Racism!

In light of the Carpinteria, California decision to reinstate a racist mascot and the death threats to a 15-year-old Chumash boy, and Carpinteria's decision to place pro-racist mascot reinstaters onto the school board instead of folks who actually care about their children's education, I thought it a good time to discuss the issue of racism and get the fight going here.

The bigger motivator for the following commentary, however, was not the Carpinteria decision as much as a fight that broke out at North Eugene High School that you can read about on KATU's webside. I guess some white and black kids got in a fight and then their parents joined in the foray. If you click on the video and watch it, you will notice that there are no people of color interviewed, though their race was mentioned quite often.

More interesting were the comments that followed.

"Why does the newspaper insist on identifying people like "African-American?"
That is stupid!"

"Did you know the country Caucasus is in Russia? I would rather someone called me white because i think my pale skin is kinda pretty with red hair. No actually, American just plain American could be equated with educated (we are required to go to school) and healthy (no typhoid or malaria from the bugs and such) and clean (we do pay taxes for city sewer)."

Most of the comments given are by folks who are clearly white. White folks have certain tactics in dealing with the discussion on the issue of race. Key to their tactics is domination.

Since it is clear that most of the commenters (though, clearly, not all) are white, it is a domination of a subject they wish to keep in the background because it would challenge their racial privilege.

So far, we have two white tactics in dealing with the issue of race. 1) Don't talk to non-white folks about racism. 2) Dominate the conversation about racism.

Another tactic in the issue of racism used by white folks is a discussion of the definition of race, as can be seen in example two of the quotes given. Caucusus are mountains in Russia. This is a tactic used, again, to dominate the conversation so white folks don't have to deal with the issue of racism. They like to tout what they BELIEVE to be superior intellect and treat the discussion of racism like a battle and they are being attacked.

Another tactic I've seen used is blaming the victim. If those Red Nig...er...Indians would just get off the bottle and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps... This type of tactic, again, takes away from the uncomfortable discussion to white folks of race. They can again assert dominance in the conversation and shut out all other races. This is because their belief in their superiority is being challenged. The status quo of the white race is being challenged by the discussion of race, and therefore should be DOMINATED by the white race using their alleged superior intellect and clean and healthy selves to demonstrate to others their superiority in the discussion of racism.

When folks challenge their ideals and self-contratulatory perceived as superior discussion, they do what most white folks do in one form or another when their white privilege is challenged, they go on the attack.

"The handful of people commenting here seem to want to oversimplify the effects of racism.

The USA was founded on the blood of the indigenous people ("Indians" for those of you who don't know what indigenous means) and built with slave labor from Africa.

Those events set the stage for ongoing racial tension. Why are you so surprised that it is happening in a Eugene, OR school?

I would bet that all the comments made here so far are made by White folks, and not "educated" (indoctrinated), "clean" White folks, either.

What arrogance. "

Followed by:

"Well Jane. Aren't you being a bit presumptuous, racist, and arrogant yourself to cast such a condemning light on others when you were not present? While I agree with 50% of your commentary, your rhetorical question and the last assumption have no factual relevance to historical events. People make decisions in life everyday, i.e., there is no casual inference that can be drawn from events that occurred a hundred years or more with comments or positions people are taking today (we weren't even alive then). People are using past injustices affecting others to justify their decisions today - but that doesn't necessarily make it right nor give them a moral high ground in which to justify behavior that is just plain 'bad.'"

The discussion goes on, but here is one example of an attack on those challenging white privilege. Jane, who is clearly not white, is being called the racist. Why? Because the commentor, instead of having an actual conversation about racism finds that when people of color bring up issues of race and call folks they can't see as white via their consistent patterns of commentary on the issue of race to point out the fact that they are not discussing race with people of color, but rather, amongst themselves, they have to be attacked.

Then comes another tactic, pretending history doesn't count in the current issues of race. White people ALWAYS, when attempting to protect their white privilege in discussions of race, say that history has no relevance in the racial injustices of today. White folks, who don't like the use of something relevant that can overtake their dominance in a discussion, simply remove that object. "You've checkmated me with your queen. I will simply remove your queen from the board and declare myself the winner!"

If it is true, that history has no relevance to past injustices, the surviving killer in the gun attacks on Mumbai should be set free. I mean, wasn't that in January? Why are you letting past injustices cruelly incarcerate this man. He isn't killing people right now. The history has no relevance in the issue.

Another example, rape victims aren't getting raped right now. When the rapist pulls his dick out, the rape becomes an issue of history and therefore is no longer relevant to the criminal because it is a PAST INJUSTICE!

Another tactic used by white folks is to take the oppositions rhetoric and use it against them. "We are all members of the human race."

"See," says the white man. "We are all humans. You've admitted it. Therefore racism doesn't exist."

Then there are the stupid racists who enter the conversation as one has on the comments. That is another tactic used by white folks who are mighty proud of their racism and enjoy hiding behind anonymity to demonstrate their white superiority.

Tokenism is another white tactic. Find a person of the race that supports their position and use that support as a form of support of the whole race, and you are no longer racist. "See! Bubba, my black friend, said that my wording wasn't racist when I said black people like fried chicken. Therefore, it wasn't a racist comment." "See! Jimmy Lookstwice says that the Winterhawks emblem isn't racist, therefore it isn't racist."

All these white tactics, including the attacks I'm sure to get for describing these tactical distractions as white. That, too, will be a white tactic, because, you see, white folks don't really want to talk about the issues of racism that continue to this day.

Sometimes you can get women to understand. You simply discuss with them the issue of sexism in the world, and they can, in many cases, understand where one is coming from when we talk about race.

Racism, in my opinion, is one of many common tactics used to keep us attacking each other so we don't organize and go after the actual oppressors, which are mostly the wealthy who cause most of the damage.

So, do you want to talk about racism? Or would you rather, say, find a token, call me racist, or take over my attempts at a conversation, here? Whatever, I leave this forum open.