The Milwaukee Journal recently reported the resolution of the case of the white centenarian Walmart greeter (“WCWG”) who was alleged to have been attacked by a young black woman (“YBW”). Thank goodness for the store’s videotaped account of the incident! The combination of the video, the YBW’s account and the WCWG’s own words resulted in the young woman being cleared of all wrongdoing.
The YBW expressed regret about not having handled the situation better, stating that she wishes she had not tried to take the receipt from the woman. She admitted that the woman’s comments had upset her, and emotion got the better of her. We know now, that contrary to initial reports, she did not knock the woman down. Rather, the woman’s fall was an accident.
I say, “Hats, off” to law enforcement officials for their handling of the situation. The WCWG repeated to police the same hateful things she had said to the YBW. The victim’s lawyer, however, felt it necessary after the YBW was exonerated to scold her for leaving the poor defenseless old lady on the floor alone, traumatized.
I am left with nothing but questions to ponder in the wake of this incident: When a WCWG falls and suggests a black person is to blame, should the black person stand on principle and defend themselves at the scene? Should the YBW have tried to help the WCWG off the floor? Why did she leave the WCWG on the floor? What if the YBW had been a black or brown male? Why hasn’t anyone suggested that the young black woman is owed an apology for the centenarian’s racially charged comments? Do we accept as fact that people over the age of 70 should not be held accountable for their behavior?
What would you do?
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
So True - Part Two
In the last installment, I said we’d discuss all the special things we people of color have created for ourselves at the exclusion of whites. Well, since then, I’ve had a change of heart. I’m going to skip to a discussion about how violent we people of color are since I suppose our violent nature is what’s responsible for the black-man-did-it defense for murder and other crimes.
This creative defense was born in Boston in 1989 when a fine upstanding young man, Charles Stuart, drove his pregnant wife to a predominantly black neighborhood and shot her in the head and himself in the abdomen. She died shortly thereafter. His son delivered eight weeks early died a little more than two weeks after the incident when he authorized the withdrawal of life support. He lived to blame it on a black man and cause a big mess. Boston, with its history of racial unrest got a huge black eye as the police stopped, searched and questioned random black men until they nabbed one for the incident. Stuart’s brother spilled the beans—Boston Baked, perhaps?—and Stuart confessed then jumped off a bridge. At the time of his death, I’m sure he could not have imagined what he started.
We had our own Charles Stuart right here in Milwaukee in one, Jesse Anderson. Thanks to Police Chief Philip Arreola’s call for cool heads and good police work, citing Boston as a mistake he didn’t want to repeat, Anderson’s lie was quickly revealed. Anderson’s act had economic impact as it was linked (in the minds of some) to the death of Northridge Mall.
Let’s not forget Susan Smith, the South Carolinian who blamed a black man for the horrific drowning death of her two precious little boys or Bonnie Sweeten who blamed two black men for abducting her 9-year-old daughter and her or Ashley Todd who first, said a black man beat her up in an ATM robbery attempt and then said she thought it was because he was trying to teach her a lesson for supporting Republican John McCain instead of Democrat Barack Obama.
Well, it’s time to spread the slander. Now, we have the black-woman-did-it defense in the case of Bethany Storro. She, like everyone else mentioned here, LIED. On September 21, she was charged with theft after police said she admitted to fabricating the story of a stranger, a black woman, splashing acid in her face and then collecting $28,000 in donations from the community. Theft! That’s all??
Bethany, Ashley, Bonnie and Susan are all white as were Jesse and good old Charlie, the person who started this modern-day insanity. (I have to qualify it as modern-day because black men were convenient scapegoats for rape and murder since the days of slavery.) In each of the cases, some more than others, the authorities believed the people were telling the truth because after all, blacks are such violent people.
The email author wrote, “You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you…so why are the ghettos the most dangerous place to live?” To that question, one has to ask, “What does that have to do with the price of apples?” People who live in so-called “ghettos” across this country are more often the targets of violence than the white population, in general. I ask, is it not an act of violence to cavalierly accuse black men, and now women, of bad acts? Shouldn’t there be more serious consequences for such odious behavior? I don’t have answers, just questions to ponder.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
So True – Part One
"So True" was the title of an email message that landed in the inbox of a YWCA employee. The content was alleged to have been Michael Richards’ (Seinfeld’s Kramer) defense of his comments considered by many to be racist in nature. The original email forwarder said of the remarks, “This is so true!!!!! I could not have said it better myself!!!!!!” (The quote is verbatim including all exclamation marks.)
How ironic that the message would make it to the YWCA!
Well, if Mr. Richards actually said all he’s credited with saying, there’s enough for a couple of blog posts! This is in part, old news. It’s curious that it would resurface. Oh, well! Hopefully, if you’re out there Ms. or Mr. Forwarder and you read them, perhaps another perspective on what you see as “true” would be helpful. Then again, you may not care.
“There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.And then there are just Americans. You call me ‘White boy,’ ‘Cracker,’ ‘Honkey,’ ‘Whitey,’‘Caveman’ and that’s Ok, but when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger [more ugly names were included and deleted]…you call me a racist.”
Well! That’s a lot of rude, ugly language for sure and none of it should be condoned. Name calling, however does not, necessarily, make one a racist, ignorant and rude, but not racist. Many people who repeat slurs like that don’t even understand what they’re talking about.
The use of “just Americans” is an interesting comment. It smacks of contempt for those who are proud to proclaim their country of origin. As a nation of immigrants—either forced or voluntary—what’s wrong with the celebration of one’s culture, especially since Africans, Mexicans, Asians and Arabs don’t subscribe to the melting pot fairy tale? With the exception of native people, everyone in the U.S. is an immigrant!
In the YWCA’s Unlearning Racism: Tools for Action training, we teach that racism has three components: prejudice, privilege (skin color not monetary) and power (the level of results in discrimination). There are individuals who are racists and there are institutions that through the perpetuation of discriminatory practices help to maintain racism in society. That’s a teaser. We have a class starting on September 28 at 1:00. Attend it to learn more.
Next, we’ll discuss all the special things we people of color have created for ourselves at the exclusion of whites. We’re making a fortune!
How ironic that the message would make it to the YWCA!
Well, if Mr. Richards actually said all he’s credited with saying, there’s enough for a couple of blog posts! This is in part, old news. It’s curious that it would resurface. Oh, well! Hopefully, if you’re out there Ms. or Mr. Forwarder and you read them, perhaps another perspective on what you see as “true” would be helpful. Then again, you may not care.
“There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.And then there are just Americans. You call me ‘White boy,’ ‘Cracker,’ ‘Honkey,’ ‘Whitey,’‘Caveman’ and that’s Ok, but when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger [more ugly names were included and deleted]…you call me a racist.”
Well! That’s a lot of rude, ugly language for sure and none of it should be condoned. Name calling, however does not, necessarily, make one a racist, ignorant and rude, but not racist. Many people who repeat slurs like that don’t even understand what they’re talking about.
The use of “just Americans” is an interesting comment. It smacks of contempt for those who are proud to proclaim their country of origin. As a nation of immigrants—either forced or voluntary—what’s wrong with the celebration of one’s culture, especially since Africans, Mexicans, Asians and Arabs don’t subscribe to the melting pot fairy tale? With the exception of native people, everyone in the U.S. is an immigrant!
In the YWCA’s Unlearning Racism: Tools for Action training, we teach that racism has three components: prejudice, privilege (skin color not monetary) and power (the level of results in discrimination). There are individuals who are racists and there are institutions that through the perpetuation of discriminatory practices help to maintain racism in society. That’s a teaser. We have a class starting on September 28 at 1:00. Attend it to learn more.
Next, we’ll discuss all the special things we people of color have created for ourselves at the exclusion of whites. We’re making a fortune!
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Immigration Hoopla – Part Two
Federal immigration reform is needed and fast! It’s needed to keep folks from doing really bad things to those among us who just want what the US promises for a better life. It seems many have either forgotten US history—even the flawed version many of us Boomers learned—or are choosing to be ignorant of the process of immigration and blind to how we selectively favor some groups over others.
Let me say first, I assume with the exception of people who were known miscreants in their homelands, that the majority of people who immigrated to the United States at the turn of the 20th century were good people. They wanted to avail themselves to all the advantages our democracy had to offer. That said, I’m curious about a big WHAT IF question. Let me explain. One of the most popular observations from close-the-borders proponents is the proud proclamation that their families “came to this country the right way.” WHAT IF their ancestors hadn’t had an ocean between them and the U.S.?
Take, for example, the Irish. What if Ireland, instead of Mexico, was our southern neighbor during the great potato famine? During that period in Ireland’s history, the US was building an economy on the backs of tens of thousands of involuntary immigrants and the country was growing. If they could have fled the famine by walking across the border from the south into the US, does anyone think Irish people wouldn’t have done that? While there isn’t a famine per se in Mexico, there is extreme poverty and an economy that isn’t exactly flourishing. Is there any wonder that Mexicans want to flee to the US?
It seems we have these hissy fits every time a group of people of color start flooding into the country or, I should say, try to. There were some who thought the world was going to end when Vietnamese came after the fall of Saigon. It didn’t. Floridians balked when Cubans fled to the sunshine state during the revolution. The sun still shines in Florida. I guess it’s just that we’re so far removed from the period when there was a crush of foreign-born new people streaming onto Ellis Island that we’ve forgotten what it was like. Then again, perhaps the more homogenous looking immigrants were more palatable. But wait! Those that “talked funny” weren’t too popular, either, even though they looked more similar. What happens to people once they assimilate that makes them forget who they were beforehand? Ah! Assimilation…That’s another blog. It’s all very curious.
I don’t know if teachers are still teaching the great melting pot theory or not. I certainly hope not. It wasn’t true when the expression was coined and it isn’t true today. Anti-immigration proponents long for the good old days when fewer of “those people” were here. News flash! Those days are gone, over, kaput! Can’t we all just get along?
Let me say first, I assume with the exception of people who were known miscreants in their homelands, that the majority of people who immigrated to the United States at the turn of the 20th century were good people. They wanted to avail themselves to all the advantages our democracy had to offer. That said, I’m curious about a big WHAT IF question. Let me explain. One of the most popular observations from close-the-borders proponents is the proud proclamation that their families “came to this country the right way.” WHAT IF their ancestors hadn’t had an ocean between them and the U.S.?
Take, for example, the Irish. What if Ireland, instead of Mexico, was our southern neighbor during the great potato famine? During that period in Ireland’s history, the US was building an economy on the backs of tens of thousands of involuntary immigrants and the country was growing. If they could have fled the famine by walking across the border from the south into the US, does anyone think Irish people wouldn’t have done that? While there isn’t a famine per se in Mexico, there is extreme poverty and an economy that isn’t exactly flourishing. Is there any wonder that Mexicans want to flee to the US?
It seems we have these hissy fits every time a group of people of color start flooding into the country or, I should say, try to. There were some who thought the world was going to end when Vietnamese came after the fall of Saigon. It didn’t. Floridians balked when Cubans fled to the sunshine state during the revolution. The sun still shines in Florida. I guess it’s just that we’re so far removed from the period when there was a crush of foreign-born new people streaming onto Ellis Island that we’ve forgotten what it was like. Then again, perhaps the more homogenous looking immigrants were more palatable. But wait! Those that “talked funny” weren’t too popular, either, even though they looked more similar. What happens to people once they assimilate that makes them forget who they were beforehand? Ah! Assimilation…That’s another blog. It’s all very curious.
I don’t know if teachers are still teaching the great melting pot theory or not. I certainly hope not. It wasn’t true when the expression was coined and it isn’t true today. Anti-immigration proponents long for the good old days when fewer of “those people” were here. News flash! Those days are gone, over, kaput! Can’t we all just get along?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Immigration Hoopla – Part One
Fear is a funny thing. It makes us respond to real (and perceived) threats by creating things like Arizona’s SB 1070. The controversial legislation is said to be attributed to shifting demographics leading to a larger Hispanic population; increased drugs- and human smuggling-related violence in Mexico and Arizona; and a struggling state economy. I’ve been wondering what “real people” in the border states think about the immigration situation and all the hoopla. Last week, I was fortunate to talk with a YWCA colleague from El Paso, TX,—I’ll call her Fiona—literally a stone’s throw from the infamous Mexican city of Juarez. (By the way, I don’t know Fiona’s ethnicity and didn’t think it was important to ask.)
Fiona shared that from the average El Paso resident’s perspective, there was little concern about people moving between the two cities. Texans went to work for American companies in Mexico; Mexicans traveled to El Paso to work, visit family members, etc. and back without care or incident until Arturo Beltran Leyva, the “boss of bosses” in the Mexican drug trade was killed in a crackdown by President Calderon last December. Since his death, the war between cartels has escalated in a fight for control of the lucrative drug trade. She admitted that it was scary to hear that 112 people had been killed in one weekend in the drug violence, knowing it had happened so close to home, but she said she doesn’t extrapolate that fear to the population in general. She was aware of the Arizona rancher that was killed on his ranch, but contrary to what I had heard, she said there were reports in their neck of the woods that led to speculation about the details of his death. I, on the other hand had read a Mexican killed him and fled across the border. Her final position? “We just wish someone would wrestle control so the violence will subside and things can get back to [their brand of] normal.” Now, where there was a beautiful park stretching across the border and shared by people from Juarez and El Paso, an ugly fence stands to diminish everyone’s enjoyment.
My conversation with Fiona gave me a perspective I’d not gotten from the media. I have, however, learned this: The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says the Beltran Leyva Cartel is key in the importation and distribution of tons of cocaine in the United States, as well as large quantities of heroin. What does that say about our (extended) culpability in this mess? Why do we spend almost ALL of our resources in attacking the supply side of the drug problem and little in comparison, on the demand side? Who supplies drugs—and I don’t mean just the people involved in street trafficking—and who uses them? No good business survives without demand for its products.
“The point in history at which we stand is full of promise and danger. The world will either move forward toward unity and widely shared prosperity or it will move apart.” Substitute United States for “world” and the statement might ring true for many, today. Franklin Roosevelt said that. How many years ago was he President?
Fiona shared that from the average El Paso resident’s perspective, there was little concern about people moving between the two cities. Texans went to work for American companies in Mexico; Mexicans traveled to El Paso to work, visit family members, etc. and back without care or incident until Arturo Beltran Leyva, the “boss of bosses” in the Mexican drug trade was killed in a crackdown by President Calderon last December. Since his death, the war between cartels has escalated in a fight for control of the lucrative drug trade. She admitted that it was scary to hear that 112 people had been killed in one weekend in the drug violence, knowing it had happened so close to home, but she said she doesn’t extrapolate that fear to the population in general. She was aware of the Arizona rancher that was killed on his ranch, but contrary to what I had heard, she said there were reports in their neck of the woods that led to speculation about the details of his death. I, on the other hand had read a Mexican killed him and fled across the border. Her final position? “We just wish someone would wrestle control so the violence will subside and things can get back to [their brand of] normal.” Now, where there was a beautiful park stretching across the border and shared by people from Juarez and El Paso, an ugly fence stands to diminish everyone’s enjoyment.
My conversation with Fiona gave me a perspective I’d not gotten from the media. I have, however, learned this: The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says the Beltran Leyva Cartel is key in the importation and distribution of tons of cocaine in the United States, as well as large quantities of heroin. What does that say about our (extended) culpability in this mess? Why do we spend almost ALL of our resources in attacking the supply side of the drug problem and little in comparison, on the demand side? Who supplies drugs—and I don’t mean just the people involved in street trafficking—and who uses them? No good business survives without demand for its products.
“The point in history at which we stand is full of promise and danger. The world will either move forward toward unity and widely shared prosperity or it will move apart.” Substitute United States for “world” and the statement might ring true for many, today. Franklin Roosevelt said that. How many years ago was he President?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Stop health care reform violence
This installment is a preface to the statement issued on Friday, March 26, 2010 by the YWCA Great Lakes Alliance, the region to which the YWCA of Greater Milwaukee belongs. Since it was drafted, others have come forward to articulate a similar position.
Debate on the health care bill, now LAW, should be behind us. We need to focus on creating jobs, insisting that banks put earnest effort into helping people avoid foreclosures, finding cost-effective alternative fuel sources, researching cures to the diseases that kill or cripple thousands, improving public education, etc., etc. Each of these things is equally as important.
MOVE ON!
GLA Statement
The YWCA Great Lakes Alliance calls for an end to the vitriolic reactions to health care reform. Threats, epithets, and violence are unacceptable responses in a peaceful democratic society, and we condemn them. Further, the YWCA believes that this outrage is a veiled covering for underlying racially-motivated anger.
We believe that health care reform is being used as a platform to legitimize an expression of racial hatred. Responses to the passage of this legislation, which have included illustrations of nooses, threats of violence against our elected leadership and their families, and vandalism of property are not normal reactions to even controversial legislation. This extremist reaction is reminiscent of the violence of the civil rights era.
These messages only divert us from the critical problems we face as a nation.
The YWCA urges civility and challenges our communities to examine these violent reactions and the motivation behind them.
Debate on the health care bill, now LAW, should be behind us. We need to focus on creating jobs, insisting that banks put earnest effort into helping people avoid foreclosures, finding cost-effective alternative fuel sources, researching cures to the diseases that kill or cripple thousands, improving public education, etc., etc. Each of these things is equally as important.
MOVE ON!
GLA Statement
The YWCA Great Lakes Alliance calls for an end to the vitriolic reactions to health care reform. Threats, epithets, and violence are unacceptable responses in a peaceful democratic society, and we condemn them. Further, the YWCA believes that this outrage is a veiled covering for underlying racially-motivated anger.
We believe that health care reform is being used as a platform to legitimize an expression of racial hatred. Responses to the passage of this legislation, which have included illustrations of nooses, threats of violence against our elected leadership and their families, and vandalism of property are not normal reactions to even controversial legislation. This extremist reaction is reminiscent of the violence of the civil rights era.
These messages only divert us from the critical problems we face as a nation.
The YWCA urges civility and challenges our communities to examine these violent reactions and the motivation behind them.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Thinking about Haiti
A month has passed since the big earthquake in Haiti. I’m sure anyone who has seen the devastation feels heartsick for the people there. Described by one as a tragedy of “biblical” proportion, it is certainly unimaginable how such a beleaguered nation of people could survive. Yet, they will survive with the help of billions of dollars raised from people and organizations all around the world.
I’ve been wondering…Why did, approximately 200,000 people have to die before our government paid real attention to Haiti? Before the quake, for years, Haitians have tried to flee the country for a better life in the U.S. and unlike other “boat people” have been consistently and summarily turned away. Why also, with so many people doing so much through the years to help the Haitian people, has relatively so little been accomplished? Just a couple of years ago there were articles and television spots about children eating dirt cookies. Why does anyone in the same hemisphere as a country as wealthy as ours have to eat dirt? Why do corrupt governments thrive in areas where government should help not exploit its people? These questions are about why human beings behave so badly toward one another.
A significant part of the YWCA’s mission statement is “promoting peace, justice, freedom and dignity for all people.” Those elements are accomplished through effective ADVOCACY. Perhaps, now, all of us can be more effective advocates for Haiti and its people, not just give money, but hold the organizations we give to accountable for ensuring the funds are spent to address immediate needs and begin to address root causes of problems. The current situation is simply unacceptable.
I’ve been wondering…Why did, approximately 200,000 people have to die before our government paid real attention to Haiti? Before the quake, for years, Haitians have tried to flee the country for a better life in the U.S. and unlike other “boat people” have been consistently and summarily turned away. Why also, with so many people doing so much through the years to help the Haitian people, has relatively so little been accomplished? Just a couple of years ago there were articles and television spots about children eating dirt cookies. Why does anyone in the same hemisphere as a country as wealthy as ours have to eat dirt? Why do corrupt governments thrive in areas where government should help not exploit its people? These questions are about why human beings behave so badly toward one another.
A significant part of the YWCA’s mission statement is “promoting peace, justice, freedom and dignity for all people.” Those elements are accomplished through effective ADVOCACY. Perhaps, now, all of us can be more effective advocates for Haiti and its people, not just give money, but hold the organizations we give to accountable for ensuring the funds are spent to address immediate needs and begin to address root causes of problems. The current situation is simply unacceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
