Still Stuck in '64

Townhall.com ^ | May 29, 2010 | Rich Tucker

[Kaslin]

If someone offered me twice the assessed value of my home -- in cash, no questions asked -- I’d schedule a moving van. It wouldn’t matter whether the potential buyer was black, red, brown or polka dotted. The only color I’d be interested in would be green.

However, if I’d lived in my home in 1952, the year after it was built, and an African-American potential buyer had offered me twice the assessed value, I would have been forced to turn the offer down. It was the Jim Crow era, and state and local laws made it illegal to sell homes on my street to blacks.

Again -- not only was this discrimination legal, it was mandated by law.

Here’s part of a Virginia law passed in 1912: “The preservation of the public morals, public health and public order, in the cities and towns of this commonwealth is endangered by the residence of white and colored people in close proximity to one another.” Thus localities were empowered to create “segregation districts.” It was, unbelievably, a misdemeanor “for any colored person, not then residing in a district so defined and designated as a white district, to move into and occupy as a residence any building or portion thereof in such white district.”

That, in a nutshell, is why the country needed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other federal intervention. Many states had enacted laws that prevented free enterprise. It was up to Washington to restore choice to millions of citizens.

That law is much in the news again these days, thanks to Rand Paul. On MSNBC, the Senate candidate seemed to suggest that parts of it over-reached. Dr. Paul has since clarified. “You would have voted yea. You would have voted yes in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,” Wolf Blitzer asked on CNN. “Yes,” Paul responded.

But that’s coming at this the wrong way. The question should be, “Given societal sea changes over the last 46 years, what parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act need to be reauthorized today?” Consider another question Blitzer asked Paul. “Did Woolworth -- Woolworth, the department store, have a right, at their lunch counters, to segregate blacks and whites?”

That misses the historical context. Owners were often mandated, by law, to segregate blacks and whites. “All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license,” read a Georgia law. For its part, Birmingham, Ala., passed a “separate accommodations” law as late as 1963.

The better question would be, “Would any business operating today make it a practice to segregate blacks and whites?” It’s possible. But highly unlikely. Businesses don’t make money by turning down customers.

Of course, there could still be discrimination. The owner of a Bed & Breakfast could decline to host homosexual couples, for example. In that case, federal law could theoretically force that owner to cater to gays.

But again, look at that example from the other direction: If you were gay, would you and your partner want to stay with an owner who self-identifies as opposing your lifestyle? You’d probably want to do the exact opposite -- organize a boycott of the anti-gay owner and deny him business.

There are those who look around, even in 2010, and see a deeply bigoted country. For example, moveon.org is collecting signatures on a petition to oppose “whites only” lunch counters. But is any politician or lobbying group pushing to resegregate lunch counters? It’s a petition to oppose a position that simply doesn’t exist.

Instead of seeing the progress we’ve made since the 1960s (that’s in living memory for many Americans) some insist minorities should live in fear that their rights are about to be stripped. But the burden of proof should be on the fear mongers.

Do they really believe Americans are so bigoted that we’re eager to go back to segregated facilities? Nobody could make this case, because there’s no evidence that American voters would stand for resegregation, and overwhelming evidence (based on the people we’ve elected in recent decades and the laws they’ve passed) that we wouldn’t.

Jim Crow laws were a profound injustice, based on the mistakenly decided Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision that enshrined “separate but equal” facilities. It required federal intervention to fix that injustice, since it had been triggered by the federal government.

But now that Jim Crow’s flown south, he’s never coming back. News flash for those in the news business: It isn’t 1964.

[Vigilanteman]

Much of the basis for the original segregation laws were based on societial perceptions that allowing black people and white people to marry, live or even dine or ride public transportation in close proximity would disrupt the social order and create trouble which would be more disruptive than requiring "separate but equal" segregation.

I'm not advocating such a position, of course, but simply stating a historical fact for how it came about. Some sixty-odd years before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in baseball, the sport was actually on its way to integration. Jackie was not, in fact, the first black professional baseball player. That honor belonged to Moses Fleetwood Walker who played an entire professional season in 1884 and opened the way for other black players to compete until pressure on the owners by Jim Crow laws then sweeping the nation led them to adopt an informal ban 3-4 years later, which would remain in force until Jackie Robinson was able to break it for good in 1947.

It is worth noting that the driving force behind Jim Crow laws were Democrat politicians who sold the public on the idea that the harmony acheived through legally mandated segregation was more in the public interest than civil rights outlined in the landmark 1964 legislation which we have all come to take for granted.

[rarestia]

My question is why the demand is there in the first place? I use my brother as an example. He’s three years my junior, perfectly healthy, but addicted to pain pills. That’s a lifestyle decision that he’s chosen and chooses not to even try to quit. You and I shouldn’t have to help him any way, but he’s on food stamps as if he’s in need. He refuses to get a job, because he’ll only get one that provides benefits.

I choose to be free, you likely choose the same, why is it that the black community seems to accept their lot and not try to better themselves? Why is it that so many lower middle class whites are getting addicted to pills and meth? Why can’t any of these people break themselves away and actually understand that hard work yields results?

I’ll tell you why: liberalism has given them the option of NOT doing anything and living comfortably. Meanwhile, I’ll never lower myself to that level and bust my hump to live my life. There’s no demand for welfare because it’s necessary, there’s a demand because it’s there.

[GOPJ]

There are those who look around, even in 2010, and see a deeply bigoted country. For example, moveon.org is collecting signatures on a petition to oppose “whites only” lunch counters. But is any politician or lobbying group pushing to resegregate lunch counters? It’s a petition to oppose a position that simply doesn’t exist.

1964 was a high water mark - Republicans had long fought for civil rights - and dems jumped on the bandwagon just soon enough to take credit for the movement. Remember, MLK was a Republican. Bull Conner was NOT.

[rarestia]

You missed my point about the Serengeti. I was using the comparison of inter-species harmony as a colloquy, not an analogy. The conversation here transposes perfectly since we’re all part of the same world, the same nation, state, city, neighborhood, but we ARE separated by unique differences in how we pray, where we eat, with whom we associate, and what we do on our weekends. The importance of the interactions lies in the ability for us to live harmoniously.

Unfortunately, the white communities have adopted a sort of NIMBY mentality with section 8 housing, for instance, and as a result the poorer black communities seem to think whites have a chip on their shoulder. Not so! I just don’t want loud music, parties, or gunfire in the middle of the night REGARDLESS of the race of the offenders.

I don’t appreciate being categorized. It’s easy to say you’re not racist, but to live that and practice it is to practice colorblindness, and I don’t believe that’s inherent in any of us. It’s a noticeable trait. Children see color, they make assumptions based on behaviors, they understand that there are differences among us. FORCING us to integrate is not the way to go. That’s my point.

[rarestia]

The conversations here are interesting to me, because I can probably guess as to the age of many posters based on responses. Those folks who lived during these times understand and realize that at one point in our history, being black meant having to watch your back. I was raised in a traditional Catholic Italian household, and it was unspoken that an interracial relationship was out of the question. When I broke that rule and dated a black woman in college, my family so desperately wanted to believe that we were just friends that they actually asked me why she was present as family outings as if she wasn’t allowed. Her patience with those situations was exemplary, but it was my family’s unbending old world mentality that led to the demise of our relationship.

Now that many of those elders have passed on, it’s generally understood that race isn’t a big deal, and I have cousins who’ve married black men and women. It’s really no big deal, and they have beautiful children to boot! Having grown up in that mentality, however, I’ve studied black history and the history of race relations in this country in order to understand why they were that way. I still don’t get it, and I desperately wish I could understand it. Racial segregation, to me, is ridiculous for all of the reasons I’ve explained. I’m simply trying to understand the issues at hand.

Joel Chandler Harris once said, “Watch out when you’re getting all you want. Fattening hogs ain’t in luck.” It serves me to continue to try to understand this lest I fall into the mindsets espoused by my late elders.

[rarestia]

There is a lot of pressure in the black community to conform.

So doesn't that speak to the actual problem as opposed to the perception of racism from the white community? As I see it, blacks hate each other more than they do whites. It's almost as if they're projecting their own racism onto whites to have a straw man. That's what really pisses me off. I didn't do anything wrong to a black man or woman. Why am I a racist simply for being white?

[research99]

"So doesn't that speak to the actual problem as opposed to the perception of racism from the white community?

Or is the "actual problem" how "Civil Rights" are administered?

From my perspective, why is anyone who works, obligated to provide free housing, health care, etc., to support those other (able-bodied, 18-65 y.o.) adults who choose to not work?

[AndrewB]

"Come off it, Drew. I wasn’t using a barbecue as some sort of derisive event. I’ve been to his place for movie nights, for cards, and when I used to drink, for cocktails. I could’ve used any of those social events as an example but chose barbecue. Why did you find it necessary to draw attention my choice of social outing?"

Because you used the old "some of my best friends are black" chestnut....weak...it destroys credibility. Nothing to do with the nature of the outing.

[Cyber Liberty]

Those folks can’t afford to live where I live, and likewise, no one from my area would want to move there.

Shhhh. Obama will hear you, and plunk down a bunch of Section 8 properties in your neighborhood.

[rarestia]

I understand it’s an old canard, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true nor does it mean that it doesn’t hold any weight. By virtue of my association with the black community, I am disinvolved from the politics of racism. Any old white cracker with a chip on his shoulder would have nothing to do with a man of color, but I readily embrace any black man or woman willing to converse intellectually and openly about all ideas.

[Agamemnon]

I wasn’t speaking as an expert. Those were the first words that came to mind.

Poster readily admits that they post inexpertly and without giving much cogent thought to what they write before they hit the "enter" button. As the hole they dig continues to get deeper, their subsequent postings confirm this finding.

I wasn’t trying to be scientific, just using them as a placeholder.

... they said with "Clinton-esque" backpedaling, handstands, denial, protestations, and glib obfuscation. Yes, you were actually trying to sound informed scientifically, and you failed miserably and quite pretentiously at that.

Looks like I need to deconstruct what you said -- and all its implications -- piece by piece.

Humans are animals like the rest of the orders, phyla, and geni on this planet.

Wrong, particularly as you make this foolish statement in the context of a mischaractized sense of what you chose to extrapolate to the term, "race."

To be colorblind to race is to ignore fundamental differences in each other.

What a shame it is that you can't seem to get past your neighbor's skin color without at the same time unwittingly putting him into some stereotypical box into which he obviously doesn't fit, based simplistically upon the color of his skin. It's all just MSM-Darwinian/Huxley-speak and its world-views put into action. Your first post essentially lumped "blacks" into a "community" in section 8 housing:

"The nearest black “community” consists of a few blocks of row houses and section 8 apartments about 15 miles south of me. Those folks can’t afford to live where I live, and likewise, no one from my area would want to move there. Why push the issue of integration between races when they’re going to subconsciously segregate anyway?

"Those folks," huh?

Seems that your neighbor, whose skin color happens to be "black," or possibly just measure-ably darker than yours, can readily afford to live wherever it is that you live. Funny how you left that salient fact out of your first post, even as you prefaced it with, "Forgive me if this sounds racist...."

So let me get it straight here: is your neighbor, whose skin color happens to be "black," living outside of his "community," because he has somehow failed to "subconsciously segregate anyway?"

Do you consider him to be outside of the "community" you think he actually belongs in, because the color of his skin somehow dictates this?

Is "section 8" his real "community," because his skin color happens to be "black"?

By your logic, Freepers and Tea Partiers, of all nominal skin tones, if left to ourselves -- as we are -- would all just naturally "self-segregate."

To be colorblind to race is to ignore fundamental differences in each other.

Black and white colonial Americans, a congregation representing roughly 50% of each variety while sharing worship together in a church in Lexington, MA were called to arms to repel the British at the Concord bridge in 1775. Seems they were color blind enough to ignore what you choose to allege are "fundamental differences." I guess not too fundamentally "different" to be able to live, to worship and to die together in the pursuit of freedom.

So much for your stupid "self-segregation" premise.

A few days ago this video appeared on a thread on FreeRepublic:

"Freedom is Color Blind"

Your Darwin/Huxley-think and MSM-spawned pseudo-scientific world-view manifests itself in your inability to appreciate what "color blindness" is all about. And the world-view which proceeds from that inability has nothing in common with true conservatism.

Watch the video.

Get yourself educated.

[metmom]

I have no problem with any of them, and I’ve even been to barbecues at their place. If every black family in this country could be like them, I’d be all for complete an total integration.

I'm not racist. Some of my best friends are (fill in the blank).

[metmom]

Hey, I don’t mind liberals wasting their time chasing stuff like this.

It keeps them out of trouble.

[dfwgator]

One thing I have noticed, is that it is usually the lighter-skinned blacks that are the most vocal, i.e, Jeremiah Wright.

It’s as if they have to compensate for something.

[rarestia]

In predominantly black parts of the world (i.e. Carribean, South Africa) lighter-skinned blacks are often "more free" than their darker counterparts. They're not compensating; in their communities they are seen more favorably than those who are darker complected.

In order to keep certain pretentious FReepers out of my face on this claim, an article by Adrienne Samuels in a Feb. 2008 Ebony article explains,

"'Dark-skinned men with greater credentials were significantly less preferred than a light-skinned man with lower credentials,' says Ph.D. candidate Matthew Harrison, whose test asked 250 of his peers to hire the best candidate using nearly identical resumes and a photo featuring the same person color-adjusted for light and dark skin tone. Most of the study participants were White. Adds Harrison: 'The economic gap between light-skinned and darker-skinned Blacks is similar to the gap between Whites and Blacks.'"

Blacks fight amongst themselves more often than with whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc. I believe this goes to my point that NO ONE is colorblind.

Works Cited

Samuels, Adrienne P. "Do light-skinned Black people have an advantage? Yes. They are likely to get hired first and may earn more money." Ebony. Feb. 2008. Web. <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_4_63/ai_n24246405/>.

[delapaz]

Nice summation, Agamemnon.

[Tax-chick]

Good point!

Have you ever been to a “lunch counter”? When I was college, there was a drugstore near the campus that had one. I used to walk there after class and get a milkshake and French fries.

[DugwayDuke]

“I know I’m stating the obvious, but that’s completely counterintuitive. Upper-middle class folks have no tolerance for 18” woofers booming in their neighborhoods at 2 in the morning.”

Well, see, that’s what supposed to happen. After living in the neighborhood for awhile, the section eights would see that the way the neigborhood lives is the path to prosperity, would give up the 3 AM parties, get jobs, and become middle class. More likely, they would see their neighbors leaving for work as an indication the ‘coast was clear’ to appropriate their neighbors property.

“We would then be called racist, Jim Crow loving, KKK members for trying to defend out properties and our families.”

Actually, that happened during the Clinton administration. There were at least two instances where HUD tried to establish Section 8 housing in a couple of neighborhoods. In one case, the feds took over an old motel as a residence for those with long-term substance abuse problems. The neighborhood formed a committee to apeal the plan. The feds sued as a violation of civil rights. Of course, the feds finally won when they exhausted the financial resources of the neighborhood. Out of funds, the neighborhood agreed to drop all resistance. The feds accepted with the proviso that the neighborhood hold a party ‘welcoming the substance abusers’. The feds got to agree to the speakers at the party, the agenda, the menu, etc.

The feds actually argued that the civil rights law trumpted the Constitutional right to petition the government.

[rarestia]

I believe Agamemnon of mythology was a prideful and ill-tempered man. In one Wikipedia article it's stated, "Agamemnon clearly has a stubborn streak that one can argue makes him extremely arrogant".

You sir are no FRiend of mine. Never in my 8 years as a FReeper has anyone been so arrogant and loathsome as to twist my words into pretzels and serve them up to others for his own self-aggrandizement. I truly hope that when you were done typing out your screed that you felt self-assured and wholly satisfied that you've debased someone whose first and only question was, "Has integration made society any better?"

This question was elicited based on the fourth paragraph of the article to which this thread speaks wherein the law forbidding blacks from buying homes in the author's neighborhood was quoted. For your edification, I'm including everything here to ensure that you don't twist my words:

Here’s part of a Virginia law passed in 1912: “The preservation of the public morals, public health and public order, in the cities and towns of this commonwealth is endangered by the residence of white and colored people in close proximity to one another.” Thus localities were empowered to create “segregation districts.” It was, unbelievably, a misdemeanor “for any colored person, not then residing in a district so defined and designated as a white district, to move into and occupy as a residence any building or portion thereof in such white district.”

I laid down my case by stating, "Forgive me if this sounds racist," for exactly your type of personality. Do you want me to come out and say that I'm racist? I think by the nature of my posts, one could clearly argue that I am, but let's take a quick look at the definition of racist. According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, racist is defined:

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Being that FreeRepublic is like a home to me, a place where I come daily to discuss the issues of the day, I am oftentimes very free with my word usage. I am a graduate student in English, but I don't feel it necessary to make that point or to act haughty in speech to make my points. As such, my free and loose way of thinking and posting has oftentimes forced me to go back to observe what I've said and either reinforce the ideas or admit I misspoke.

Pride cometh before the fall, Agamemnon, and as I pointed out, your prideful and stubborn nature have revealed chinks in your armor. In your very first response to me you proceeded to deconstruct, debase, and ridicule my choice of words in using order, phylum, and genus to get a point across. Since you obviously understood biological science better than me, I ceded the point to you and admitted that I was simply using them for rhetorical flourish. That's all. But that wasn't good enough for you, was it?

As a matter of fact, you even has to go so far as to put on an aire of arrogance like a courtroom attorney on a sappy daytime soap and call me out, not as who I am nor to my direct address, but to numerous posters to whom I've been having conversations and by referring to me as "Poster." Ok, Agamemnon. You win. Is that what you wanted? I'm quite incensed that you wrote that I "post inexpertly and without giving much cogent thought to what [I] write before [I] hit the 'enter' button." Why does that bother me? Because it's completely untrue. I invite you to review my post history. While I may not share the same interests as you, I most certainly do not "post inexpertly," and I am very cognizant of my word use, diction, style, and voice when I write seeing as that is my field of expertise.

If there's anyone who's pretentious, it's you, Agamemnon. The nature of your online handle alone indicates that you see yourself as some great mythical commander who returned to Troy and was murdered. As such, my bow to you of admission of a lack of knowledge of biological science orders was not enough. You had to go one step further and drive the bamboo further into the beds of my fingernails to make some self-serving point that I'm apparently ignorant, imbecilic, uninformed, and overall racist. Enough about you though. I'm sure your ego is inflated to Hindenberg proportions now, so let me address your specifics about my posts.

I'm going to put aside my commentary on my use of biological orders since I already admitted to using them as simply rhetorical flourish. Since you are incapable of seeing points and seem fit to get into my choice of words, I'm going to reiterate a few points in order to get my response across to you.

Let me start by saying that I am 30 years old. I am white. I am a man. Following me so far? I wasn't alive during the civil rights era. I've always been fascinated by that period in our history, because blacks were subjugated for no reason other than their skin color. I've studied works by authors such as Joel Chandler Harris (a white man), Phyllis Wheatley (a black woman), and Frederick Douglass (a black man) to understand the history of black culture. Black culture is full of despair, but it is also filled with hope and stories of triumph over adversity. Frederick Douglass was taught to read by one of his owners, something strictly verboten (it means forbidden in German, in case you wanted to parse my words) at that time, and he grew to be an immensely influential author and intellectual in his time.

When I look at mid-century America, I see a period coming off of the high of victories in the European and Pacific battle theaters in WWII. We're fed the ideas and standards of white culture from that era in movies and books, but we don't see the goings on in black communities. This was by design. As previously pointed out, the Virginia Law of 1912 expressly forbade blacks from moving into areas that were designated as "white." Why is that? What was it in the minds of the men in those days that made them so fear blacks?

If you examine my other posts, not just those that feed your ego, you'll see that I've asked more questions and that I've even admitted that my family elders and even my parents, aunts, and uncles saw race as an "issue" to be avoided in discussion and in practice. When I introduced a black woman I was dating to them, the tension was palpable. In a way, (Warning: potential admission of racism) I was using Michelle as a stick with which to prod my elders into discussing this taboo matter. I was a rebellious young man who wanted answers from family on numerous things (i.e. I didn't know my father until I was almost 25), and I tended to abruptly throw the conversation into my realm instead of simply asking questions. I never got the answers. My family members deigned no reply. That silence, to me, is deafening (hint: that's another rhetorical flourish, Agamemnon, I use them a lot being a writer).

So here I am on FreeRepublic asking questions of my elders again. I try not to be provacative, but on occasion I will run into egotistical rhetoric ferrets such as you who find no greater pleasure than deconstructing and debasing a poster's arguments until they run off of the playground crying. Well, sir, I've done plenty of that in my day, but I have no intent on allowing you to verbally destroy me for your own amusement.

Where in the country do you live, sir? In my part of the world (west-central Florida), blacks DO live in parts of town that most white folks, myself included, avoid between the hours of 8 PM and 6 AM. They are the parts of town shown on the news in the mornings. They are the parts of town where one could go to "score" either drugs or sex. They are the parts of town from which the stereotypical media gets the idea that blacks are thugs and sluts. When a black family moves into my community, it is (Warning: another potential admission of racism) a novelty. I don't condescend to that family. I don't run to the neighbors and spread rumors. I walk up to them while they're unloading the UHaul and welcome them to the neighborhood. I offer my services as an IT specialist or as a tutor of English for their children. I do this, because I believe in the Golden Rule.

So let me ask you, Agamemnon, your highness and almighty, what would you do in that situation? Would you sit on your porch in a lawn chair with a cheap beer and grumble about how the "neighborhood is going to shit?" Would you go to the neighbors and spread vitriol about the families without giving them quarter? It seems you're fine picking apart my perceived racism; how about you? I will say this, (Warning: yet another potential admission of racism) when a black family comes into the neighborhood in which I live, goes to the church where I worship, shops at the grocer where I purchase my wares, or patronizes restaurants in my neck of the woods, I think to myself, "It's good to see that black families don't all think that 'whitey' wants to do them harm."

However, when I commute to work through the "black" parts of town, I keep my windows rolled up, my doors locked, and my eyes forward. I do this because I've lived in this part of town. My home was burglarized when I lived here. My car was stolen back in 2004 and found in this part of town. My best friend was drugged at a club, kidnapped, raped, and left in a thicket of grass in this part of town. I was bussed into this part of town for high school in the name of "racial balancing," and I lost out of several days of school when the members of this "community" rioted and my mother kept me home. I've been here. I've seen what goes on. You never see a balding white man in a suit in this part of town. You don't see Hispanic men mowing yards in this part of town. You only see black men and women in this part of town, and, by association, the crime that goes with it.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "In 1997, 9% of the black population in the U.S. was under some form of correctional supervision compared to 2% of the white population and over 1% of other races." By now, I'm sure that number is up to 10% or higher. So let me ask you, Oh Great Agamemnon, by that statistic alone, is it safe to assume that in a group of 10 black men on the street, at least one of them might commit a crime and potentially against you? That is a statistic, sir, and while they can be trumped up, this is numerical fact, not conjecture. Having been the victim of violent crime (armed robbery) and the victim of property crime where the offender was black, I believe I have a warranted position from which to argue that colorblindness is IMPOSSIBLE.

Now let me address your debasing of my colorblindness argument. History is full of examples of great black men and great black leaders. Douglass, MLK, Sowell all represent the greatness of the black community. People in the media and racially biased white folks only see that these men were black and don't care much to study their words. When you bring up the Concord bridge story, you're not saying anything that I don't already agree with. You are, however, bastardizing what I meant by "fundamental differences." So, for the purpose of your ego, allow me to expand on what I mean.

First, skin color. A black man has more melanin, thus he's darker complected. Fundamental difference. Second, features. Black men and women have dark curly hair, often have issues with dryness to their skin (ashiness), have dark eyes. Fundamental differences. Third, social distinctions. Many black families are heavily extended. They often live in tight knit social groups together with elders (grandparents), aunts and uncles, cousins, and friends. These bonds of social cohesion extend into the churches and communities. There are myriad black communities in this nation with successful, well off members, but what happens when a black man or woman "hits it big?" They move to the suburbs. Tiger Woods? Beyoncé? Ice T? Redman? Method Man? Whitney Houston? Where do all of these well-to-do blacks live? Oh, that's right, they live in gated communities surrounded, statistically, by white families. Again... fundamental difference in social cohesion.

I was raised by a single mother to excel in life, to pursue my passions and hold on to my dreams. She worked three jobs to keep a roof over our heads and food on our plates to ensure that we didn't become reprobates. My mother was an anomaly in a time when single-motherhood was considered a social and educational death knell for the children. We didn't have the large social community that many blacks do, and we succeeded. Why does the black community seemingly cast aside success as a scarlet letter? Why is graduating from high school and going to college seen as some omen of "becoming white?" Why aren't the black communities in our country standing up to the MTV and the negative stereotypes portrayed in the media?

Being colorblind means seeing past color, Agamemnon. It means that we turn off the blackness or brownness or yellowness or whiteness and we see only people. That was the dream of MLK. He wanted us to judge people on the content of their character. He wanted us to shake our neighbor's hand, welcome them to the community, and get to know them. When I walked up to my neighbor and shook his hand, I didn't see a black man. I saw a family moving into the neighborhood. I saw a guy to play cards with, barbecue with, go fishing with, drink with. I saw a family who seized the American dream and followed what they thought would provide the best atmosphere for success for themselves and their kids. What about the folks in section 8 housing? (As an aside, I use the word folks all the time. It's quite asinine and very telling of you to bold that as if I was being condescending.) What's stopping them from aspiring to be better? We've given blacks everything. They have affirmative action, scholarships (do you know how hard is it to find a scholarship as a white man?), community outreach programs, government services, and yet they're still relegated to the outskirts of town. Do you think they chose that lifestyle?

And there's the rub: they DID choose that lifestyle. The statistics don't lie, Agamemnon. Blacks are more likely to die due to violent crime. They're more likely to use and traffic illegal drugs. They're more likely to be part of a gang. They're more likely to had children out of wedlock. They're more likely to be on government welfare. They're less likely to graduate from high school. They're less likely to even go to college. They're less likely to make it to retirement age. All of this because they chose a lifestyle. They choose to live like the media and popular culture portray them, like it some sort of duty to adhere to social memes. And then there are men like Douglass, MLK, Sowell, and my neighbor who decided to cast off the shackles of slavery, cast off the stereotypes, cast off the negative social connotations in lieu of a quiet, safe, secure, and successful life living among other people who wish the same for themselves and their families. It just so happens that those families are white and would openly and warmly welcome any black family who wishes the same for themselves.

This is drawing long in the tooth, and my fiancé is pleading that I discontinue this discourse; however, I will say this, Agamemnon: I am no racist. I don't see myself above ANYONE (again, see the definition of 'racism'). I've lived at the bottom of the barrel and learned how to be humble. I've understood what it means to "come from nothing." I can sit here and honestly say that it is possible to come from nothing and succeed in life, and if that's a lesson I could teach to every black boy and girl in this country, I would gladly preach it from every pulpit. The problem, as I see it, is that the "leadership" in these black communities profit more from subjugating their own people than from freeing them and allowing them to live successful lives. I am blind to color for impressions-sake, Agamemnon, but I am not a fool and will not be taken advantage of. If I'm in a bad part of town and a black man approaches me, I'm going to make the logical assumption that he's up to no good. Experience and statistics have taught me that he could be one in ten who has been or will be going to jail at some point. I refuse to be a victim. That doesn't make me a racist, sir, that makes me aware.

Warmest, sincerest, and most humble regards,

Ron

Works Cited

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agamemnon

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmlit1.html

http://www.radford.edu/~junnever/bw.htm

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cpracept.cfm

[dfwgator]

Reminds me of an SNL skit with Julian Bond:

Garrett Morris: Good evening, and welcome to “Black Perspective”. I’m your host, Garrett Morris. Tonight our guest is Mr. Julian Bond, and we’ll be talking about the myths surrounding black I.Q. Specifically, the myth that whites are inherently more intelligent than blacks.

Julian Bond: Good evening, Garrett.

Garrett Morris: Now, Julian, perhaps you could explain something to me. In all these studies comparing black I.Q. to white I.Q., what kind of test is used to measure I.Q.’s in the first place?

Julian Bond: Well, this is the major problem with these studies. The measurements of I.Q. which form the basis of comparison come from tests composed by whites for whites. The tests are culturally biased; it’s not surprising that whites would score better than blacks.

Garrett Morris: Could you give us an example of what you’re talking about?

Julian Bond: Certainly. Here are some questions that have appeared on recent I.Q. tests. Number one: “You have been invited over for cocktails by the officer of your trust fund. Cocktails begin at 4:30, but you must make an appearance at a 6:00 formal dinner at the Yacht Club. What do you do about dress?
A. Wear your blue-striped seersucker suit to cocktails and change into your tuxedo in the bathroom, apologizing to your host for the inconvenience.
B. Wear your tuxedo to cocktails, apologizing to your host for wearing a dinner jacket before 6:00 PM.
C. Walk to the subway at Columbus Circle and take the “A” Train uptown.”

Garrett Morris: Uh.. I guess I’d choose the last one.

Julian Bond: I’m sorry, that’s incorrect.

Garrett Morris: Damn.

Julian Bond: Here’s another: “When waxing your skis for a cross-country run, you should...”

Garrett Morris: [ interrupting ] Well, I think I understand the problem with the tests. But the fact is that people have been saying that white people are smarter than black for hundreds of years. We’ve only had I.Q. tests for 20 or 30 years. How did the idea of white intellectual superiority originate?

Julian Bond: That’s an interesting point. My theory is that it’s based on the fact that light-skinned blacks are smarter than dark-skinned blacks.

Garrett Morris: [ not sure he heard that right ] Say what?

Julian Bond: I said I think it might have grown out of the observation that light-skinned blacks are smarter than dark-skinned blacks.

Garrett Morris: I don’t get it.

Julian Bond: It’s got nothing to do with having white blood. It’s just that descendants of the lighter-skinned African tribes are more intelligent than the descendants of the darker-skinned tribes. Everybody knows that.

Garrett Morris: This is the first time I’ve heard of it.

Julian Bond: Seriously? It was proven a long time ago.

Garrett Morris: Well, I still don’t quite understand. We’re out of time right now, but perhaps you could come back on the show again and explain it further.

Julian Bond: There’s very little to explain - it’s just like I told you.

Garrett Morris: Well, we are out of time. Good night. [ to Julian ] If you could repeat it just once more...