I'm posting this in advance. I'm on vacation at the time this post goes live.
Because I have comments set on moderation, if your comment doesn't go up right away, that's because I'm not online.
The hashtag is deliberate in a non-snarky way.
It's related to this blog post, and related thoughts posted by a friend on Facebook, that we shouldn't snicker ("we" being "whites") at first names from a certain subculture within African-American culture.
I agree on snickering. However, I do have a right (not just a First Amendment right, but a sociological "right") to question such naming, as well as questioning any idea that I have no "right" to such questioning.
Part of what I said, in response to both, was the issue of assimilation, or "conformity," per the Facebook person.
I don't question the desire to establish a certain subculture within African American culture.
I do question, though:
1. The specific tools being used to create that subculture
2. How the tools are being used
3. Whether these tools and/or their use are the best ways to reach any goals
3. The specific goals of that subculture, to the degree it has specific goals, rather than nebulosity
5. Whether it's a culture, rather than a subculture (a commenter on the blog post used "subculture" and I agree)
On point 1 and 2, to the Facebooker, I quote Sam Rayburn's "to get along, go along," after he derided conformity in general.
Beyond that?
I can question, sometimes question strongly, without being bigoted. I do resent, and there's no other word for it, when, on someone else's Facebook post, I expanded this to the issue of American Indian names, or Indonesians (normally one-named) being forced to adopt a first name/surname format, of being anti- #BlackLivesMatter. I resent that, and being indirectly accused of privilege as well.
I respect that it was his thread. I respect that his focus was just on this certain subculture of African-American culture.
That said, I disagree to the degree he seemed to indicate it should be part of African-American culture in general, and to the degree that, without nuance, he "went off" on Bill Cosby. And, I think that was his intent. After my Sam Rayburn quote, and attempt to expand, he insisted it was conformity within black culture; unlike the blog commenter, he didn't mention subculture.
I also tried to expand the focus beyond ethnicity entirely. I said, what if people wanted to, as has been done, named kids something like 3.14159, or tried to name them after Social Security numbers? He rejected that entirely.
I accept that he didn't want to expand the focus, as I indicated already on just the ethnic part.
But, I still resent how he rejected my attempt to expand the focus.
Beyond that?
And, for somebody insightful, I don't resent, but I do ponder, even scratch my head at, his not distinguishing, especially within black America, classism from racism. One could make a better argument against Bill Cosby on classism grounds. Or on subculture rather than culture grounds.
Per Rayburn, I mentioned first-generation Hispanics naming their kids "Daisy Fuentes." (I've seen plenty of this in the last several years, courtesy of my career.) I mentioned "Alberto Fujimori" as former president of Peru, noting such naming assimilation isn't limited to the US. (I would "expect" Caucasians in a culture like China, if they were permanent migrants, to look at doing the same.)
And, at the risk of irritating some, but, standing by and developing my own goals of becoming ever more of a Neo-Cynic, I've created that "Reverse Privilege" hashtag. The Facebook poster, whom I've not unfriended, and who has some other interesting thoughts on matters philosophical (but whom I may move to "acquaintances" at some point), was coming close to engaging in reverse privilege, or so it felt to me. (I suspect the Facebooker, if he thought about it more, would reject the classism angle because it would lessen the apparent reverse privilege angle in particular, and lessen his other angles as well.)
And, per "reverse racism" being at bottom line just another form of racism, so, "reverse privilege" is just another version of privilege.
And, some African-Americans, not conservative ones, either, have some related issues. Adolph Reed, in a definite thought-provoker, says identity politics in general is a form of neoliberalism.
Back to the names issue, now that I've noted that it, as a subpoint of identity politics, is problematic.
Respect for names matters. That said, if the certain subculture is anti-assimilationist, I have the sociological "right" to make judgments, including if those judgments are based in part on names, the names have a fair degree of correlation to that subculture, and that subculture's anti-assimilation is arguably problematic.
That includes a certain African-American subculture, certain ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews from Kiryas Joel, New York, and others.
In other words, subcultures that reject assimilation, and do so by visibly or audibly recognizable markers, shouldn't be surprised when the majority culture reacts. And, because of that, they shouldn't readily play racism cards, at least not when such reaction is serious and non-condescending.
I did make nuanced initial comments on Facebook, and I want to do that here, too.
So, I should note that the naming issue may not be deliberately anti-assimilationist. However, I do think that that is exactly the result.
And, beyond that, what's fair for the goose is good for the gander.
As for ideas of privilege, reverse privilege and the SJW movement world? If I see people like that joking about "redneck" names like "Billy Bob" or "Joe Don," or openly tolerating it in others, I'll let them know. There are arguable parallels. And, I'm not going to personally comment, but, it's possible a hiring manager might, in the white collar world, look at a resume with a name like "Billy Bob" or "Joe Don" on a resume and file 13 it just like a resume with a stereotypically black first name.
Living in Deep East Texas, where I've seen redneck-subculture white folks with kids having names like Danyell (for Danielle, presumably), on the flip side, were I a hiring manager? It's very likely I'd have some sort of subconscious, and even above-subconscious, bias about them, too.
We all make judgment calls; it's part of the nature of "fast thinking." Questioning whether such judgment calls are at times unwarranted stereotypes is part of self-examination. Questioning whether others' claims of stereotyping isn't rather a generalization, not valid for every member of a class or group, but valid enough to be retained, while acknowledged to be a generalization, is also, in my opinion, part of self-examination, and just as much a part of growth.
Yet more beneath the second fold.
Showing posts with label African Americans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label African Americans. Show all posts
February 29, 2016
January 16, 2011
is the black church dead?
If by black church, we mean its traditional, more social gospel, more politically liberally oriented version, then, yes, as discussed here, that's quite arguably the case.
If not dead, it's at least ailing and infirm.
Why?
Well, as the story notes, one big issue is the rise of black megachurches, more conservative in political tone and more focused on the prosperity gospel rather than social gospel. This became clear in the last decade when some pastors and other leaders at such churches even worked hand-in-glove with banks and other lenders to peddle toxic subprime mortgages to their flocks.
Not all black megachurches are quite that bad; T.J. Jakes, for example, seems to have a bit of the older sensibilities side by side with the social gospel. But many younger black ministers are indeed naked capitalists.
Related to that has been more blacks going to multicultural or even white-majority megachurches.
Along with this has been both the newer megachurches and many of the older black churches being openly illiberal on gay rights. From clandestine sex on the down low and its attendant AIDS fallout to the loss of Prop. 8 in California and what degree of effect black voters had on that (it may not have been a lot, but I reject some apologists, whether black and gay or not, who claim the effect was minimal to near-zero), it's also clear that on one major issue, the traditional and new black church are both losing relevance with one slice of black voters.
And, among a certain segment of the black underclass, black churches of any political bent are surely losing ground.
That said, none of this is bad.
While I'm certainly not a Republican or a generic political conservative, growing black political diversity would prevent their votes from being taken for granted.
Lessening political power of traditional black churches would lead to liberal push for black votes becoming less religiously focused, in turn.
If not dead, it's at least ailing and infirm.
Why?
Well, as the story notes, one big issue is the rise of black megachurches, more conservative in political tone and more focused on the prosperity gospel rather than social gospel. This became clear in the last decade when some pastors and other leaders at such churches even worked hand-in-glove with banks and other lenders to peddle toxic subprime mortgages to their flocks.
Not all black megachurches are quite that bad; T.J. Jakes, for example, seems to have a bit of the older sensibilities side by side with the social gospel. But many younger black ministers are indeed naked capitalists.
Related to that has been more blacks going to multicultural or even white-majority megachurches.
Along with this has been both the newer megachurches and many of the older black churches being openly illiberal on gay rights. From clandestine sex on the down low and its attendant AIDS fallout to the loss of Prop. 8 in California and what degree of effect black voters had on that (it may not have been a lot, but I reject some apologists, whether black and gay or not, who claim the effect was minimal to near-zero), it's also clear that on one major issue, the traditional and new black church are both losing relevance with one slice of black voters.
And, among a certain segment of the black underclass, black churches of any political bent are surely losing ground.
That said, none of this is bad.
While I'm certainly not a Republican or a generic political conservative, growing black political diversity would prevent their votes from being taken for granted.
Lessening political power of traditional black churches would lead to liberal push for black votes becoming less religiously focused, in turn.
July 29, 2008
Black AIDS rates in U.S. approach Africa
In D.C., for example, 5 percent of the population is HIV-positive.
I agree that the feds need to provide more funds for treatment and prevention, as well as for education and information. But those funds won’t do a lot of good unless a fair-sized subsector of African-Americans doesn’t get over homophobia, especially as driven by black churches. (And, despite being liberated enough to have an AIDS ministry, Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s conspiracy theories on the cause of AIDS, also held by many black Americans, don’t help.)
Gay sex “on the down low,” with bisexual partners then infecting women, is a major vector for the spread of AIDS among blacks.
I agree that the feds need to provide more funds for treatment and prevention, as well as for education and information. But those funds won’t do a lot of good unless a fair-sized subsector of African-Americans doesn’t get over homophobia, especially as driven by black churches. (And, despite being liberated enough to have an AIDS ministry, Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s conspiracy theories on the cause of AIDS, also held by many black Americans, don’t help.)
Gay sex “on the down low,” with bisexual partners then infecting women, is a major vector for the spread of AIDS among blacks.
July 09, 2008
Park Service trying to boost minority visitors
I’ve visited all but two National Parks west of the Mississippi, outside of Hawaii and Alaska, and I can personally attest that lack of minority visitors is noticeable.
Causes? African-Americans are the most urbanized ethnic group, that’s one problem. Minorities may be less interested in the history presented at historical national parks.
But, as Joquetta Johnson found out, that history is minority-relevant at many National Park Service sites, whether national parks, national monuments, national historic sites or whatever.
Price? The most expensive parks are $20 a carload. That’s the same as three people going to a non-rush hour movie. An annual Parks Pass, at $50, is some of the best money spending in the world.
Remoteness? No, that doesn’t fly, with some exceptions noted below. The AP story focuses on Harper’s Ferry, just a few hours from Washington and Baltimore. Gettysburg is less than two hours from Baltimore and Philadelphia.
And, since the days of NPS Director George Hartzog, the Park Service has focused on developing urban National Park sites like Golden Gate in San Francisco. Hartzog also expanded minority hiring and promotion within NPS.
It does seem to go back to relevance, or perceived relevance or lack thereof:
Manzanar “celebrates” a less-than-stellar point in American history. Golden Spike has very little that is Chinese-specific.
As for Hispanics, Coronado National Memorial in isolated southeastern Arizona, and Cabrillo National Monument in San Diego, are about it. (Oops; a Texas friend reminds me of Chamizal in El Paso. And, yes, there are the San Antonio missions, but they're a bit of weak tea.)
And, there’s an economic back issue to this.
NPS already has a huge maintenance backlog, to the tune of several billion dollars. As minorities in our country grow, will they balk at funding that?
I do like the idea of summer internships and summer jobs for high school students. Perhaps a closer partnership with The Student Conservation Association, a small-scale modern equivalent to the Depression-era CCC, could help. (SCA is well worth a few charity dollars, too.)
As for minority-specific parks, can a West Coast equivalent of Ellis Island be established? That would certainly touch on Asian issues. Can Mount Rushmore, or Badlands, get a piggybacking about Chinese among the Black Hills gold miners?
On the Hispanic side, DeSoto and Balboa national monuments or national memorials in Florida are a no-brainer.
“We do not reflect the changing face of America,” said David Barna, a park service spokesman in Washington. “The national parks are still a middle-class Caucasian visit, primarily.”
Causes? African-Americans are the most urbanized ethnic group, that’s one problem. Minorities may be less interested in the history presented at historical national parks.
But, as Joquetta Johnson found out, that history is minority-relevant at many National Park Service sites, whether national parks, national monuments, national historic sites or whatever.
Price? The most expensive parks are $20 a carload. That’s the same as three people going to a non-rush hour movie. An annual Parks Pass, at $50, is some of the best money spending in the world.
Remoteness? No, that doesn’t fly, with some exceptions noted below. The AP story focuses on Harper’s Ferry, just a few hours from Washington and Baltimore. Gettysburg is less than two hours from Baltimore and Philadelphia.
And, since the days of NPS Director George Hartzog, the Park Service has focused on developing urban National Park sites like Golden Gate in San Francisco. Hartzog also expanded minority hiring and promotion within NPS.
It does seem to go back to relevance, or perceived relevance or lack thereof:
Surveys have found Hispanics and blacks are far less likely to visit the parks and far more likely to describe them as uncomfortable places. …
While there are sites that reflect the stories of black and Native Americans, the Park Service has done what Barna calls “an appalling job” of celebrating Hispanic Americans. Nor does it offer much to Asian Americans.
There is Manzanar, a Japanese internment camp in California. There is Utah’s Golden Spike, a symbol of Chinese laborers, many of whom died building the nation's railroads. Neither is much to celebrate.
Manzanar “celebrates” a less-than-stellar point in American history. Golden Spike has very little that is Chinese-specific.
As for Hispanics, Coronado National Memorial in isolated southeastern Arizona, and Cabrillo National Monument in San Diego, are about it. (Oops; a Texas friend reminds me of Chamizal in El Paso. And, yes, there are the San Antonio missions, but they're a bit of weak tea.)
And, there’s an economic back issue to this.
NPS already has a huge maintenance backlog, to the tune of several billion dollars. As minorities in our country grow, will they balk at funding that?
I do like the idea of summer internships and summer jobs for high school students. Perhaps a closer partnership with The Student Conservation Association, a small-scale modern equivalent to the Depression-era CCC, could help. (SCA is well worth a few charity dollars, too.)
As for minority-specific parks, can a West Coast equivalent of Ellis Island be established? That would certainly touch on Asian issues. Can Mount Rushmore, or Badlands, get a piggybacking about Chinese among the Black Hills gold miners?
On the Hispanic side, DeSoto and Balboa national monuments or national memorials in Florida are a no-brainer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)