I am always suprised at the huge, and I mean gaping, perception of whites vs minorities in this country. with totally entrenched positions that have no room for seeing the other sides point of view. I am not even going to quote the different posters on this thread, because I think the thread will be closed very quickly if I do - in fact, I think race threads get closed faster and more often than any other topic, even when we had religion discussed on this board.

If you take a google search of any race issue- the perceptions of blacks vs whites in this case of my google search here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Racia...s+blacks+whites

Couple of the issues and the views:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=255


http://www.cnn.com/US/9610/03/simpson.anniversary/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...es/aa032495.htm

We have HUGELY divergent views, among poeple of normally rational thought on every race issue:

O.J. Simpson, the NO crisis, Affirmative Action, Rodney King etc.

I have even gone so far as to start an actual scientific poll up here in Alaska as a class project dealing with this issue- in about 3 weeks I hope I have it done- but I think we all know that even in 99% middle class Alaska, where we all grew up the same way, with the same conditions, no gangstas, no hood, blacks and whites have an amazingly different perception of racial issues- even among folks of the same political persuasion- a black republican has amazingly different veiws of racial issues than a white republican for instance.

So my question is this:

Why, among even educated and rational thinkers, policy wonks and the over informed nerds we seem to be on this board - do we have such an entrenched views on this board, not even really able to see the other sides viewpoint at all, regarding race relations?

Why does rational thought seem to be untenable when it comes to racial issues?

This is an issue which has bothered me for a very long time. Like many people, I have a dream of a future world where race would be of no importance whatsoever. Maybe I read too much science fiction.

I think this really started bothering me around the time of the trial of O. J. Simpson. I had no opinion (and still have none) whatsoever about his innocence or guilt. It amazed me how many whites knew he was guilty and how many blacks knew he was innocent. I could not relate to the passion with which these opinions were held, as if they were Holy Writ.

It distresses me that voting patterns in the United States are so divided across racial lines. It disturbs me that there is such a thing as the "white vote" and the "black vote." It bothers me that most churches are of one color. It saddens me that certain areas of the nation, and even within cities, are inhabited almost entirely by persons of a certain race. It even makes me a little worried that popular entertainment is divided across the color line.

Why is it so difficult to see through the eyes of another? I think it is because whites and blacks and others have such different experiences in the United States. As a "white" Hispanic growing up in the suburbs of Southern California, I cannot imagine what life is like for an African-American growing up in a huge city or in rural parts of the Deep South. (I'm not trying to say that these are the only possible black experiences, of course, just as suburbia is not the only possible white experience. I'm simply trying to give examples that are suggested by statistical data on where people live.)

Link (PDF file)



As to why our experiences are so different, and why racial issues excite such passion, I can only point to the tragic history of race relations in this nation since its very beginning.

To me, the most puzzling item to me is the "poo-poohing" of the feelings of 2/3s of blacks that feel race has something to do with the response in NO- why are they all wrong, and the whites all right? Is there a perception by whites that blacks, as a majority, just want to claim racism for everything? Everything they say is just plain wrong, and all the other things I hear quoted about this? I don't know any impoverished, oppressed blacks, all the black poeple I know are of a economic class as I or higher- why in the world would they think this if there were not some truth to it? As the cliche goes "they can't all be wrong here"- I find it disturbing that, almost to a person, whites so quickly discount racism as part of the issue.

Why, among even educated and rational thinkers, policy wonks and the over informed nerds we seem to be on this board - do we have such an entrenched views on this board, not even really able to see the other sides viewpoint at all, regarding race relations?

The problem, as I perceive it, is that the accusations never end. That no matter how ambiguous the actual sitaution may be, the accustion of racism will always be used when ever a situation puts one ethnicity above another. It doesn't matter if its a black person who loses out, or a brown person or a white person, the accusation persists.

In America, the large 'African American' community makes a great many accusations of racism against the 'non black' groups, so many in fact that America's black community is almost defined by its attitude against 'mainstream' America rather than by its the cultural parameters of the USA.

This may be justified given the history of African American's but it doesn't change the fact that nothing ever seems to happen between white and black Americans without some one, at some point bringing up the never ending issue of 'race'.
This is damaging to the nation (in my opinion) because it means the issue is a wound that never heals.

Race seems to be an issue that for most 'white' people, is not an issue because it doesn't affect them, and when accused of racism they/we react with indignation. It doesn't help that when we protest we are lectured (at length) by 'ethnic intellectuals' about our extensive short comings, but if we respond in kind, we are accused of racism.


Why does rational thought seem to be untenable when it comes to racial issues?

I don't know what this means. Most people are rational but that doesn't stop them from being accused of racism.

I think you just answered your own question. Perhaps it's getting "poo-poohed" because it IS just a feeling. As in "I can't prove racism or even show one shred of evidence that it took place, but I feel racism had something to do with it. It just had to! How could it not?!"



You do realize that this is exactly the type of thinking that led to the overwhelming success known as the war in Iraq. Yes, "they can't all be wrong here". The Flat Earth Society, that is.

I suppose my problem is simply the assumption of racism without any real evidence to back it up.

Look, there is no question that there is racism, a great deal of it, in the United States. I am the one who is constantly arguing that the US needs to get rid of the death penalty until the racist US justice system can be fixed. I would never deny that there is a significant problem in the United states over the issue of race in many fields.

My problem with the whole 'Katerina' issue is the assumption that this is one of those situations. Maybe it is, but do we really have any tangible reason to assume so? Espcially when there are other, more realistic alternatives?

I see a problem developing whereby the assumption is made that since there IS a problem of racism in the United States, therefore any major difficulty that happens is a result of racism. New Orleans has a higher percentage of blacks then most cities in the US, therefore if New Orleans is disadvantaged or slighted by the government in any way, is MUST be due to racism.

That is not only a bad argument, it is a dangerous one. By flying the flag of racism all the time, one loses credibility and impact on issues that ARE without question examples of racism.


The ONLY evidence at all I can see that there is ANY racism at the root of the Katerina disaster, is the fact that a lot of Black people think so. But lets look at that for a moment. These people know they live in a nation with problems of racism, most of them have probably seen overt or covert examples of it in their own lives. Now faced with this disaster in which many of them lost everything, is it really surprising that many of them think this is just another example of it?

But this is a vicious circle.

There is racism in the US = There was a disaster that was handled badly = Blacks were affected more than normal = many of them feel they have been discriminated against = racism must have been the reason for the mismanagement = There is racism in the United states.

Note how this proposition is entirely self-supporting without the need for evidence of any kind. And yet, sometimes bad things happen, in fact sometimes bad things happen to minorities, without it being some machiavellian plot against them.


Many people cried racism in the Vietnam War, because Blacks made up a higher percentage of the military than they did of the general population. But this was not some sinister plot to kill more blacks, it was a result of the US education exemption policy, and was frankly a completely unforseen event in the administration, something they tried to correct once it became visible.


I will not call Katerina racism until such time as there is ANY evidence, even a little, to support such a contention. In fact, I will not assume any motive at ALL behind Bush Jr's incompetence until any evidence at all of sinister motive is found. Were Bush' Jr.'s advisors pressing him to intervene but he refused? Did Bush Jr. ignore SOP for any given reason? Or was he simply a slow man, on vacation (as usual) incapable of making decisions unless instructed to by his handlers?

Okay, all you white folks like me- you have to know some black poeple, I am sure- are they all dropping racial issues all the time? - my first reaction is the same as most on this issue- some kind of denial at the very least- but this is what struck me as so odd when discussing this issue with one co-worker- whom I have worked with for 18 years, have gone fishing with, watched his kids, and vice versa, in other words, friends. Never once in his life have I ever heard him complain about racism of any kind, he is not the political type anyway, he is of the same age and economic status as myself, did not grow up "in the hood" had a full, functional family (hey, I am the one from the broken home)- and really we never discuss race, except joking among ourselves, in pure humor, with no rancor (we are not what you would call politically correct LOL) - and, to top it off, he defines himself as a libertarian/conservative when asked directly (he himself never brings up the subject, just discusses it when other co-workers bring it up)- so, in other words, he has no reason to "bring race into the discussion" - and never has. In quarrels at work, he has never personally called someone a racist when his judgment has been called into question- in other words, he has never "used the race card".

So, when questioned about katerina - he didn't even hesitate- "ya, race had something to do with it, no doubt in my mind that the feds would have responded better even if it were a poor white neighborhood"-

so guys and gals- he is not one that grew up in any different way than myself, not exposed to racial issues outside the news, by his own account, why is his perception, of a rational, thoughtful, responsible person, that has no axe to grind, and no agenda, no reason to "use race' in any conflict- suddenly decide to be what so many posters here accuse him of? He doesn't have a "wound that doesn't heal" -

Am I the onlyh white guy that knows black poeple like this?

Vermillion- I respect your posts , on this one as well, and I understand quite well teh saying "never attribute to malice what could be explained with incompetence"-

But there sure seems to be more to it than that here.

Do you really think he would have responded as slow to a poor white area as a poor black area? I certainly don't think so.

CruisingRam

To put it bluntly, Yes.

See here is the problem in your argument. You ask, do we really think he would have responded as slow to a poor white area as a poor black area?

Who is he? GW Bush? If so, then I think this is the problem in a nutshell, and it strikes at the heart of the perceived racism from the blacks in this situation as well. There is an assumption being made that GW Bush, is a racist, apparently because the federal government failed to act fast enough in the face of the unfolding tragedy in New Orleans.

But thats just not fair. GW Bush may or may not be a slacker who takes too long to act, but he can't be held responsible for the failure of the entire chain of command. He is but one link in that chain, and where as he holds overall responsibility, that doesn't excuse the failure of the entire system.

Some people contend that the US federal government is racist but I just don't believe this. I can accept that there are racists in the system, yes, but that the whole system is fundamentally racist is so outlandish an accusation that I just can't entertain it. I won't accept that the federal system of the USA is not a single ethnic institution, it doesn't follow an agenda that puts white people before black people unless some sort of undeniable proof is offered.

That black people are poorer on average than white people in the USA means nothing to me other than they started from a disadvantaged position.

As for why so many African Americans believe race is an issue in the matter of New Orleans, well, in my opinion, human beings will often accept a myth that absolves them of any responsibility. Thats how religion exists.

Because perspectives have a major influence on perceptions. This is true for everything…religion, politics, racial issues, ect. It’s the reason why eyewitness accounts are often very inaccurate. Per the topic, it’s the reason perceptions of the OJ verdict were different.

Why is race such a contentious issue? The level of concern is proportional to the level of influence. The more influence an issue has on one’s life, particularly of matters beyond one’s control, the greater the level of concern a person has. And race is very defining…. more so for black people than any other racial segment of the population. No one describes their pilot friend as the “he is a redheaded, Irish descended pilot”, but most seem to feel the need to say, “He’s a black pilot”, or black friend, ect., when describing people. Some really take it to the extreme and use adjectives whenever they bring up any of their black friends in reference….he’s a (insert nice adjective) black pilot (insert more information about how well he did in school and what a great family man he is). I can’t imagine that is actually complimentary to anyone, though I’m sure that is the intent. So, again, race is defining for black people, and it often also limits them via covert or overt discrimination.

Since race has a large impact on the life of black Americans, they will be more aware of discrimination but also (depending on their life experiences) more likely to perceive even subtle discrimination whereas a person with no racially defining history wouldn’t detect it. It also makes them more likely to perceive a slight when there is none, or mistake incompetence for anti-racial malice.

On the other hand, it’s the opposite for people whose race has never had much of an influence in their lives. They are more likely to overlook the subtle slights or in some cases even the large glaring ones. They will also be more likely to disregard baseless anti-black conspiracy theories.

I think Mrs. P put things very well. I'd just like to add a little comparison so that things might be better understood.

Let's take a less divisive issue, like the war in Iraq.

Whenever the War in Iraq is mentioned we always have to deal with an underlying assumption that is held pretty widely on both sides of the debate.

Namely the importance of Iraq's oil in the policy.

Even war supporters tend to believe that Iraq's oil was a major issue in the decision to go to war.

Anti-war posters say the point was to take (or control) the oil.

Pro-war posters tend to say the point was to stabilize the oil-rich region.

Either way oil finds its way into the discussion.

I'm fond of asking "Why?" at these moments and the answer usually goes something like.

"Come on, if Iraq didn't have oil would we be there"

or

"Everything we do in the Middle East has to do with oil"

for both sides of the debate these assumptions seem to hold true.

The fact is these are simply assumptions if posted without evidence. Why then are they believed so widely?

Two interrelated forces are at work here: History and basic distrust.

History recounts the US got heavily involved in the Middle East when oil interests were at stake.

Just the same history is replete with examples of US policy being driven by racism. It formed the bedrock of the country for hundreds of years up until just the past half century.

From Manifest Destiny to Jim Crow history shows that America and racism go hand in hand.

It's easy to see where the basic distrust comes in once you realize this. African-Americans, many of whose parents (or selves) grew up in the Jim Crow south. Have a very difficult time believing that everything has changed in regards to race.

Whenever they see white soldiers and police officers surrounded by suffering black faces "Bull" Conner arises in their minds eye.

The sheer shock of the magnitude of the suffering and the inept response in New Orleans has many grasping for an explanation. New Orleans was a moderately successful majority black city.

A lot of Blacks suspect the "white power structure" they believe governs policy in this country, was less than sorry to see it destroyed.

Insensitive comments like the lousy joke about Lott's house from GW or the outrageous, nonsensical statement from Barbara Bush about a lot of people being "better off"

really don't help the situation.

Whites on the other hand when looking for answers tend to suspect that some rabble-rousers are whipping up discontent. Enter the criticism of Kanye West and Jesse Jackson.

Some don't seem to understand that this is a mass phenomenon, that they are only saying what many blacks were thinking.

Both sides need to come into touch with reality and think rationally about things.

Assumptions get us nowhere.

I know that this thread is seperate from the New Orleans topic but I was thinking along the same lines as turnea here regarding police response.

If the feds had somehow gotten the military or national guard to patrol the streets of New Orleans even faster, this would have likely required them to over-rule local (black) authority. We'd then be reminded of "Bull Connor" as George Bush sends jack-booted soldiers into the streets of New Orleans to control black people and keep them from rioting. It's really a no-win situation, and those viewing this through the prism of racism would have adjusted their perceptions either way.

- Racist white government is slow to react - they don't care about black people.
- Racist white government overreacts - they want to control the black people and protect (white) real estate / oil / business / whatever.

I'm glad that most of us are seeing past the race issue and helping people with the disaster. The first (mostly black) New Orleans families have already made their way north and are taking up residence with their (poor) relatives in my neighborhood, putting additional stress on a food pantry I support. So they've reached out to the community and of course, the community is responding. Another small success story, and none of the donors seems overly concerned with the race of those being helped.

I wouldn't go so far as to say a correct way of handling the situation did not exist. It would merely have to take the suspicions into account.

Take the policing for example. The outrage could have been preempted if the government provided a better response to the most urgent needs of the people. Not someone to patrol the street and protect Saks from looting (because honestly, who cares?) but to rush food and water to people dying of dehydration in the convention center and the Superdome. To perform rescues for people trapped baking in the sun on their roofs.

Some in the white community seems to have a preoccupation with the "law and order" angle of the story when the larger concerns were the humanitarian issues. This only increases suspicion of racism, implying (incorrectly) that the "white power structure" cared about their property and not about the thousands of people in mortal peril for several days with no assistance.

If the humanitarian response had been quicker we could have avoided much of this tension.

Okay- now Turnea, you are getting into my perception of WHY I think there is a racial component here- and I think your posts are pretty darn spot on IMHO -

Like you mentioned with the Iraq oil thing (and please, not trying to debate Iraq here, I am trying to relay my feelings on the matter- I know how quick this can go off topic ) - there is a legitimante COMPONENT of oil as part of the reason of going to Iraq- it is just not the MAIN reason for going to Iraq- and IMHO- even using the idea that "oil" was the reason, was "bumper sticker debating" the situation too much- it wasn't about Exxon actually drilling oil, but the strategic concerns with the supply of oil, and the very, very lucrative contracts that come with rebuilding an oil field etc- I believe there was a PART of the reason for going to war in Iraq was yes, very over-simplified, oil. That being said- there was other reasons that were probably the PRIMARY reason for the war

That being said as well - I do not think racism was THE reason for the problems in NO, but a COMPONENT of the problem, probably a much smaller problem than just outright incompetence- it is the notion that a TYPE of racism PLAYED NO PART AT ALL that bothers me, because, to me, it clearly did- and Turnea's example is one of the clear reasons- whites were more concerned with TVs being taken than the humanitarian rescue, at least, once again, too over-simplified, the bumper sticker debate once again, as shown in the media-

to me, if there is a problem with the media today- it is not that it is too conservative or too liberal- it is that it is too sound bite oriented- and this is a case of that to me- it is much easier to say "it is racism" than explain the several pages of debate found here!

I think that is why blacks, when questioned "is there a component of racism in the federal goverments response to NO" - they overwhelmingly say "yes"- and why? Because looters were being given more attention than the humanitarian crisis (and if that is a perception rather than truth, it is definately seemed to be portrayed that way) - Wal marts stores, and thier corporate offices, and restoring "law and order" were more important than food drops- and this perception is probably only 50% right- but that surely would lead folks to believe thier lives are worth less than Walmart products to the federal goverment, don't ya think?

Now, I bet, if you were to poll most blacks, and were to say "was INSTITUTIONAL racism the ONLY reason that we had a horrible federal response"- most would say no- as in NTs post, most realize that incompetence and cronyism seemed to be the MAIN reason- just not the ONLY reason.

I can't tell you , on how many boards, how many posters think that those that stayed behind "deserved what they got, darwinism at work" and such- and then, the racial stuff comes out pretty clearly!

And then blame every one that stayed behind, as if most had a real choice, because they should have just jumped in thier car and left or something.

It reminds me of an Eddie Murphy line about slavery from the 80s when folks talk this way about the victims in NO- "Man, if the master tried to hit me with that whip, I would just run him over with my lincoln"- as if slaves had any chance in a revolt against white masters- it is so ridiculous it is funny.

But there are a great deal of whites out there that can not even admit that a SMALL PART of the issue is covert, institutional racism, or , in the case of GWs administration "a corporate culture" of covert, institutional, racism.

NOt THE reason, NOT the main reason, but certainly in the top 10!

And when even that much can not be ceded by whites in the US, it seems to blacks that racism is still alive and well on a grand scale in the US.

I think most whites are amazingly naive about race. Jim Crow and terrorist suppression of blacks and their supporters only stopped some 45 years ago - an historical eye blink. In the North blacks were the last hired and the first fired in the economic cycles. In my lifetime, I can remember white students from the South cukling about "Coon Knocking,' driving down rural roads with a long pole and knocking blacks off their feet. Today, large numbers of blacks remain warehoused in our core cities with little hope of escape and as much suppressed as protected by the police. A quarter of black males wind up in prisons at some point in their life.

My nephew told me the experience of a black friend living in the core part of Denver. (Not a city known for its racism and with a black mayor). He was a good student struggling to get ahead but he was repeatedly picked up by the police when walking on the street and taken to the police station for questioning and then released 40 blocks from where he was picked up. His crime was being a young black male walking on the street at night.

Young whites who grew up without racial antimosity (real progress) tend to see racism as ancient history while blacks remain very sensitized to signs of racism. That this should lead to a different perception of events is not surprising. While blacks may over react, constructive whites should be careful in assuming that their view of events is always the correct one.

I've stated my views on NO elsewhere. While I think classism contributed to by racism was largely responsible for creating the conditions that trapped the poor in NO, I don't think racism was responsible for the failed response after the flooding. The lack of political power that had a class and racial component probably also contributed to the reduced funding of the levee strengthening before the event.

There are a couple reasons why whites discount the blacks' charge of racism so easily.

The freedom with which the term racism is bandied about causes it to lose its effectiveness on the white audience rather quickly. It should be reserved for cases where it can be proven, rather than simply loud-mouthed speculation
from certain individuals in the U.S. and in local communities that have designated themselves as black leaders, i.e. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Farrakhan, etc (on a national scale). They can always be counted on to shout racism every time there is an issue in which blacks are perceived to get the short end of the stick and whites are somehows involved.


These "leaders" are perceived by the white community as race-baiters due to their incessant ability to discount facts if the facts don't appear flattering to the black community. Therefore, even when they may have a legitimate charge of racism, whites immediately take the other side. In this situation with New Orleans, though racism would be tough to prove or disprove, the fact that known race-baiters are shouting "racism" makes many whites shake their heads yet again.

Another reason whites discount the charge of racism is that intent is difficult, if not impossible, to prove in most cases. Take, for example, 3-4 whites attacking a black man - immediately they are "racist", the attack is racially motivated, and it will be spun that way in the media. In the situation where 3-4 blacks attack a white man, racism is almost NEVER even mentioned - it is simply a violent crime. The motivation for the attacks would be VERY difficult to prove in either situation, yet one is always racially motivated and the other never is, according to the media.

I think an even bigger issue is that, intentionally or unintentionally, racism has been taught to a lot of minorities as the bugaboo hiding behind every tree, waiting to jump out and get them. Even when it's utterly ridiculous to play the race card, it gets thrown into the ring regularly because in the eyes of some, absolutely everything is racism.

I had a debate with someone on IRC years back on a topic that had nothing to do with race or politics or anything like that. I told him that he was wrong on a topic and he suddenly popped up with "you're only saying that because I'm black and you're a racist!" It's utterly ridiculous because there was certainly no way for anyone to know he was black, it's a text chat. He was losing, he pulled the race card and went for sympathy.

Unfortunately, it's not all that uncommon. There certainly is racism in the world from blacks, whites, hispanics, you name it, but so long as certain people insist on seeing everything as racist, regardless of whether or not it actually is, nothing is ever going to improve.

Sometimes people become reactive due to their personal past experiences. A woman whose husband left her unexpectedly with three young kids to care for alone will likely have a different view of marriage and men than a woman who has been happily married her whole life (or vice-versa if the man is in that position). When it comes to racial issues, I think it's important to understand that we are on the outside looking in. We don't know what it is like, and I think a large part of understanding is accepting that fact. We might see the exceptionally beautiful, gifted, and/or intelligent. I'm sure that Denzel Washington is treated like royalty when he travels. But, most people in this world are not unbeliebably gorgeous and talented. They are normal Joes like us, and I do believe that "normal", everyday people are treated differently depending on their race. Not (usually) as differently as hyperhysterics might indicate, but differently enough that it eventually makes a permanent impression on that person. Slow, continuous pressure can shape even rocks. Of course, we are all the product of our experiences. The best we can do is choose whether or not to be reactive to them.


I disagree. I think a lot has improved in the past 20 years, and I believe that it will continue to do so.

Good advice (actually our Hernandez family by-law for all issues) from Steven Covey: Once we decide to be proactive, exactly where we focus our efforts becomes important. There are many concerns in our lives, but we do not always have control over them. One can draw a circle that represents areas of concern, and a smaller circle within the first that represents areas of control. Proactive people focus their efforts on the things over which they have influence, and in the process often expand their area of influence. Reactive people often focus their efforts on areas of concern over which they have no control. Their complaining and negative energy tend to shrink their circle of influence.

That's generally good advice but I think there are a lot of people who simply swallow the 'party line' as it were that all blacks are being racially targetted, whether or not they actually are. That's the kind of influence that they're being raised under. Many assume that they got pulled over because they're being harassed by "the man" when they were speeding, had their stereo at 120db and ran a red light. But of course, it isn't their doing, it isn't their fault, they're being harassed.

I'm not saying there is no racism, there certainly is, but it's on both sides. I'm just saying that the problem isn't nearly as bad as it's being claimed in the black community who are apt to blame skin color first and not bother to ask if it was something else entirely.

Even more puzzling to me is your complete silence regarding the nearly 1/3rd (27%) of blacks who felt that government response would have been the same if the victims had been mostly white. Are they "all wrong"? Are they merely "entrenched" racists who are "poo-poohing" the feelings of a polled majority? How do their "perceptions" fit into your analysis?

(The poll you repeatedly reference)

And what about the 22% of blacks who said that the response did not reveal that "racial inequality was still a major problem"? Are they "crazy"? Or just "insensitive" and/or ignorant? Would you have us "poo-poo" their "perceptions"???

If Humanitarian Aid had been quicker, looting will still have occurred, the helicopters probably would still have been shot at, and some people wouldn't have left... even when told repeatedly. Is there no accountability?

Being from Louisiana, my heart pours out to those left stranded, hopeless, without jobs or a plan. But you can't tell me that grown adults looting stores (for non-consumable/essential goods), shooting at police, and committing murders/rapes should be overlooked as if it had nothing to do with the situation. The wanton anarchy helped to create an environment too dangerous for civilian intervention in most cases.
Does it have anything to do with race?... of course not. Absolutely not. What the race-card argument lacks is any verifiable truth.

I believe America panders to apathy and cynicism, Turnea, so much that we end up with a whole generation of inner-city poor whom have no sense of accountability. Tragedy and natural disaster will happen, and the nature of American society is to come to the aid of their neighbors. Just look at the amount of money raised by the Red Cross, churches, radio shows, independant companies, and even the NFL telethon. Americans tend to feel as if disaster is a reason to bond together (thank God).

However, as long as rappers are on TV inciting racial division, a lack of personal accountability, and a lack of overall understanding of what caused this situation... it surely could happen again. Just think about that stupid song "George Bush don't like black people"... what does that hope to prove?

A difference in perception? I think so. Sadly, and most likely, because often the media wants to paint a picture for the poor and down-trodden to soak up. What if the media and black leaders stopped perpetuating racial division, and began selling cooperation and understanding?? I bet that would literally cause people like Jesse Jackson personal pain.

Some, not nearly as much. You will note that law enforcement had to loot just to keep their flashlights running. Much of the looting was for food, water, dry clothes, etc.

That could have been avoided by a better response.


Pure assumption and probably a bad one. Starving people are violent people.


seeing as my statement dealt with the aftermath, this is neither here nor there.

Nevertheless, you seem to think that most people stayed because they wanted to. This is not borne out by the evidence.


It wouldn't matter one wit what "black leaders" said, which is what people need to understand.

this is not about "race baiters" whipping up the crowds. The majority of black people would have suspected racism even if Jesse Jackson never existed.

It's because of the long history of racism in this country that the distrust exist, not Kanye West.

Generational trauma. When my great grandmother was sent to a boarding school to "kill the Indian save the child" she came home with a very hard lesson in race relations. then she raised my father sharing with him the abuse and traumas she was put through. So as not to have it happen to him she taught him not to trust "white people". She was trying to spare him the trauma and abuse she went through. Yet at the same time she was abusing and traumatizing him and she passed her traumas to him. Then he raised me. My best friend in 6th grade was a white girl and I was told right away when it comes down to "us" or "them" she will turn on you in a minute. I didn't know what "us" or "them" ment until I finished 6th grade. That year, which was my first year out of the Nation school, all of the prejudice I ran across from students,teachers and parents hit home hard.I was complemented on how I was not like the other "indians" and was more "regular like white people". Quickly I drank did drugs and got into trouble like "Indians" are supposed to do. Since then I have been through years of healing and recovery.Recovery from my own addictions and the abuses that accompany them, recovery from the lateral violence brought on in my community from generational trauma, Recovery from my families historical and generational traumas. I have learned to accept people on an individual basis for who they are not what they are. I understand when people today attack me because of my race, yes they still do 2005, They are usually harboring some sort of pain or trauma themselves. I will admit when the Federal government over turns valid land claims and when the appellate court tries to remove an honest Judge(Royce Lamberth) who is not afraid to tell the truth about "indians" past and present mistreatment by all levels of government I still feel a sad ache in my heart and ask myself "will we, Aboriginal people, ever be treated equal in this, our country?"

You obviously missed the CBS trip to the AstroDome on 9/15, and the frustration of the reporter (to remain nameless!) at the fact that nearly all interviewed believed that people (specifially the President) had done what they could.

You obviously keep negating requests on these threads for objective information as to how the tragedy and federal response had anything to do with race. The fact is that many people's opinions are driven by self fulfilling motives, such as federal aid and the need to devulge any personal responsibility... hence;

- Blaming the federal government for loss of life
- Committing this argument to race as opposed to personal accountability
- Black leaders' blaming local and federal gov't
- The media allowing the racial division to be a perpetual cover story

You can't refute the fact that the city was nearly 1/3 white. What happened to all of those people? Take a trip to Shreveport (my home town) and swing through the LSU-Shreveport Campus. You'll see it flush with evacuees whom have no place to go. Many of them are caucasian.

The fact is that the US is allowing the population to point fingers as opposed to take personal action. The faster people make it back to New Orleans, the faster commerce begins again, the faster the economy will become self-sufficient again.

The majority of cynical black people might have suspected racism... but the rest would've been just fine. Good job Mr. Jackson and Mr. West for allowing the entire US to be infected with your apathy. I'm sure Dr. King would love what you've done with yourselves... (especially that "George Bush don't like black people" song... nothing says progress like ignorance spread through grammatically incorrect lyrics)

If I had children or family spending time drawing racially centered lines in the sand I'd be ashamed. I personally know caucasian people who lost property in the flood waters, whom are now unsure of unemployment, and yet... aren't blaming black leaders for stealing their thunder.

For the most part, this has become an American tragedy, where civic organizations, church groups, and personal donations have become the driving force of rebuilding the lives of the inhabitants of New Orleans.

If the "perception" of racial motivation is skewed for whites, turnea, where is some objective proof?? Unfortunately... there is none. I don't think FEMA was run by the Klan, doubt that David Duke was stopping aid from being sent, and it's a slap in the face to white people all around the Gulf region for the race card to be played here. Go to a gulf-coast shelter and watch the volunteers... many (if not most) are white, take a look at the checks handed out in your area churches from caucasians, and begin to put down the race card.

We cannot negate the fact that there were many dangerous parts of New Orleans, and if you'd like to cite Maslow's hierarchy of needs in relation to violence, please do so. However, stealing televisions and firearms doesn't equate to obtaining safe accomodations or supplies for survival. Shooting at contractors isn't a part of the starving process, but more an overall lawlessness that the city began to take. Why else were there armed National Guardsmen at every evacuation point?....

The long history of racism has nothing to do with a generation that doesn't embrace personal accountability for their own destiny. It has tons to do with the nearly socialist society embraced by New Orleans, and it's ever growing welfare rolls. The apples rarely fall very far from the trees. If you're raised to believe that it's the government's responsibility to take care of you, you're far less likely to seek means by which to do it yourself. This became self-evident in this disaster, as many people whom had cars, gas, and financial means to evacuate- didn't... choosing to head to shelters, stay home, and/or become banes on the very communities that they were evacuated to.

Racism?... absolutely not. This is a story of how socialist-esque ideas become long-term problems for US cities... how personal liability isn't necessarily a word taught to many of America's youth as of late.

New Orleans was/is one of my most favorite places on the face of the planet. It's culture and uniqueness made me prideful of my home state. I still am. However, for people to turn a natural disaster into a ploy for the on-going (and sometimes ludicrous) race debate is abhorrid. It's not about perception, it's about apathy.... gimme forty-acres and a mule kind of apathy. Again- I emplore the black community to understand how their cynical racial divison can affect those whom really still need help. Caucasians don't want to give out of their hearts to those whom will speak poorly of them as they've left...

aevans176,

You seem to be saying that the perception in the black community was manufactured by Kayne West and Jesse Jackson. I would suggest that it would have existed if neither had opened their mouths.

Compared to the hurricanes in Florida last year, when he was up for reelection, Florida was up for grabs and "little" brother was governor, Bush reacted with “all deliberate slowness” to Katrina.

But let’s look backwards from Bush. When Camille hit in 1969 Nixon acted quickly.


http://www.geocities.com/hurricanene/hurricanecamille.htm

I have a few observations for you aevans176

1. Why can't Bush function as well as other Republican Presidents—Nixon after Camille?

2. While you accuse people of playing the “race” card, it seems you are playing the “socialist" card on this one.



Now this is really old, tired and threadbare.

3. Given the quotation from you above, I feel compelled to point out that you don’t speak for Caucasians any more than Mr. West and Mr. Jackson do for Blacks.

Regardless of whether race was a factor, the perception is there and the Bush Administration must deal with it. This is not unlike Democrats having to deal with the “perception” that they are not friendly to religion.

Check out this thread--same principle different issue.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...20&#entry167777

Although there are a number of factors at play, including handling of Katrina’s aftermath and allegations of racism, Bush does not seem to be dealing with public perception very well.

Here’s the latest from RealClearPolitics.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/President...04/bush_ja.html

BOF, this thread isn't about whether the President is at fault or not... that debate is long over.

What we're talking about is perception and it's racial implications. Is this really about being black or white?
Are you saying that songs like "George Bush don't like black people" aren't adding to racial division?

Are you saying that people whom have little left, whom could be proned to anger and bitterness, aren't lead along by Black leaders with their own agendas? They see someone they look up to on CNN and on the front of papers saying that this was racially motivated.. and BOOM- it's an issue.



I'm not saying that black America's opinion was manufactured by Kanye West, but rather really perpetuated by American media.... which is predominantly anti-Republican (and GW). It's in their interest to prolong the race debate.

If it were me, I'd attempt to bring racial tension to a halt. I'd be the pillar of strength in this disaster. It the Mayor of New Orleans on TV stating that race is a factor? He's surely black, isn't he?

Of course you'd suggest that this racial idealism would exist... but it wouldn't necessarily be popular opinion. I was Seattle last week, and there were caucasians (of course very liberal ones) whom were even spewing this rhetoric. Why??? It just might have to do with the media coverage..., because it's surely not because of personal experience with evacuees or this disaster. Black leaders on CNBC are where their opinions come from, and this one just suits their purpose. How convenient.

Again- BOF- please provide actual objective information as to how black people might've suffered more than whites in this disaster and how the state government (of a very black state) attempted to do any better. Objectivity is the key here. Talking points are ineffective. Unrelated quips about previous disasters are just that... unrelated. We're talking about Katrina and whether the federal response was racially motivated...

For instance, there are obviously racially motivated instances in our countries domestic/foreign policy... like when Clinton went into the Balkans to help stop a genocide but ignored Rwanda. (easy... Black/White) This one isn't that way at all...

In my opinion it's an apathetic approach to a horrible disaster, perpetuated by those whom stand something to gain by the "black struggle" coupled with those whom are genuinely against this administration. Makes sense doesn't it???

Go talk to an evacuee (as CBS did) whom was rescued by white faces, is being fed by white churches, etc. See how if their opinion mirrors that of Mr. West or Mr. Jackson... it surely isn't in their best interest to be cynical...

No, it is not about Bush's response, but there would probably not be that perception among a large portion of the black community if he had acted in a timely manner.

I did address the question, but you chose only to quote and address only the portion of my post that suited you.

Try responding to this part:



Point #1 above is relevant. Bush created the “perception” of racism for two reasons. New Orleans is about two-thirds black and Bush was not as expeditious as Nixon was after Camille, or he himself was after the hurricanes in Florida last year when political circumstances were different.

2. I stick by number 2 as well. Playing the “socialist card" is as inappropriate as playing the “race card.”

3. I stick by point three that you don’t speak for people in the Caucasian community any more than Jackson of West do for the black community.



I haven’t commented on West's song specifically, but we’ve had political songs for years. Was Edwin Star’s War divisive? What about Toby Keith The Angry American? I don’t think it’s any more or less divisive than other political songs. It can go either way, but I think political music is more a reflection of its time than a driving force.

Approval ratings and Nixon's response have no objective ties to whether this issue is racially motivated. The response could've been poor, could be inadequate, and the fingers could be pointed without placating racial division.

Political divisiveness and racial division are different things. You can be anti-administration without being a tool for the racially motivated left.

Was GW willing to allow the caucasians in NO in order to turn a blind eye on blacks? This is absurd. If GW is racist, so is Gov Blanco, Ray Naglin, and any other public official intertwined with this disaster.

I'm not playing the socialist card, but am stating that New Orleans' poverty level has something to do with it's public policy, not its unemployment rate or sustainable industry.

The fact is that many people suffered because this was an awful storm, many people would be in the same awful boat regardless of the response, and much of the financial strife and acrimony would be present regardless of the federal or state action. People in awful situations are going to want to point fingers... why allow them to let their skin color be a basis of apathy any more???

I have never said that Bush's actions, or lack of actions, were based on racism. The title of this thread is “Perceptions of whites vs. minorities.” Whether correct or not, the perception exists. In part, I think Bush’s low approval ratings reflect this perception. True or not, he and his administration are going to have to deal with it.

Ahh... we're getting somewhere.

This is my point exactly, and why I feel like it is preposterous that the black community (or anyone for that matter) has turned this into a racially divided issue. It's not based upon fact, but rather the perception is based upon personal agenda and the suffering of the masses. This is exactly what we're debating here. Why on earth is this a racial issue? What objective reasoning do we have other than the federal gov't didn't jump through circus hoops (even though the Gov didn't ask for the help), the city was black, and that the President is a Republican? ? ?

Is the perception of (some) minorities justified?? I think abhorridly not. I think it's used because it's conveniently better for people whom are presently pushing the race-based agenda like a shopping cart at Kroger. A tragedy to a predominantly black city? What? The President is white and a Republican? What a golden opportunity for cynical race-baiters and Democrats alike.

I can't say I'm surprised... after all, it seems as if something like this would be a political waste if we didn't turn it into a partisan rant.

We are getting somewhere only if we play on your turf.

Perceptions can be based either facts or false impressions. I have not offered an opinion one way or the other on whether the perception of 70% of Black Americans and about 30% of Caucasians is accurate--just that it exists, along with some opinions about why it exists.

Not really...
Is this debate about whether the perception of blacks being different from whites? My point is explicitly that the perception of those that believe that "George Bush doesn't like black people", and federal response was about race is abhorridly skewed, and probably aided by the fact that the media shares a common goal (anti-GW rhetoric).

Think about how most of America gains it's news, political understanding, and cultural commonality. The media, right? I think thread after thread has established that the media (other than Fox) isn't particularly enthralled w/ GW.... which -SURPRISE!, has seemingly encouraged the racial divisiveness.

My point is that times like CBS's trip to the Astro Dome after the President's address in Jackson Square prove that not all minorities (and specifically not all evacuees) have a racially motivated agenda. Some do... of course, but some are just glad to be alive and aided by the good natured citizens of the surrounding gulf-coast states.

BOF, you understand polling (I hope.. you're on AD) and how polls are taken. We all know that even pre-election polls are used in themselves to sway public opinion. Frankly, I have little faith in polling that never seemlingly includes myself or anyone that I know, as the questions and polling participants can easily be picked to support a specific agenda. 70% of Blacks believe that the Fed's response was about race? Why... whom did they poll, what were the questions, how many people, etc? I could probably find a cross-section of 300-400 people here in the DFW area that would contradict this information... would it be scientifically accurate? Prob'ly not... but apparently that doesn't stop companies like Zogby. American's pure ignorance of statistical analysis and polling can be a political tool in itself (for both sides of the argument).

Not really back at you. This can be spun in any number of ways. You address one side of the equation, but by ignoring the other you are falling into the trap CR talks about. So, if your purpose here is to defend Bush, then who is resorting to the "talking points" you mentioned earlier.

I don’t see how your answer above or your diatribe earlier about socialism fit within the context of CR’s questions. Please reference:


Why, among even educated and rational thinkers, policy wonks and the over informed nerds we seem to be on this board - do we have such an entrenched views on this board, not even really able to see the other sides viewpoint at all, regarding race relations?

Why does rational thought seem to be untenable when it comes to racial issues?

Why, among even educated and rational thinkers, policy wonks and the over informed nerds we seem to be on this board - do we have such an entrenched views on this board, not even really able to see the other sides viewpoint at all, regarding race relations?

White people find it difficult to believe racism exists because unless it is manifested in a clear and undeniable fashion (such as a Ku Klux Klan rally or a white person referring to a black person as a nigger). Not until then do they seem capable of recognizing actts of bigotry and institutional racism.  Racism has to be illustrated in crude, knuckle-dragging fashion for many whites to demonstrate their distaste for it.

It's the subtle, sly "soft bigotry" and institutionalized racism that seems to whoosh by in a blur past whites but seems to move in super slow motion to the way blacks look at America and how race is lived in it.

Black people find it difficult to not believe racism exists because having been treated historically as inferior beings for so long it has become difficult for them to assume the full rights and responsibility expected of human beings.  There isn't a person alive today that was a slave or a slaveholder yesterday, but the mindset of both white superiority and black inferiority remains deeply entrenched in the psyches of both races.

Finally, to see "the other guy's" perspective on race is difficult as we cannot walk in each other's shoes nor experience life in exactly the same manner.  We are all creatures formed by our associations, our families, our teachers, our cultures, our religious beliefs and what have you.  Unless and until we get to know each other one-on-one in interpersonal relationships, we are condemned to remain hostile and suspcious strangers in a mutually shared land.

White people say there are black people who see everything in terms of race. I reply, there are white people who see nothing in terms of race. Both paranoia and blindness are bad. But paranoia can be treated. What's the cure for blindness?

Why does rational thought seem to be untenable when it comes to racial issues?

Not to break my arm patting myself on the back, but I think the thread from last year, "Rapping About Race Reasonably" displayed quite a bit of rational thought.

However, most of us only talk about race when we're forced to confront it. What went down in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is one such example. I have no doubt that we will all soon be ignoring the issue again and returning to our regularly scheduled wallowing in stupidity, junk culture and trivial political games.

Until the fire next time...

I'm completely guilty of not talking about race whenever possible. We're all people. Very few of us feel otherwise. Why do we have to sit and stew on our differences? Rational thought is untenable when it comes to racial issues because the minute you bring the subject up, you are attacking a race by singling them out. Every time a statement begins with "Blacks" or "Whites", the problem is pronounced further in my opinion. Race discussions lead to blanket statements. Blanket statements are inflammatory because they seldom, if ever, are universally true.

Good points, but I have to say that I disagree with portions of your argument. There are white people that see nothing in terms of race, and many people would argue that this is a great notion.

You said:
It's the subtle, sly "soft bigotry" and institutionalized racism that seems to whoosh by in a blur past whites but seems to move in super slow motion to the way blacks look at America and how race is lived in it.

I believe that your argument for subtle racism seems to creep on to any debate board related (or often unrelated) to race. Confidently speaking, I've had bad service, been harassed by the police (seemingly often), been passed over for promotions and job opportunities, and had women reject me. Rarely can I ever say that it happened because I was white, often I believe it was no fault of my own, and I've come to realize that people often affect the outcomes of each others' days and lives in ways that we never realize. Consider the time that someone cut you off and you missed the light, making you late for work. What about the time the company posted your payment late, causing headaches and late fees? How about the time the gift ordered online wasn't by the company, and the anniversary present wasn't there? Is that racism? I believe not.

You also said:
Black people find it difficult to not believe racism exists because having been treated historically as inferior beings for so long it has become difficult for them to assume the full rights and responsibility expected of human beings. There isn't a person alive today that was a slave or a slaveholder yesterday, but the mindset of both white superiority and black inferiority remains deeply entrenched in the psyches of both races.
Then you said:
Finally, to see "the other guy's" perspective on race is difficult as we cannot walk in each other's shoes nor experience life in exactly the same manner.

How can you say that we cannot fully understand what someone is thinking, and that they truly have "deeply entrenched" feelings, when you cannot "see the other guy's perspective"???

I believe that many, even deeply southern white people have been raised with a culture of understanding race before geography. What does that mean? I believe that often people from the Northeast have a harder time relating to people from the deep south than someone from a different race.

What about when you said:
White people find it difficult to believe racism exists because unless it is manifested in a clear and undeniable fashion (such as a Ku Klux Klan rally or a white person referring to a black person as a nigger). Not until then do they seem capable of recognizing actts of bigotry and institutional racism.

I believe that you can't deny the fact that black people engage in blatently racist acts as well. Ever watch Comic View on BET? It's funny... but flush with "black" ideas of other races, and their idiosyncracies. It's flush with generalizations and stereotypes, of which are seldom true (although usually funny... even when lambasting caucasians). I've heard more than once that "it's not possible for black people to be racist". If I said "Black people can't keep good credit", how would it be different from "White men can't jump"?

Do white people deny that there are racists? Of course not. I've personally met many... and not all were white. My point generally openly discusses the problematic nature and apathy/cynicism that generates from placating people like Louis Farrakhan or Jesse Jackson (or Kanye West for that matter). If people lie down and accept the racially devisive statements as fact, it becomes perception. Perception often falls into the quandry of self-fulfulling prophecy. Tell a child that he won't amount to much for a period of time... he'll begin to think it, get my point?

I believe that we do need to see the other side of the fence, Nighttimer, but you cannot act as if this doesn't apply to yourself. I would never say that racism is gone, but have to wonder at what point is this going to stop being a stopping block to progress? What more can caucasian America do to pull this wagon to a halt? I believe nothing...

Naomi Klein has pointed out that there are vacant apartments and houses in the unflooded portions of New Orleans sufficient to house up to 70,000 of the displaced poor (mostly Black). It seems to me that whether this opportunity is seized or not will be a good test of whether racism and classism will continue as usual in that unfortunate city. Klein Article.

Let me guess.........Your not a minority are you? I am and I can honestly say that although I do not blame the world for my life,I see things in the victims of Katrinas point of view.I also see yours.But is it really fair to say you KNOW what i's like,when in fact you don't? Isnt that spectating? Although you may not see it as a race issue, the fact still remains, New Orleans is a majority of to be "politically Corrrect" African Americans. I'm not implying in any way that Bush is a racist, however I find it odd that....our attention is focused on other countries rather than our own.With the fighting that's going on,what country will we have to protect if certain issues aren't resolved? EXACTLY! The pres was really slow at this one I just hope if it happens again,we will be prepared and I got off track so ......is this a race issue? NO comment,my mother told me,"if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all".

The homes that are vacant in those portions of the city (like the Garden Dist) garner an expensive rent and as private property owners, it's their right to set rent pricing at whatever they'd like to. In this case, also to not give their property out for free. Afterall, how would the evacuees pay for living in these apts/homes? Would it be the govt'? How would the gov't sustain the rent checks? If not.. what would happen to the tenants?

I believe that those whom really want to rebuild the city, can find jobs doing so. There are plenty of ads all over Louisiana asking for people to work (at above average wages) cleaning up New Orleans. I also believe that many communities that are harboring evacuees have/are making an attempt to assimilate a certain number of these people into their communities (Dallas for instance).

Racism and classism? Not really. It's a glimpse into supply-side economics. In the event that property owners deem the loss of "no rent" in these properties to be less beneficial than "lower rent", they will decrease prices. If they're trying to keep a certain level of poverty away from their property, it's not all "racism". There are certain issues that follow poverty-striken communities; such as a higher crime rate, poor payment issues, over-crowding, etc. All of which can lower property values and investment opportunities.

Racism and classism? Do you live (or have you) lived in New Orleans? If not, where does your opinion originate? (Liberally biased major media?... ) New Orleans, as much as I love it, has an ugly socialist-esque quality in that it harbors a number of communities that are havens for cyclical poverty and welfare, that seemingly perpetuates itself generation after generation. It's one of my most favorite places in this great land, but this is just the truth. It surely doesn't seem to be an effective policy for this city. Consider that the city has the highest tourist income in the state, but one of the highest poverty rates. Why?? hmmm.....

Your skepticism is appropriate, but it should be applied to both sides of the situation. And saying "no comment", but hinting at some speculation is not skepticism.

I think the apparent disinclination of whites to assume racism lacking evidence makes sense considering; if you've been brought up your whole life (as much as this generation has) to see racism as a loathesome mentalit while having grown up as a logical possible racist, that you'd be more careful when dealing with this heavy accusation?

It's not racism, yet it is.

What is racism?? Must an action me conscious to be racism?? Must some one believe that white people are better than Blacks to be racist? If so, why would whites believe racism exists to any large extent, due to the fact many of them, IMO, don't feel this way.

Whites are taught that these are the rules and they, to a large extent, believe in these rules. These rules may manifest themselves in our laws, in our norms, in our beliefs on right/wrong, correct/incorrect, decent/indecent and so on...

These rules, norms, laws are not race specific. At least they don't appear to be, and by agreeing to them it is not Whites fault if Blacks, or any other race for that matter, have a hard time adapting. Whites are just following the rules, they are not being racist.

Let may give you some examples from my personal life. When I grew up I was raised right outside D.C. This area is predominately Black. Even though I knew Whites were a majority in the U.S. I just really couldn’t relate to that idea. But I got an awakening when I joined the Marine Corps and many of the things I am going to talk about come from experiences while in.

One experience that sticks out in my head was after a group PT (Physical Training) session on a Colonel gets up on a platform. Now mind you we are in Hawaii, so we know it is nice weather, right? Now he gets up on this platform and puts on this big orange knit-cap beanie. And he says “I hope I look like as big of a fool as I feel” He went on to say how he doesn’t want to see Marines out in town or on base in civilian attire wearing beanies, “it’s Hawaii, you don’t need them. We’re Marines not thugs.”

It aggravated the hell out of me, I admit, because we all know what group of people was wearing the Beanies…. It was the young Black people. Now, was that Colonel being racist? Even today my answer is yes….. and no. If a white person was the type that was wearing beanies, there were a few… then he would be told to take it off just like any Black. However, this was a predominately a Black style, so why else would the Colonel get up there and give the speech he did. Why was my people’s style, my people’s vibe, our trend being disparaged yet again. Notice I said…. Again. A year before they had a formation at a different unit I was with to let us know that people could no longer walk around the barracks in Durags/doo-rags/ do-rags (take your pick) “Because we were Marines not thugs.” Time and time and time again I heard the “We’re/You’re not a thug or you’re not back on the Block” in some variation or another. But you know what I never heard… and I think this is important. It’s as if some white person watched Boys N’ the Hood or Menace to Society, got a notepad and said this is how thugs look. Did they realize Blacks use durags so they can get waves?? Do they even know what waves are??

I never heard “We’re Marines not cowboys” Here I have to look at these fools with their pointy boots, oversized gaudy belt buckles, too tight jeans trying to show a package they don’t have, shirts so tight you can see their heart beat. And not once do I see a Colonel, a Major, or anyth