Racial issues, general talking point

I've been watching several threads about Dr. Dean's erroneous assertion from the debate last night, and there is something bothering me about all of them.

Now it's been said that Dr. Dean discusses race in a "blunt" manner. Ok, maybe he does. The impression left by his remarks was that the other candidates consider racial issues to be secondary to other issues.

Here's the talking point. Please explain to me which approach is better and why-
Focusing on racial problems from the perspective of the races involved, or speaking of racial issues as a segment of vast social problems?

My take is this, if you spend 30 minutes speaking of racial issues purely on the BASIS of race itself, you're still holding the non-white races apart from the rest of society. Kucinich addresses race as a major problem in the application of criminal sentencing, both for drugs and for capital crime. He's absolutely right. There's a reason for that- it's because racial issues are held as a seperate priority from the overall social issues being discussed!

If someone on the board non-white wants to give me their perspective, please do, but I keep seeing racial separation perpetuated by comments like discuss it bluntly, as if it's something apart from the white segment of US society. That view of it, quite frankly, disgusts me. Why are we dividing ourselves up when the problems affect ALL of society? Yes I want to help mistreated non-white people, I also want to help mistreated white people, mistreated poor people, mistreated homosexuals...DAMMIT! Someone of every class, color, religion(or non-religion), orientation and gender is mistreated, and that's what I want to stop. ALL of it, not just toward one segment of society, towards all people everywhere. Now I know it's not possible to completely eradicate problems, but it seems to me much more likely to get close if we stop separating ourselves and start coming together as the HUMAN RACE.

That doesn't mean ignore, but include it! Include non-white people with the rest of us because that's where they belong!

kick!

touchy. I'm not sure how to acknowledge it in the way you put it. So I'll just bust out my thoughts on it and give you a link to a Paul Wellstone speech that helped me figure a few things out.

Ok, first of all, I am an enrolled Blackfeet Indian from Montana. The hardest part of including all of the races together is that it is easily exploitable. In theory, approaching them as one social problem should work, however, then the unique attributes of racism tend to get lost in the shuffle. I wish more than anything, race could just be left alone and that would be that, but, a few bigots ruin it for everybody. There is always that cop who will pull over someone because of their skin color. There is always that employer who would discriminate on someone due to race. There is always that university official who wouldn't admit a smart student to graduate school because of a perceived difference. Much like supply side economics, racial equality is something that could be concieved were it not for those few greedmongers and/or bigots with an agenda. Like deregulation, without that safety net to regulate the process it begins to be taken advantage of until something bad happens, in deregulation's case the big blackout. For this reason, we need affirmative action, not because of quotas or special treatment, but for that safety net to be there. When a qualified applicant/student etc, from a minority group is dead even in ability with another applicant, well, give them the nod, not the shaft. That isn't unfair, and, in fact, the opposite of that concept still happens. Especially in the form of wages. Women get the hammered in this as well. Now minority women are interesting because they face a "triple-threat" oppression. They do this as women, minority women, and minority women in the workforce. Minority women in the workforce make anywhere from one-third to nearly one half on the dollar compared to a white male doing the same job. Simple discrimination that not even affirmitive action, civil rights or Woman's liberation has been able to stop.

Sickening.

Ok, now, here is my deal. I am a huge education advocate. I believe that eurocentricities -the telling of history through the eyes of Europeans- needs to be countered. In education. In film. In literature. I will include links from a few of my columns so you can get all of this better. Here is my short version. At an early age most of America learns about George Washington, Abe Lincoln etc. By and large, we are ignorant to other cultures, most minorities are so assimilated we don't even identify with our own. If I wasn't a voracious reader I would be a practical moron about Indians, even though, I am one. White and minority cultures live together and in close proximity to each other. Often white and minority neighborhoods clash cultures, and those living the closest to each other often have the most ignorance. Incognizance breeds rancor and rancor brings about violence. In schools, and universities, the plural backgrounds are not as big of a factor because of the cultural diversity in the education. (or much of it anyway) I see plenty of white people in my Indian classes who are more obsessed with my people than I am. They love us. I propose that in our youngest of children we enable them to learn history from all perspectives. That we allow Middle Eastern studies into junior highs and high schools. That Indian, African-American, hispanic, etc programs become implemented all over the country. That way it eliminates stupidity and stereotypes in young eager minds willing and capable to learn. After a generation or so of this type of cultural rennaissance, racism and bigotry would be minimal. My belief is that much of our problems in this area are due to ignorance, not stupidity. Ignorance can be cured while stupidity, of course, cannot. Much of society's hatred stems from ignorance. Whether it is racial, gender or even sexually oriented. It all can be fixed, but this country needs a major commitment toward it. Anyway, I will give you some links that may clarify my rambling for you. Hope this helps some.

http://www.populist.com/3.97.Wellstone.html
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/96/86/03_2.html
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/96/111/03_4.html

and it's reinforced by...well by phony rightwing attitudes that pander to something hideous in them silly racists, who are their own 'persecuted minority' deserving of equal treatment...
I've heard all sorts of solutions to racism (i grew up in white foster homes, i'm half 'indian' and saw racism up real close) and suspect that god fucked up making races etc.....
genetic engineering in future will make everybody alive blonde and blue eyed if humanity get's past the BFEE and so on....
Wisdom today is despised, and unfortunately the big issues like the environment, population 'control', crime, work, wages, water, wealth distribution etc require wisdom to find workable solutions...

i see what you're getting at, but your last statement is indicative of the problem, isn't it? let's face it...this is probably the way many americans still think...let's "include" vs. we are all in this together. if the latter had ever been true, we wouldn't be still having these types of discussions. if the latter were ever true, the rw would not be so successful at using race as a wedge issue that crosses over party lines. so...i agree with you, and i disagree. i like what dean says...in my view, he's saying intragroup discussion and work needs to happen before we all join hands as humans. folks like the KKK and other radical supremacists are easy targets for finger-pointing while less overt and in-your-face type racism can easily be overlooked.
but you are right in the sense that racial issues need to be addressed in the larger context of accepting injustice against some as the NORM...that does affect everyone.

I'm comparing Dean's statement about white needs to talk about white. I believe this was received with murmurs at the NAACP convention. Then you consider Edwards who made that point about how Robbins NC may have changed demographically over the last 30 years, but the people who go there now go for the same reasons that his father went there 40 years ago, and that he's fighting so that those people can have the same opportunities he had. That was received with enthusiasm by the New Mexico audience. Why?

Because talk is cheap, even it's blunt. And white can go talk to white until the cows come home. But what you want, really, is economic opportunity and people to stop putting up those barriers. That's why the Edwards allegory strikes home, I think.

I think there's also something weird about the idea that when white talks to white, solutions follow. There's just something goofy about that. I would rather hear that my problems fit within a bigger theme -- equality of opportunity on a level playing field -- which happens to be the candidate's central theme.

Like I said in one of the other threads, I read through Edwards's Real Solutions For America, and to me everything in it is about race even though race is only mentioned overtly a couple times, because it's all about opportunity and taking down barriers.

to take place is the notion that there's still a white-only conversation in America.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it's just like, well, "you wait outside the door while we talk about this...don't worry, even though you're not participating, I'm going to be blunt in there and it'll be OK."

in Kucinich's early campaigning.

Look it up for yourself.