Double Standards

[gwilson]

Wilson, you can't be upset about "black history month", because the other 11 are always "white history months" !!! MLK parade, St. paddy's Day parade, BOTH have about the same turnout, the difference is that some black people actually go to the St. Paddy's Parade.

11 other white history months? That is the WORST excuse I've ever heard. Try harder.

[houstonmacbro]

I will say this ... In school I never felt like black history or African-American contributions were discussed much outside of February.

Not sure it was a conspiracy, but it just wasn't taught like other historical lessons.

[musicman]

I will say this ... In school I never felt like black history or African-American contributions were discussed much outside of February.

maybe if there wasn't a black history month it would be mentioned all year long when appropriate. having a specific month makes teachers feel obligatory to keep it only to that month.

[TJones]

11 other white history months? That is the WORST excuse I've ever heard. Try harder.

1.) I am not making ANY excuses. I am stating fact.

2.) I am not gonna make any attempts to try harder, as I don't feel a need to justify how history is taught, or at what "standards"and levels they are taught AT.

3.) It is IMPOSSIBLE to call anything "white" as we (the white race) must carry the burden for the sins of our forefathers and continue to do so until the year 2365 which will make it 400 years of reconciliation to the black people for the years of slavery their forefathers indured, but after that, everything is a clean slate. Besides who wants to deal with Quanell and Rev. JACKsonnnnn, and Rev. SHARPtonnnnn, Farrahkan, and the new kid on the block, Jerimiah White ??? Much easier just to have our Thanksgiving Day parades and Rose Bowl Parades.

4.) I think you missed the point COMPLETELY about the other 11 months of the year being WHITE HISTORY months. I think that the white race can handle the black folks having their own month out of the whole year.

Macbro, you are right, black accomplishments WEREN'T discussed much outside of February, and then we were only taught about the civil rights movement and a few inventions like the Cotton Gin, at least that is how I remember it.

[memebag]

maybe if there wasn't a black history month it would be mentioned all year long when appropriate. having a specific month makes teachers feel obligatory to keep it only to that month.

We didn't have black history month when I was a kid, and we never talked about black history at school except for one lesson about George Washington Carver that we heard every year.

[west20th]

maybe if there wasn't a black history month it would be mentioned all year long when appropriate. having a specific month makes teachers feel obligatory to keep it only to that month.

Hmmm......you ought to give teachers a little more credit than that.

[west20th]

There is a racial double standard there whether you choose to see it or not. Black history month, black pride clubs/parades, black only dances, hate crime legislation, etc. It isn't popular to talk about, but it exists. There is no justification for it either.

So you don't feel too left out there is the "White Party" in Miami every year.

Edited March 26, 2008 by west20th

[BryanS]

For those of you that think churches are too involved in politics NOW, subjecting them to taxation is the LAST thing you want.

Ditto. As soon as you take money from them, then they will arguably have (an even bigger) stake in the government. You can remove that conflict of interest by simply not taking/refusing their funding - as long as they behave like a church. Otherwise, tax them to death for the PACs that they become.

[ricco67]

You know, my main issue with "Black History Month" is the fact that, while there are great accomplishments done by all races, some inventions are no longer really relevant except to say "Oh, it was invented by a black man."

Then again, what is taught in history is pretty much up to the curriculum that is set by that particular district and who is to say what EXACTLY is taught to children.

I'm sorry, race shouldn't be a check mark for one to be mentioned as a great American and mentioned for what is prominent and relevant in this day or significant at the time.

Me being of mexican decent (even though I had to turn in my "Brown" card because I don't like beans or Tejano music), I don't care of there is a "Mexican heritage month."

If we're going to go down that route, why not have a Japanese History month? Irish? Canadians? Columbians? indians(The Feathered and Dot kind)? Why limit it to blacks? How about AFRICAN history month? I'm sure the Egyptians, Nigerians, and South Africans would like a piece of that action.

[musicman]

Hmmm......you ought to give teachers a little more credit than that.

i'm not the one complaining

I will say this ... In school I never felt like black history or African-American contributions were discussed much outside of February.

[houstonmacbro]

You know, my main issue with "Black History Month" is the fact that, while there are great accomplishments done by all races, some inventions are no longer really relevant except to say "Oh, it was invented by a black man."

Then again, what is taught in history is pretty much up to the curriculum that is set by that particular district and who is to say what EXACTLY is taught to children.

I'm sorry, race shouldn't be a check mark for one to be mentioned as a great American and mentioned for what is prominent and relevant in this day or significant at the time.

Me being of mexican decent (even though I had to turn in my "Brown" card because I don't like beans or Tejano music), I don't care of there is a "Mexican heritage month."

If we're going to go down that route, why not have a Japanese History month? Irish? Canadians? Columbians? indians(The Feathered and Dot kind)? Why limit it to blacks? How about AFRICAN history month? I'm sure the Egyptians, Nigerians, and South Africans would like a piece of that action.

Agreed! I think history classes and curriculums should be more inclusive of ALL peoples. But that is not how it is, whether by design, lack of motivation outside of what is comfortable, or whatever.

Let me also add, that as an American, I feel kinda ... well, uniformed that I do not know more about histories and cultures of more people that have lived and made this country what it is. I read and do research on my own, but when the school systems (that we all pay taxes for and that I went to school in) systematically decide FOR books and lesson plans that do NOT include a more balanced approach to history, I think we all lose.

Edited March 26, 2008 by houstonmacbro

[editor]

Can someone tell me how these people slipped through the cracks? I mean, they're not in the spotlight or anything on a national level. I can understand how it happened, ya know...

Reverend Al Sharpton

Jesse Jackson

Jeremiah Wright

edit: bonus question - who can guess why the three get away with it but this man did not? Kudos for the correct answer.

Because they have people who do the dirty work for them. I can't speak for Wright, but Jesse Jackson hasn't preached from the pulpit in years. He has other people who do that for him, and then he is brought in as a "guest speaker" -- all perfectly legal since their churches bring in lots of other politicians, and even invite opposing politicians to participate. They, naturally, decline because they know they won't be treated fairly.

All the people you list have very good lawyers who make sure everything they do is legal. They may walk up to the line and shake their butts at it, but they rarely actually cross it.

That said, Jesse is barely functional these days. Not as bad as Louis Farrakhan, who I don't expect to make it through 2009. But Jesse's done with the Bible banging. He's tried his hand at being a diplomat a la Jerry Carter, but that's not working out very well, either. His influence is waning, and even the Reverend Al has opened shop in Jesse's backyard and calls him out on a regular basis.

(I've met Jackson and Sharpton, but not Wright.)

[ricco67]

Agreed! I think history classes and curriculums should be more inclusive of ALL peoples. But that is not how it is, whether by design, lack of motivation outside of what is comfortable, or whatever.

Let me also add, that as an American, I feel kinda ... well, uniformed that I do not know more about histories and cultures of more people that have lived and made this country what it is. I read and do research on my own, but when the school systems (that we all pay taxes for and that I went to school in) systematically decide FOR books and lesson plans that do NOT include a more balanced approach to history, I think we all lose.

But what part do you agree with?

in Texas, we have mandatory year of Texas History which includes all races that were involved, but doesn't say what races they are. If we should point out what race every person that played a significant role in our history, every name would be followed by at least 10 letters of "of Anglo Saxon" or "Of African.." do you see? At what point does race become irrelevent to our culture?

MLK said, " ...judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character", are we to ignore his dream in which race is no longer a factor in how we look at a person? If we continue with this "Black history" month, we're merely highlighting our own inability to see beyond race by saying, "Look at what my brother did!"

[Mark F. Barnes]

in Texas, we have mandatory year of Texas History which includes all races that were involved, but doesn't say what races they are. If we should point out what race every person that played a significant role in our history, every name would be followed by at least 10 letters of "of Anglo Saxon" or "Of African.." do you see? At what point does race become irrelevent to our culture?

MLK said, " ...judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character", are we to ignore his dream in which race is no longer a factor in how we look at a person? If we continue with this "Black history" month, we're merely highlighting our own inability to see beyond race by saying, "Look at what my brother did!"

Ricco no truer words have ever been spoken. In this brief statement Ricco has out lined the exact state of race relations as we are today. The issue of race at some level will always be present in our culture, I think it's just human nature to always acknowledge distinction between people, and the most noticeable and most easily identified is Race or Color. And if you think about it, in ways it makes sense, however it does not make you a racist. If you are walking down the street and you see someone cross the street three blocks away, you can see his build, his color, and that's the only distinction you have. He could be black for instance, he also could be from the US Virgin Islands and speaks with a Caribbean Accent, he's an American Citizen, College graduate, Lawyer, whatever. However you will never know any of this until you actually meet and talk to this person, because we are not micro-chipped or bar-coded. So our first judgement at a glance is stature and color (or race), and most of the time gender (I understand there are times that's in question, so I won't elaborate on it). That's all we have to go by without knowing and speaking to a person at first glance. It does not make you a racist to simply identify a person by sight. However it's the next level that is taken as to where racism comes into play. And there are so many forms of racism, it covers a broad spectrum both good and bad.

There was an interesting test done on 20/20 (I think), a couple of months back. They set up a hidden camera in Central Park and hired actors to portray roles. First they had caucasian guy screaming and pushing his African American girlfriend around. Several men of all races just walked by without much more than a second glance. Several women of all races walked by, some stopped and though about intervening, however when the guy got loud they hollered they'd were going to call the cops and hurried away. One Jewish lady in here late 50's stopped and intervened, she wouldn't back down and helped the girl stand up and lead her away. They later interviewed the people that had been in the area and most of them, just said they didn't want to get involved or it wasn't their business. they one lady that helped, had been abused in the past and wasn't going to let that stand. Now the next time they reversed the roles racially, not one women (of any race) stopped or even looked their way, some reversed their direction before even getting near them. Some men thought about it and a couple even laughed, however one caucasian guy in his late 50'2 early 60's intervened. He was about 6'9" and did not hesitate, and had to be physically restrained by security that was hiding nearby. It was interesting to watch the social behavior of this cross section of New Yorkers. They interviewed people as they did before, and not one said it wasn't their business, however they did point out that the guy was black and said they were scared. Now my point being is the two actors they used for the male role were of the same size and stature, and the women were both petite and frail looking. Yet both were treated very different and were both intervened differently. I am a study of Human Behavior, I am a people watcher, mainly because to me people are very entertaining when they don't know they are being watched. Now don't freak out on me, because I don't peek in peoples windows, but I can sit in a park and watch people and all there weird idiocincracies for hours. People are a strange breed. I think we are all natural voyeurs to an extent, just because we are overly curious and nosey by nature.

I think this outlines a huge underlying double standard that is present in today's America, whether people want to admit it or not. It doesn't make anyone a racist per-say, however it could be a form there of. To fear a man because of his color is a form of racism, and I feel is the very root of racism itself. Fear IMHO is the basis for racism. And violent acts as a result of this are fear based, mainly because the person committing the act of violence, is not intelligent enough to react in any other way. Now there a rare instances where a psychopath is involved and you just have to throw that out as a different issue all together. But the everyday run of the mill racist is so because of fear, and lack intelligence to know any better or deal with it in any other way. People are always going to identify each other by sight and visual description, however it's the things that follow that that make up the racist acts and or varied levels of racism that exist today. I don't think we can do away with the visual distinction, however we can can do away with the bad behavior hopefully eventually.