Skip to main content

Prejudice and Racism: The Bigger Picture

Ever since Barack Obama was elected president, he's tried to walk a very fine line on the subject of race. He's had to. Being the first African-American president in this country's history, if he brings up the subject too frequently, he'll be called out by far-right conservatives of always playing the "race card," and if he tends to back away from such matters when the subject is at the forefront nationally, far-left liberals will call him out for not caring enough about minorities. However, no matter how fine a line the president has attempted to walk throughout his tenure, the touchy subject of race has seemed to come to a head in recent weeks and months. From Michael Brown to Eric Garner to Tamir Rice and seemingly countless others, for each and every unarmed black man that has been killed, the cries of protest have become louder - to the point where serious changes in police departments all across the country are being considered (some already implemented). However, no matter how many such cases there are, the debate regarding the subject of racism and what should be done about it rages on, often times with many being resistant to the discussion altogether, alleging the prompters of such conversations as "race baiters" or of always playing the "race card."

President Obama was accused of this when he made a speech regarding race following the George Zimmerman ruling in the Trayvon Martin case, where Zimmerman killed Martin, but was ruled to not have been guilty. To the president's credit, he gave a very heartfelt speech on the matter and tried to emotionally reach and touch as many people as he could. However, as a black man relating to a black kid about racial profiling, prejudice, being followed at times, and being seen as suspicious, a certain segment of the population had trouble relating to this and therefore cast him as playing the race card. That's one of the major issues we seem to have in discussing race with different demographics, which often times gets overlooked, I find it. We'll never fully know what it's like to be someone of a different race, gender (in most cases), or orientation, and while some attempt to understand and empathize with people different from themselves, others refuse to do so, and this often times leads to them dismissing these individuals' issues as actual problems, as opposed to merely excuses. It's why they'll often times resort to claiming a person is just playing the race card, because they just see it as an excuse to void oneself of responsibility, instead of trying to take into account that the person's story and rationale may possess some validity. 

Also, while not every individual whom thinks in such a manner is a racist, it is indeed a common cover for racists. When a person makes a derogatory remark about a certain group of people and gets called out for it, it's common for them to go on the defensive and respond with, "Oh, stop playing the race card!" Another common response when being called out is, "Stop it with the double-standards! Why is it okay for blacks to be racist against whites but not for whites to be racist against blacks?" Then they tend to list off groups or sources of entertainment, such as: Black colleges, BET, the NAACP, black history month, a television show like Black-ish, the film Dear White People, etc., in order to prove their point, if it's actually a point at all. Again, while this kind of thinking doesn't necessarily mean a person is racist, it does typically mean the person lacks empathy, lacks education (as far as history goes), lacks perspective, and lacks common sense to a certain extent.

The thing about it is, whites and blacks possess far different histories from one another in this country, so when some attempt to compare forms of racism of one against the other in a similar light, it often times misses the mark. I've even read some go as far as to say, "Calling a white guy 'cracker' is just as bad as calling a black guy 'n***er.' It's the same thing! Why the double-standard?!?" Sure, if we remove history and surrounding context from those two terms, they may be seen in a similar light, but we'd also be missing the larger picture. Whites brought in blacks from Africa as slaves. For some time, blacks were seen as less than people, or at least inferior ones at best. They were forced to drink from different water fountains, sit at the back of the bus, and weren't allowed to vote. Even after laws were passed to afford blacks supposedly equal protection as human beings under the law, many still saw them in an inferior light and continued calling them "n***ers" to help showcase this. Some would lynch blacks just due to their darker complexion. Others would burn their houses down for the same reason. Sadly, while those laws have helped decrease race-based hate crimes and discrimination in public and in the workplace, even though we have our first African-American president, blacks still tend to be on the short-end when it comes to laws directed at them, suspicions (by authorities or otherwise) directed at them, education and employment opportunities, and many such families have been unable to break the cycle of petty crime, prison, and poverty as a result. There are still lynchings, albeit far fewer, than there used to be. White supremacist groups still exist, even increasing in their numbers and support following the election of President Obama, whom happens to have had more death threats against him than any other president in this country's history, not to mention he's had to endure more racist jokes and far-fetched (yet believed) rumors at his expense than any previous Commander-in-chief. So, one is fooling themselves if they truly want to compare blacks' racism against whites with whites' racism against blacks, to compare the terms "cracker" and "n***er" in a similar light. When's the last time a white man was lynched with the term "cracker" carved in his body? When's the last time whites were the slaves to blacks and called "crackers" by their masters in this country? When's the last time men in black hoods and capes burned a white family's house down and spelled the words "Death to the crackers" on the family's lawn? When's the last time "crackers" were told to drink at a separate water fountain or sit at the back of the bus due to their skin color? No, this doesn't make racism right or excusable against any group of people by any stretch of the imagination. However, it's also just flat out ridiculous to think whites have had to endure racism to an equal or even a similar extent as blacks. There's a reason why there are black colleges, black entertainment channels, and a month dedicated to their history - blacks were brought into this country as slaves, have always been a minority here, and are still continuing to fight for equal rights and opportunities. A lot of channels could realistically be called "white entertainment channels" without the actual label. The same goes for "white colleges." Most months could also realistically be called "white history month" due to this country's make-up, history, and the continuing disparity in rights and opportunities. If blacks weren't brought in through slavery and didn't have to deal with the seemingly never-ending climb to attain equal rights and opportunities as a minority in this country, there'd really be no reason for black colleges, BET, black history month, and the like. However, that is this country's history, that is this country's reality, and it'd be nice if more people stood back, looked at the bigger picture, and not only empathized with others different from themselves, but fought alongside those very people to make certain they're truly treated as equals - a right many of us seem to take for granted anymore. As a heterosexual white man (who used to be Christian, but is now nonreligious), I'll never be fully cognizant about women's struggles for equal rights, about the struggles of races other than my own, about the struggles of homosexuals, or even the struggles of non-Christian religious groups. At the same time, however, while I'll never fully understand what each and every one of these groups of people went through in their pasts or present, I try to do all I can to listen to, empathize with, understand, and respect them, and fight with all I have to help provide them with every single right I, as a heterosexual white man, have sadly been able to take for granted all these years. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"