*drumroll*

how many times will othello be referenced?

Obligatory Nietzsche inserted: http://kecy.roumen.cz/deal_withsch.jpg

Btw, let's bust that "God" myth! http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Jamie+Hyneman+tRRHoqehCfLm.jpg

In the meantime, I'll play with my cursor, I plugged in two more mices so it's really funny.

...Is a reverse application of this happening today:

Blacks holding Whites as "The other" and keeping THEMSELVES seperated from the greater collective? Isn't that a bit contrary to the whole "we want to be treated like everyone else, equally, fairly" in the Civil Rights Movement?

It's a debate that's come up in my African-American Literature class--guess who started it--and another form of it sprung up in my Women and Ethnicities in Theatre class:

Someone had a problem with gays, saying she felt that it was, to condense a lot of God-talk down, another instance of "the other," gays defining "straights" by comparison, and so, in her view, gays shouldn't be thought of the same as everyone else, as they're..."other."



Here's the problem:

If you form an African-American (or Queer Studies) class, you're making a statement, I'd argue that these people are "seperate" from the norm, and so can be treated as such, both literarily and legally.

Look at the Canon of Western Literature...

Would there be more black writers in the anthology books if companies didn't have the mindset that it was OK to jsut give the black authors their own, sperate-but-equal (hey, where have I heard that before?) anthology?

And would we see more thought given towards allowing gays to marry nation-wide if people didn't feel as though "Civil Unions" could be "seperate-but-equal" (there's that term again...where HAVE I heard that before?) from marriage?

But then you have Gay Pride Parades...well, there are no Straight-Pride-Parades, so is this just a reversal of the principle of "the other?"
Same thing for African-American literature and music...quite a bit of it sets up whites as "the other."

This makes sure that LGBT-Americans and African-Americans get attention, yes, and it gives them an identity...

But my ultimate question is this:

Does that identity cost them true equality and identity as being simply "American?"

After all, we don't generally go around to white folks on the street in America and call them "French-American, German-American, Polish-American, Irish-American."

We just say "American."

We acknowledge out background, but we also have assimilated into the mainstream of our nation and culture, and so, on the whole, are treated as such.

But minorities, such as Blacks and Gays, face a difficult challenge:

On the one hand, doing nothing could allow themselves to be overlooked and infringed upon...
But on the other hand, creating these specialized identities, "African-American" and "LGBT." seperates them from the mainstream that could--should--grant them equality.

So.

Does this constructed identity via the idea of "the other" serve as a positive influence, or does it just stand in the way of ever allowing society to fully integrate these people and become wholly one with itself?

And HAHA, naysayers!

Not ONE Othello/Shakespeare/Nietzsche reference!

*Stands proudly in the midst of non-referenced writing, for a change!* :p

i think you can be proud of your sexuality and march in pride if you wish. It's not going to make a difference to the rest of the parade what sexuality you happen to find.

"Would there be more black writers in the anthology books if companies didn't have the mindset that it was OK to jsut give the black authors their own, sperate-but-equal (hey, where have I heard that before?) anthology?"

Woul companies "give" African Americans an anthology (as if they didnt earn it with their writing and unique perspective) If they didn't sell books?


The question you have to ask yourself is how your identity of "American" was created. People didn't use to call Italian-American's that, It used to be Italian or any other number of derogatory names. But according to some historians, Immigrant "whites" fought their way into society simply by distancing themselves from Blacks. Many Historians would claim your supposedly overarching "American" identity was created in opposition to Black identities, tolerance was granted at the expense of African Americans. So can you expect Black people to buy completely into that identity?

We had to do an essay on this last september in English.

One can only guess the amount of racism included in mine, lol. (surprisingly there was actually no racism in my paper, wanna guess why?)

I'm not saying you CAN'T march in a parade...

I'm just asking--if you want to be treated like everyone else, why set yourself up as "the other" and set those you would integrate with as "other" to yourself?

It seems to be contradictory--

"I want to be just like everyone else, and my sexuality is my own business, you straight folks don't have to be subject to inquiry about it, it's a private matter."

Which is a VERY valid and fair view--one I totally agree with.

But how private is a parade, really?

David Roedinger Working Toward Whiteness is a good place to start.

@Santa:

Yes...since...

Well, isn't that what they asked for in the Civil Rights?

Judge me not on the color of my skin, but the content of my character?

Black, white, Latino, Asian--which is far too broad, I know--or otherwise...

We all "march" udner the same flag, so to speak--

So isn't that enough to make us all "American," even by using the idea of "the other?"

It's part of how the Colonies banded together in the first place:

"We might not agree on everything, John Adams, but we can agree that we are all Americans Other to the English, right?"
"Why yes, Thomas Jefferson...we can."

We have enough "other-ness" from other nations and ideologies--Iran, China, NK, to name just the big-big ones--from without...

So can't we dispense with other-ness within, and, if we MUST use other-ness for definition, use it to define ourselves as all living in the same damn country and all of us, black, white, theist, atheist, or otherwise, as being "other" to such notions as infanticide, the deprication of women, Anti-Semitism, dictatorships, suicide bombings, Orwellian murals of "The Great Leader" everywhere...

We can all agree those are BAD, right?

And stand together as "other" to that, and define ourselves THAT way?

'Yes...since...

Well, isn't that what they asked for in the Civil Rights?"

No Civil rights was not about the right to assimilate, although some were more interested in that end then others. Civil rights was about Equal Rights.

"We all "march" udner the same flag, so to speak--

So isn't that enough to make us all "American," even by using the idea of "the other?"

It's part of how the Colonies banded together in the first place:"

American is an extremely loaded term that has much more connotation than a political allegiance. When you hear the news discuss Main Street U.S.A what are they talking about? Martin Luther King Bulevard? Hell no. We are talking about finding the most whitebread town you can find and saying "This is the true America" Are you telling African Americans to embrace this culture? A culture that was built in direct opposition to them?

"We might not agree on everything, John Adams, but we can agree that we are all Americans Other to the English, right?"
"Why yes, Thomas Jefferson...we can."

This is also completely wrong and right in my wheel house but I will hold off unless you would like me to expplain.

I'm in a unique position here, coming originally from a very white area, but I've adopted an African-American son, and I've been able to see "The Other" side.

Not to make a bad pun.

But the thing is, American culture is this megalith. Very early in our history we prioritized northern and western European heritage, and looked down upon members of other ethnicities (including the Irish who, while being NW European, just aren't NW European enough). If you look back through all forms of art in the US from its founding until now, you have primarily white Christian points of view being the mainstream because that is the most prioritized culture. Every now and then, someone who isn't white and Christian will show up as a blip, but more often than not, that's what it is. And now, you get a gay pride parade, right? Every other parade: memorial day, labor day, Thanksgiving, whatever, is a white Christian pride parade. It is shaped to the dominant culture, and what has been the dominant culture. You get Black Entertainment Television. Oh my God, the blacks have their own channel. We only have 199 channels of whiteness, how dare they have their own special channel for them!

You can look at it like you look at it, why not fight for assimilation, but who really wants to be assimilated? Surely you don't want to be told that everyone should be able to just float the same kind of thing down the Thanksgiving parade and now you're equal. 90% of the cultural displays cater to 50% of the people. The other 50% can just forget getting seriously integrated into those, so they have to form their own traditions and parades.

"Are you telling African Americans to embrace this culture? A culture that was built in direct opposition to them?"

I'm saying that if they had, rightfully, a whole movement to try and become like everyone else...if they've had their rebellion against what WAS a corrupt, all-white US identity...

What's the practical use in a continued rebellion?
Things aren't perfect, yet, there are still problems?
There ALWAYS are.
There ALWAYS will be.
So does that mean they should always rebel, always be conflicted?

I'm not arguing their point is flawed so much as their method:

By formulating a new argument to deal with the issues at hand, and doing so AS IF they're "belong" to the society they rightfully deserve to be considered a part of, I feel they could make their point much more effectively and towards much more effective ends than acting as if it's still 1962 and the President and every CEO in the nation is still as whitebred as can be.

Are things perfect?
No...but "perfect" will never happen, and things ARE better than in 1962...why not acknowledge that, and say "Things have improved...let's BUILD off of that, make things BETTER?"



Barry Sanders, when he played football, never spiked the ball after a touchdown.
He said you should just act like you've been there before,m like you belong in the endzone.

The same applies here, I'd argue:

Don't act as if it's 1962 and you've never "been there before" in terms of wealth and power.

There are black CEOs now and...yes...the President is BLACK.

So act like you belong as Americans and not just African-Americans because...you do.

New words for a new age are needed--NOT the same old rhetoric that has served its purpose and brought you to this point.

America's always been about building and progression, at least in theory--

BUILD on your successes to achieve FURTHER triumphs...don't retread the old hits.

(As for the Adams/Jefferson bit:

Meh.

That was just a basic example...I'm sure there are historical issues with that particular reference, to be honest, I don't care, not really vital to my case...I'd be interested if you want to share some facts about them I might not know, but really, I was just using them as an example of the Colonies' "Join or Jie/The enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach, making the English out to be the others in the first basic steps toward joining together.)

What if the group doesn't like the cultural possibilities that are available? Isn't American culture built on choice? Should they be forced to choose an already existing cultural option when it's so easy to build a new one?

Obi- Again the mass movement was for equal rights not to "become like everybody else" what exactly don't you understand about that.

Are you saying to get equal rights that you have to be like everybody else, that those different in culture cannot be embraced as completely equal in the eyes of the law and society?

And how exactly do African Americans not act like they belong as Americans. They fight and die for America, they represent us in the political and cultural arenas. Lets get to the bottom of this. Define American... and how Blacks are not acting like they belong?

Adams/Jefferson did not see the English as the Other they saw themselves as paragons of Englishness but they believed they saw English society crumbling around them. Britain wasn't English enough for them. They did have "Others" Blacks, Native Americans, and Catholics to name a few, but English were not the other until a concerted effort after the Revolution made them so.

and I am not implying you are racist, I just think you are conflating Equality and Assimilation and suggesting cultural assimilation should be the prerequisite for acceptance into society (or being American), which I believe is a flawed logic

@SD:

First...really? Wow, double interest in your adopting and adopting someone of another race...cool. :) (Any reason you chose to adopt, out of curiosity? That's a good thing, though...)

Second:

"but who really wants to be assimilated?"

...I thought they did?

Or at least be "assimilated" insofar as they were treated equally and not distinguished specially fromk other Americans?

I don't mean "assimilation" in the Borg, "You-are-now-a-drone-with-no-personal-identity" way, but rather in more of a melting-pot, mosaic sort of way...

You can pick out individual bits in a mosaic, sure, and they're lovely...but all the bits are generally equally, and make up a greater whole.

Come to think of it, maybe that's a better term for America than the oft-used melting-pot term, "Mosaic," since we DO still all have ethnic pride from where we came from...

The point is, for most of us, we don't let that override the sense of who we are nationally, that is, if I ask you "what" you are, you'd likely say "American," not "Well, I'm Irish-German-Polish-French-Dutch American."

Most people consider themselves Americans first, and then take up their ethnicities second, is my point...again, all the rocks are different, but form a greater whole in the Mosaic.

With blacks, though, it's different...while I wouldn't say they'd put their ethnicity before their nation, I WILL say that, on average, of the black folks I've met, and just my personal glimpse of the culture:

They seem to identitify with and cling to their ethnic identity a LOT more than the average American...the only other group that even comes close that I can think of are Latin-Americans, and that's due to multiple factors, how comparatively-recent they are as immigrants (many are second or even first generation Americans, just coming in, so they'll naturally have strong ties to their background) how they come in, the language barrier (though here in LA county that's less of an issue...MUCH more Spanish language and culture is heard and seen here than, say, Illinois or Missouri.)

So if they want to be treated as equal parts of the American Mosaic, why do they sem intent on setting themselves apart from the other rocks, and all clumping together, rather than intermingling with the other colored rocks, so to speak?

Does that sort of setting-apart of a culture make it easier for bigots to pick on them? :/

The same goes for the LGBT community:

By setting themselves apart, they gain and identity...but make themselves a target as well...

who? The black middle class? They do intermingle with the other "colored rocks." If you are asking about disadvantaged African Americans you might want to take the ghetto into consideration which would challenge your premise that "Blacks could integrate if they want to."

I'd rather not muddy this topic with discussion of why I chose to adopt and why I chose to adopt who I chose, we can discuss that elsewhere, but yes, it's 100% true.

I think it's because of a similar idea to sedimentary rock. The lower layers of sediment, with so many layers above pressing down on them, we can picture this as the same as a culture that's discriminated against on a very serious level throughout the country. I thought racism was mostly over until I adopted a black kid. You'd be SHOCKED the things that still happen, every day. Anyway. So much pressure is put on that group that they become very tight with each other. A unified front against the rest of society. Because someone needs to look out for you, and that by and large won't be the cultural majority, it'll be people who are similar to you and face the same pressures as you. So the pressure from without causes condensation within. While we white Americans are a very airy and diverse lot, black culture has, by necessity, become very condensed and tight.

you are confusing pride and culture with exclusion. Italian Americans have pride and culture as do other cultures and identities (ethnic or sexual), why should blacks and LGBT people be different?

But, just for spice, here in fact is an astonishingly attractive man adopting a black child. This was after...two and a half years of him being my foster son.

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b261/Havok3595/?action=view&current=IMG_1364.jpg

cute little guys, unless that baby is a girl, I can never tell.

He's a boy. :) Thanks.

In that he looks so masculine, a future man's man to be sure ;)

LOL

This is Christmas 2009, about...oh, eight months after the previous pic

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b261/Havok3595/?action=view&current=IMG_1591.jpg

What's interesting to me, and ties in to what obi is saying to a degree, is our youngest is pale-skinned, blue eyed, and blonde haired, our eldest is dark-skinned with brown eyes and black hair. And they are 100% brothers. I tell a story about one time when we were at a Red Lobster, and a woman at a table across from us said to her companion, "Look, there's a blonde haired white boy and a black boy and they don't even care that they're different. That's beautiful."

I agree.

Alright, this is probably going to be a longer response, since there a lot of points to respond to...

I'm not going to go "@soandso," but rather just go by quotes.

So.

"Should they be forced to choose an already existing cultural option when it's so easy to build a new one?"

Of course not, I'm not advocating for them to accept something they don't like...

I'm saying:

1. They want to be treated like other Americans and not treated as Others (I WILL add this caveat--if we were, for the sake of argument, having this converation a century ago, at a time where it'd be conceivable for slaves that did NOT choose to be a part of this country were here, then I'd say YES, in THAT case...well, they never asked to come in the first place, did they, so it makes perfect sense for them to want to keep seperate from the nation they live in...they didn't choose to live there. Now, however, that slavery has passed--and YES, there are residual effects, but every society can claim residual effects of some persecution, Jews among them, and *I'm* not demanding reperations from Germany or Austria or Russia, or condemning the US government for turning refugee boats away, you have to bury the past at some point, or it buries YOU--we can say that we all, more or less, "choose" to live here. If we want to leave, we can emmigrate...the way the US jobs market is, we won't be missed all that much if we choose to leave. And while some would say "well, my great-great-great-great grandfather didn't choose to come here, HE was a slave, and I'm here because of HIM, so it's NOT my choice anymore than it was his," I would argue that, by that logic, ANYONE could argue "It wasn't my choice to live here" since none of us choose where, when, and to whom we're born, after all. As a result, blacks ARE part of American society, regardless of the disgustingly-enslaved way they arrived, and so they have every right to be treated as Americans and not "Other" to "Middle America." Someone mentioned "Mainstreet USA." While, yes, traditionally that'd invoke a white image, I'd say that today "Mainstreet USA" MUST include blacks and Latinos and Asians and the like...that's what we are, a nation of immigrants, but we ALL want to be treated as equal Americans...and that is hard to do when a culture sets itself up as The Other to Mainstreet America while trying to be, deservedly, a PART of Mainstreet America.)

2. BUILD, not DESTROY. "The Other" is a destructive ideal traditionally, as...well, if you're the Greeks, and you define yourselves by NOT being Persian or Trojan, just what are you going to do to those Persians and Trojans? I DO blame the image of "The Other" for a LOT of the gang wars that occur in the area I live.

3. Building a new image/America should come on the base of the Civil Rights Movement for blacks; there doesn't need to be a Civil Rights Movement II for them, because THAT kind of protest has already done it's task, a NEW STRATEGY IS NEEDED. Again, I'm ALL FOR the aims of black people here...it's the method I take issue with, because not only does it not work, but it causes even MORE problems, and all the while...well, what does it solve? It gives you an identity, sure...but is this new, inner-coty, gangster-rapper image what Dr. King REALLY fought for? Is that REALLY the image black people should want as their identity? It's the failing of a WHITE system that has prisons filled with sometimes more than 50% black inmates...but it is the failing of the BLACK system, I'd argue, to respond to this by creating an identity via music and art that propogates the very things that land that 50% in jail, ie, the Ganster-Rapper Culture. Again--NOT what Dr. King had in mind...



"Obi- Again the mass movement was for equal rights not to "become like everybody else" what exactly don't you understand about that."

I'm not saying "become like everybody else," but that they wanted to be TREATED like everyone else...again, that's harder to you when you set yourself up as The Other to the people you'd like to be equal with.



"Are you saying to get equal rights that you have to be like everybody else, that those different in culture cannot be embraced as completely equal in the eyes of the law and society?"

Yes and no.

YES, it IS harder for those with a culture that is Other to the society they wish to be a part of to be treated equally, for reasons that are pretty evident...if you stick out, you become a target...and besides even that, societies, at their core, are generally based on shared general values, so if, for the sake of argument, I traveled to Iran with Jewish and American ideals--which are VERY Other to the Iranian elders and government, youth-movement aside--and culture...YES, I CANNOT honestly expect to be welcomed with open arms and fit in perfectly and be treated completely equally, can I?

On the other hand...

NO, you do NOT have to conform 100% to everything The Party and Big Brother say in Oceana. (There, first literary reference...and it's Orwell, huh...)

I again point to my Mosaic analogy as the example:

It's important that each piece be vibrant enough not to get lost in the shuffle and be meaningless...but also that each piece be coordinated and shaped and out together in such a manner that they all fit together to make one larger picture, and that none of the rocks--generally--upstage that larger picture.

In that same way, you can and SHOULD have your ethnicity as a part of you, and be proud of it...I make Jew-jokes here all the time.

But if I want to be an American citizen, I should put my nationality BEFORE my ethnicity.

I mentioned in class--to a considerable uproar, that was sort of laughed off the next day--that there should be black poets...and no white poets, either.

Just poets--ethnic ties can be a plus, but Langston Hughes didn't write to "the black poet" so much as he first wrote to be a good poet and THEN wrote to be a peot that could express the plight and views of his people.

In the same way, be American FIRST, and THEN proudly be African-American or Jewish-American or whatever else.




"Adams/Jefferson did not see the English as the Other they saw themselves as paragons of Englishness but they believed they saw English society crumbling around them. Britain wasn't English enough for them. They did have "Others" Blacks, Native Americans, and Catholics to name a few, but English were not the other until a concerted effort after the Revolution made them so."

OK, that's true (but after the Revolution or during? I'd think they'd set the people they were writing and depicting as oppressors and rebelling against and dying to rebel against as Other...or at least Other to their cause...)




"I just think you are conflating Equality and Assimilation and suggesting cultural assimilation should be the prerequisite for acceptance into society (or being American), which I believe is a flawed logic"

Not cultural assimilation so much as cessation of rebelling against the culture while asking for acceptance.

And again, I don't say it of all blacks, not even close, mostly this Gangster-Rapper culture that's emerged...

*THEY* so often set up themselves as not only the Other but the Extreme Other to a society, ie, as if they'd be perfectly fine leaving, or if that society fell.

My questiuon becomes...well, why not leave, if you hate it so much?

It's not even asking for CHANGE, it's retreading and almost, in my view, exploiting MLK and the Movement as iconography to set themselves up as "new" leaders...but unlike MLK, who preached peace and change, from these artists, I jsut hear a lot of vitriol and hate, all while exploiting the banner-head of MLK as if he wanted such hatred.

Or, to give another example...and definitely-controversial one...

Affrimative Action.

Do I think there should be some?
Absolutely?
Do I think it should be race-based?
Absolutely not?
What should it be based on?
The Old Obi-Standard...MERIT (here, merit in the face of financial disadvantage, no matter WHAT the color of the person...and yes, there are forms of this kind already, I know, I'm just saying I'd like more of this and less racial affirmative action...I find it rather irritating that almost any job I apply to for major chains asks about my race...this should NOT be a relevant factor. Granted, it's not usually a required question to answer, and they say it doesn't affect your placement...but even so, I don't entirely trust that it doesn't.)

And to give another example:

African-American Literature, once more.

WHY not integrate that into the Canon?

EVEN if we're going to play Literature Snob and say "There aren't enough good African-American Authors that could crack the Western Canon and get recognized, they NEED their own book to be recognized at all" (which I totally disagree with, if W.B. Yeats gets in, Langston Hughes SURELY should be in there)...

Why not even just the American Canon, then?

They're there...but not too many, not NEARLY enough...a very small percentile, and it's not as if there's not enough space--230+ years, we're not England or France with more than a thousand years to cover, we have PLENTY of space to fill!--so why aren't they there?

I'd argue, again, because the Literary Powers-That-Be feel it's better to shunt them off into their own anthology, and leave the "regular" American Canon to its own devices...and surprise surprise, look how white that Canon, even into the 21st century, remains...

So I don't want them to be assimilated.

I want them to be recognized as Equals and not Others...to be allowed, so to speak, in the "Real" American Literary Canon, and not thrown a bone and just "allowed" their own.

They deserve to sit with the greats, they don't deserve to be shunted to a sub-set of study just because of the color of their skin...the content of their characters DEMANDS that they be allowed into the mainstream as equals, and this is hard to do when the image of their being somewhat Other is propogated by both sides.




"If you are asking about disadvantaged African Americans you might want to take the ghetto into consideration which would challenge your premise that "Blacks could integrate if they want to."

In some instances, like the ghettos of Los Angeles County...yes.

It's harder for that cultural reconcilation and merging to occur.

Which is why HELP from the OUTSIDE is sometimes needed...more efforts to extend a helping hand to these communities, economically and, by extension, culturally, as we allow for that cross-race mosaic, would be great...

But it gets undermined, as I've said, when Ganster artists speak about ME as if I'm their natural-born enemy...so I'd argue that, while white folks haven't done enough to help black folks in poorer areas, it also hasn't helped to have Ganster artists influence youths there into biting the hand that could help them.




"You'd be SHOCKED the things that still happen, every day. Anyway. So much pressure is put on that group that they become very tight with each other. A unified front against the rest of society. Because someone needs to look out for you, and that by and large won't be the cultural majority, it'll be people who are similar to you and face the same pressures as you. So the pressure from without causes condensation within. While we white Americans are a very airy and diverse lot, black culture has, by necessity, become very condensed and tight."

Definitely not shocked...again, it happens in LA County everday, and often enough in my district or city.

I'm not saying "things are so perfect, what's their deal?" but, rather, "Things have improved, let's recognize they've improved and, rather than acting like it's 1962 and we're sill at Square 1, try to build off of our successes, learn from our failures, and move FOWARD with this, rather than always worrying about who did what to who 20 or 50 or 100 ore more years ago."

I mean...if *I* were like that, I'd be a condensed ball of rage against most of Europe, Germany, Austria, and Russia, for sure...

I probably wouldn't be going on about how great Nietzsche or Tchaikovsky are...at some point, you just have to let the scab heal once the wound has closed...

And it seems to me a lot of this Ganster-Rapper Culture is concerned with is continuing to open that wound and keep it fresh.

"Never Forget" is a noble sentiment, and a solemn one, indeed.

It's also a recipe for continued hatred...and what's more MLK was a reverend...doesn't the Bible--at least allegedly--teach forgiveness?

But I can understand the idea of a tight-knit ethnic group...

Jews are sort of similar in that, if I meet another Jew for the first time, and know nothing else about the person, there's a connection drawn...and Jews will talk about things to other Jews that, maybe, they'd phrase differently or wouldn't talk about to other people.

It's the result of centuries of persecution and confinement, and it's the case with many ethnicities, not at all just Blacks and Jews.

But the thing is, on the whole, Jews in America have, in large part, gotten over it, and are able to put the past behind them and not hold "blood grudges" or anything...again, it's not like I'm going to have an instant hatred or fear of a German or Russian if I meet one tomorrow (if anything, if he mentioned he was German, I'd probably make a joke about my being Jewish and we'd laugh off the past.)

So while I understand WHY the black community is so compressed, and with good reason...

There's a time when you just have to let go, let the wound heal, and start trying to work with people, rather than referencing events that happened decades or centuries ago.



"you are confusing pride and culture with exclusion. Italian Americans have pride and culture as do other cultures and identities (ethnic or sexual), why should blacks and LGBT people be different?"

They're not different...and I'm not saying it's an exclusionary bit, African OR American.

You can be African-American, and proudly so, and honor your heritage.

But if you make a point of setting African in opposition to American or, even, white, then you have an issue:

Again, let the wound heal, don't set yourself up as Other.

I'm proudly Jewish...but I'm American first. The exception to that, of course, is if American became the Fourth Reich tomorrow...THEN, yes, my country is no longer really "my country" anymore, is it, if it's out to get me? Time to be Jewish first and leave.

And YES, there WAS a time when being Black-first made sense--the Civil Rights movement, it makes sense for folks like Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali to set themselves up as Others...their country had failed to treat their people fairly for decades, and it was no longer at all time to take it.

Today, to beat a VERY dead horse by this point, is NOT the 1960s.
WE. HAVE. PROGRESSED.
No, things are not perfect, but WE. HAVE. PROGRESSED.

We are at the point now where Black SHOULD NO LONGER BE Other to White...the two should no longer be in conflict.

The ONLY remaining conflicts that are strictly Black-and-White are over old, past events.

And spewing hatred, as I see from the Ganster culture and from a bubbling underculture in the White community, in this way is no better than Israeli vs. Palestinian.

Los Angeles might as well be the Gaza Strip, if that's going to be the attitude.

The time for fighting is over.
The time for working together is now.
And when the President is Black, it's time to come out of that condensed cultural shell a bit, peek out...

And see that there IS an America that can and will embrace them as citizens first, not merely as BLACK citizens.

"I tell a story about one time when we were at a Red Lobster, and a woman at a table across from us said to her companion, "Look, there's a blonde haired white boy and a black boy and they don't even care that they're different. That's beautiful."

I agree."

Well.

THAT post summed up my feelings in a not-as-horrendously-long-post-as-obi's post.

:D

I wholly disagree that the rift between black and white is as far in the past as you claim it to be. I had a girl in kindergarten tell my son, "My mom told me not to play with brown people." The Other role for Jews in America is largely over. Sure, some people complain about it, but the vast majority of it is in the past, and everyone views Holocaust deniers and such as loonies, but there's still backlash against blacks that you won't believe because you think it's analogous to what your culture has been through.

That was just one real life example. They also repeatedly tried to put him into special education although he has no learning disability, and one teacher aide even did the "hard" work for him. By her volunteering, not him asking for help.

Too bored to read thread, will respond to OP.

In short I agree that yes there are inherent problems with this sort of "segregation." On some level you need it so that it gets studied. On another level, by studying it, you are reinforcing the arbitrary barriers that have been erected.

However I would like to put forward this idea. It is taken from.... some black thinker.... I don't remember where I heard it, maybe in Souls of Black Folk by W. E. B. DuBois:

Black Americans have a permanent identity crisis. They are American, yes, but they are also blacks. They have the black culture, and they also feel a part of American culture and to some extent the African diaspora culture.

But they never feel at home with any one of them. A black can try and try and try to become a totally integrated American, but by doing so he usually will lose his blackness, he will be alienated by his own people and culture.

He can ignore being American, but by doing so he will become alienated by the dominant culture in which he lives. He will be seen as very much the other and will barely interact with other Americans. Think of black ghettos, and the way a white person might view the people living there as he drives through.

You see what I mean? The black person in America is in a catch-22.... he can never be fully black without trouble, fully American without trouble.

Because unfortunately, being American means being white. You don't actually have to have white skin anymore, thank God for that, but you do have to pick up white person habits.

"Americanized" Chinese-American friends of mine are accepted into the normal American culture because they act like white people. They are not exactly white, they have immigrant parents and so on, but they are enough like white people that white people relate to them. Same goes for when black people sort of leave their people behind, drop their accent or mode of dress, etc. They are "Americanizing" or becoming "white" in their own country. The African-American is unique in this respect - all the other "aliens" are immigrants that eventually integrate. The black people are native to this country but are at the same time alienated from it.

It really is a stupid shitty situation we set up for ourselves by being such racist assholes.

@SD:

If that's the case, though, doesn't that make the argument for working collectively even stronger, ro rid ourselves of those incidents even more?

The same way folks call Holocaust deniers loonies, those same people don't tend to veiw the White-Bedsheet-Brigade fondly, either, and denounce them as well.

Again, not perfect, but it's progress...

So why not build off it, why be standoff-ish to such a point where even help is shunned?

Obi you actually believe the only racism/discrimination African Americans face is from hardcore racists/ kkk members. Please.

Also your complete ignorance of main points in my posts are approaching TC territory.

No, I was just referencing ONE loony group.

Must I list them all for it to "count?"

And how so?

nm, I see you addressed some points, but i dont have the energy to answer at this moment. I'll answer to my strength


"Adams/Jefferson did not see the English as the Other they saw themselves as paragons of Englishness but they believed they saw English society crumbling around them. Britain wasn't English enough for them. They did have "Others" Blacks, Native Americans, and Catholics to name a few, but English were not the other until a concerted effort after the Revolution made them so."

"OK, that's true (but after the Revolution or during? I'd think they'd set the people they were writing and depicting as oppressors and rebelling against and dying to rebel against as Other...or at least Other to their cause...)"

You are overusing "the Other" which is common even academic circles. "The Other" is not anyone you disagree with, it is a group put beyond the pale of society or humanity in order to legitimize ones own place in the world (rough definition). The British were not "The Other" they were an oppressor of their own people but never the other.

HOWEVER

Colonists increasingly tried to link the British with "The Other." For example, blaming Indian atrocities on British Incitement, Claiming the British were fomenting slave rebellions, and in the days before intervention, claiming the British advisors were in league with the Pope. The British themselves did the same, claiming the Americans were in league with France the classic British "Other" (one of the major pieces propaganda that swayed the American hero Benedict Arnold.) This is actually going to be the topic of my dissertation if I ever go back to school. I want to place the American Revolution in the context of American Fears about these "Others" taking over British society, mostly in the form of the Scots.

Every white person who was not raised among black people will have some level of prejudice against them, and visa versa. The communities are just too segregated for it to be otherwise.

shouldnt really say "claim" about inciting native Americans and slaves and American-French alliance, these of course all occurred, I mean use them as propaganda