I don’t think the divide is racial so much as “civil” vs. “uncivil”.
That is, black people who work to succeed in life are often very civil, polite and personable.
Their major concern with whites is that they be *recognized* as civil, and distinguished from the uncivil. Civil black people are haunted by the inability of most whites to distinguish them in this way. Many white people seem unaware of their dress, manner, politeness, and erudite speech.
Granted, the uncivil of any color try to blur the distinction between themselves and the civil. Scoundrels, the criminal, the gross and stupid often pretend to be the way they think civil people behave. ‘To take on airs’.
But civil white people can easily align themselves with and identify with civil black people. Just with ordinary conversation, speaking and listening with respect, they build strong bridges with civil black people.
However, this in no way associates civil white people with uncivil black people. The uncivil deserve no recognition or politeness due to their color. And as I said, it is easy to tell civil and uncivil people apart.
It even works the other way. Tiger Woods is a gentleman, and demonstrates his good breeding, manners, and talents to everyone. He is erudite and polite.
Bill Clinton is not a gentleman. He is a person of low quality, bad breeding, crude manners, and the demeanor of a con artist. He was therefore desperate to become associated with Tiger Woods, something Woods had to firmly refuse, and several times.
The bottom line is that color is incidental in a relationship between civil people. The commonalities between people of character far outweigh the differences, which only needs a modicum of effort to prove. And in most circles, and effort that will both be appreciated and returned.
So, are we supposed to say something, or do something other than what we typically do which is, treat them like any other nice decent people that we know?
Great analysis.
Hmmm...