District Court in the case of George v Pacific CSC Work Furlough, the “First Amendment protects individuals only against governmental, not private, infringements upon free speech rights. ” Since the government is not outlawing racist speech, but rather influencing private individuals to not accept such behavior, the overall goal can be achieved without losing our rights under the first amendment. Of course, no solution is perfect.

Enforcing such a program would be difficult and arbitrary, and we would have to rely on the private individual’s interpretation of the guidelines in each situation. Also, there will always be stragglers from any kind of lesson, and in this case, the force pulling them away is basic human nature. It’s a well-known fact that people find it easier to find fault with, or dislike, others who are different from them, at least initially. The major hurdle in changing one’s perspective of another is to get past this initial block.

But in many ways, this is the best solution. Since individual interpretation of racism and racist speech are what auses the problem in defining strict laws against them, individual interpretation of general guidelines applied to specific situations may be the best method of judgement. Additionally, no governmental action would be taken if an employer were to note that an employee was expressing racist views while at work – action would be entirely at the discretion of the employer.

By not imposing strict fines or jail time, the act could be used as a teaching tool to show individuals what is deemed to be improper behavior, why it is improper, and could help them to form their own ideas and defining lines between proper and improper, or racist, actions. By using this solution, we can have the best of both worlds. By encouraging private individuals to fight racist remarks and racial slurs in the workplace, we can somewhat satisfy those who clamor for an outright ban on racism.

By not allowing this type of speech to be criminalized, we stand by our First Amendment rights and continue to allow freedom of expression. By offering each side this compromised solution we can not only help to phase racism out of our society, but also protect our unalienable rights. The Freedom to speak one’s mind is one of this country’s citizens’ most venerably held rights, and any discussion hich deals with government imposed limitations on this right should not be taken lightly.

Completely banning speech that is deemed by some to be racist only serves to bury the problem of racism itself, and is not an acceptable solution. Thus, the First Amendment should continue to protect racial slurs as well as all other speech in order to preserve and ensure the freedoms we have today. In conclusion, I’d like to quote one last ruling from the 8th circuit Federal court from 1946: “[The] First Amendment is intended to assure privilege that in itself must be so actual and certain that

Racial segregation and the supremacy of whites had

Racial segregation and the supremacy of whites had been traditionally accepted in South Africa prior to 1948, but in the general election of that year, Daniel F. Malan officially included the policy of apartheid in the Afrikaner Nationalist party platform, bringing his party to power for the first time. Although most whites acquiesced in the policy, there was bitter and sometimes bloody strife over the degree and stringency of its implementation. 2

The purpose of apartheid was separation of the races: not only of whites from nonwhites, but also of nonwhites from each other, and, among the Africans (called Bantu in South Africa), of one group from another. In addition to the Africans, who constitute about 75% of the total population, those regarded as nonwhite include those people known in the country as Coloured (people of mixed black, Malayan, and white descent) and Asian (mainly of Indian ancestry) populations. 3 Initial emphasis was on restoring the separation of races within the urban areas.

A large segment of the Asian and Coloured populations was forced to relocate out of so-called white areas. African townships that had been overtaken by (white) urban sprawl were demolished and their occupants removed to new townships well beyond city limits. Between the passage of the Group Areas Acts of 1950 and 1986, about 1. 5 million Africans were forcibly removed from cities to rural reservations. 4 South Africa gains independence from Great Britain after the passage of the Statute of Westminster by the British Parliament in December 1931 and its acceptance by South Africa in June 1934.

From the formation of the independent country, the white minority controls the government and moves to limit the powers of nonwhites and create special designated areas, or homelands, for them to live. The United Nations adopts a resolution condemning the South African government’s treatment of its Indian minority and asks both South Africa and India to report back as to whether conditions had improved to conform with the U. N. charter. A highly publicized effort by India to prevent South Africa from discriminating against the Indian minority marks the most prominent criticism to date of South Africa’s increasingly divisive racial policies.

See Facts On File print edition 1946, p. 39A] The conservative Afrikaner-dominated National Party wins parliamentary elections and gains control of the South African government. The party, under new Premier Dr. Daniel F. Malan, begins taking steps toward implementing apartheid (apartness), the national policy of racial separation. [See Facts On File print edition 1948, p. 171C2]

Group Areas Act is enacted. It segregates communities and relegates the black population to a minor percentage of the nation’s land. See Facts On File print edition 1950, p. 189M] Population Registrations Act is enacted. It requires all South Africans to register their race with the government. Enactment of pass laws. The laws require blacks to carry passbooks so that the government can regulate their travel through the country. Separate Amenities Act is enacted, establishing separate public facilities for whites and nonwhites. The African National Congress and other opposition groups adopt the Freedom Charter, calling for equal political rights for all races.

Police kill 69 unarmed protesters in Sharpeville. The government bans all opposition groups, may of which begin underground armed struggles for black and mixed-race liberation, including the African National Congress. [See Facts On File print edition 1960, pp. 109F3, 103D3] South Africa becomes a republic. The decision to break from the Commonwealth is prompted by Asian and African Commonwealth member sates’ denunciation of South Africa’s apartheid policies, which it refuses to alter. [See Facts On File print edition 1961, p. 7A1]

U. N. General Assembly President Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria suspends South Africa from participating in the remainder of assembly sessions for that year. The following day South Africa recalls it U. N. ambassador and freezes its $1 million annual contribution to the organization. [See Facts On File print edition 1963, p. 935F2] Nelson Mandela, an ANC leader, is convicted of sabotage and trying to overthrow the government. He is sentenced to life in prison. [See Facts On File print edition 1964, p. 197C1]

A student protest in the black township of Soweto against mandatory education in Afrikaans spreads. The government, in an effort to suppress the civil unrest, kills 575 people over eight months. [See Facts On File print edition 1976, p. 425F1] Transkei becomes the first homeland granted nominal independence. The 10 homelands eventually make up about 13% of South African territory. [See Facts On File print edition 1976, p. 813A1] Steven Biko, one of the most influential black student leaders in South Africa, is reported to have died from a hunger strike while in police detention. See Facts On File print edition 1977, p. 707C3] White voters approve a new constitution that creates separate chambers in the legislature for Asians and Coloreds (people of mixed race), although not for blacks. [See South African Whites Approve New Constitution; Limited Power Sharing Set] A national state of emergency is imposed following widespread strikes and riots. The decree gives virtually unlimited powers to the security forces and imposes restrictions on the press. [See South Africa Declares National State of Emergency]

Laws requiring blacks to carry passbooks for identification are scrapped. [See South Africa Snubs U. K. Peace Mission To understand the value and significance of June 9. 6 and appreciate its meaning to millions of oppressed Africans in South Africa, it is necessary to recall that the history of white rule in South Africa is a history of rule by force, violence and massacres. There was shooting and killing of Africans during the 1919 Anti-Pass Campaign, during the strike by 80,000 Rand African Miners and the Port Elizabeth African Workers’ Strike in 1920.

In 1921 the notorious Bulhoek Massacre took place when 163 Africans were killed and 130 wounded. The Bondelswart Massacre of 1922 saw 100 people shot dead and hundreds wounded. People were killed during the Durban beer boycott in 1929, and at Potchefstroom and Durban during the 1930 Anti-Pass Campaign. There were killings at Worcester in 1930, Vereeniging in 1938, and during the Rand Africans Miners’ Strike in 1946. White fascist terror took the reigns of government in 1948 and an era of intensified tyranny and brutal repression started.

The introduction of the Unlawful Organisations Bill (later renamed the Suppression of Communism Act) was followed by the shooting down of 18 Africans during May Day demonstrations in Johannesburg on May 1, 1950. In the same year the ANC called on the African and all other oppressed people and democrats of South Africa to join in unity and solidarity on June 26 in a national stoppage of work — which, for the African, was an act of mass defiance of the law — to honour the victims of decades of white violence and massacres and to assert their resolve to pursue the struggle for freedom despite brutal repression.

In their hundreds of thousands, the people responded to the call and thus June 26 came to be accepted and recognised as our National Day, symbolising the nature and objectives of our struggle for freedom, and providing the occasion for rededication to its noble cause. There are many milestones along the path of struggle that followed June 26 1950 – a path strewn with the bodies of our martyred and maimed compatriots. A few of these milestones are here recalled.

In 1952, determined to wage relentless resistance against fascist rule, the ANC, acting in close co-operation with the South African Indian Congress, galvanised the masses into defiance of apartheid legislation, when, from June 26 to December, more than 8,500 freedom fighters defied the unjust and inhuman laws of South Africa and served jail sentences. This was the finest hour in the development of national political awareness among our people. It brought panic and consternation to the white oppressors and their imperialist allies, and resulted in a spate of draconian legislation designed to contain the revolutionary upsurge of the people.

But three years later, on June 26 1955, a heroic and epoch-making Congress of the People was convened in the face of intimidation and victimisation by the racist government and its police force. From every corner of South Africa delegates and representatives of the people assembled at Kliptown, and despite harassment and constant provocation by hundreds of heavily armed police, they drew up a Freedom Charter, which was a blueprint of the political, economic and social structure that the people of South Africa demanded.

The Freedom Charter, adopted on June 9. 6 and acclaimed by freedom-loving people throughout the world as an historic document, became the basis of a charge of high treason against 156 leaders of the liberation movement arrested in 1956; some of these stood trial for five years. In anger the people rose in militant action to assert the demands of the Freedom Charter. The political struggle raged more fiercely and June 26 assumed an ever-increasing significance for the South African people

The Freedom Charter, in the words of Nelson Mandela, is ‘a beacon to the Congress movement and an inspiration to the people of South Africa’. For the first time all the major democratic forces in the country found a common programme. The Charter was subsequently endorsed by national conferences of the SA Indian Congress, the Coloured People’s Congress and the Congress of Democrats; by the SA Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU) and in the 1962 Programme of the South African Communist Party.

Essentially, the South African Freedom Charter stems from the tradition of the proclamations of rights of the French and American revolutions and echoed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It demands rights which are honoured — at least in theory — in almost every country: an equal say for all in the process of making and administering laws, equal access to education, culture, and economic opportunities for all men and women, regardless of race or colour.

The Charter is not a socialist manifesto. Its demands for the redivision of the land among those who work it, and the nationalisation of mineral wealth and monopoly-owned industry, are clearly attributable to the historical realities of a country where the white minority has forcibly appropriated nearly all the country’s land and assets, rather than adherence to socialist doctrine on the part of all those who made and support the Charter.

Yet, in Mandela’s words, the Freedom Charter is ‘a revolutionary document precisely because the changes it envisages cannot be won without breaking up the economic and political set-up of present South Africa. ‘ It was for this reason that the ruling classes of South Africa regarded the Charter as ‘High Treason’.