Racial Prejudice Today

This past week in class, we watched “Jungle Fever,” which, among other themes, explores some negative aspects of interracial dating. We also had a guest in class, Mr. Miescanszki, who told of some of his life experiences, considering the fact that his mother is black and his father is white. These two experiences, in addition to two articles we read, combined to provide a very complete picture for me of what it meant to be a black person in America for the past one or two decades. Perhaps this demonstrates my naievté, but in my mind, the part of America in which I currently live is a relatively unprejudiced place, trained to not see color, and to accept people as simply people, and not as black or white. However, the anecdotes provided in this week’s class changed my opinion. At the very beginning of this course, we spoke of the difference between tolerance and acceptance. Though we were talking about homosexuality, I believe that this concept also applies to race. You can be tolerant of a race other than your own; for example, you can allow people who are not your race to participate in the same activities that you do. However, in order to fully accept them, you need to more than just allow them to participate in activities; you need to embrace their culture, respect their belief systems, and, in essence, not see their race as a distinguishing factor, but as a defining factor; it is not something that makes black people different, but is simply something that makes black people who they are. Mr. Reeves told a story this week of how he, another black teacher, and a group of black Thacher students were essentially prevented from sitting where they wanted to in a restaurant for no other discernable reason than the color of their skin. Racial discrimination is not something that I consider to be especially prevalent in our country at this point in time; the election of a black President (even if he is only half black) should support that claim. However, it is in small instances like the situation that my teacher experienced that demonstrate that even though we may claim to be a mostly unprejudiced nation, the roots of prejudice run deep, and perhaps may never be eradicated. In “Jungle Fever,” which was made in the late 80s/early 90s, we see the tremendous struggle that interracial couples undergo because of prejudice. We must remember that this movie was simply not made that long ago. Yes, interracial dating is becoming more common, but it is still not widespread and/or completely accepted everywhere. Though we certainly have come a very long way in racial tolerance, I believe that we could come a bit farther in racial acceptance, as evidenced by Mr. Reeves’ experience.

Separation Between Church and State: Existent?

Why fix something if it’s not broken? This is a fundamental question that clearly and definitively illustrates the involvement of religion in the doctrine of the United States – that is to say, the separation (or lack thereof) of church and state. To me, the most blatantly illustrative document that we read this past week was the Pledge of Allegiance. Prior to 1954 (it was initially written in 1892), the Pledge of Allegiance contained no hint of religion or the word “God.” Eisenhower then added the words “under God” and, in my opinion, created a standard of sorts that God would be included in many of the country’s policies. This is simply not okay. Why would we need to change the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States in order to make it involve God unless we felt like our nation should be tied to God, and, in turn, religion? We wouldn’t. Now when I say we, I clearly am not talking about the entire population. Sixteen percent of the population is unaffiliated with a religion, and a percentage of those people do not even believe in a God at all. Why should they have to involve God in their pledge of allegiance to their country? They shouldn’t. We are supposedly a secular nation. However, I would argue that we are not. The common way to end a political speech now is to say, “God bless America.” We don’t say “Allah bless America,” or even “Bless America;” we directly tie religion into politics through actions like these.

To me, the reason that this is such an issue is because of our claim that we are a secular nation. Though we may claim this, we undercut this claim with the actions I have previously stated. Faith in God is a deeply personal thing, and extremely different for each person, both believers and non-believers. To generalize it, to apply it to an entire nation, cheapens the importance of God to certain individuals, as well as makes the statement that our nation looks to the Christian model of God. If an individual who knew nothing of the United States (particularly its religious affiliations) were to read the Pledge of Allegiance or speeches from recent Presidents, or look at the dollar bill, there is little doubt in my mind that this individual would classify the United States as a clearly non-secular, clearly Christian nation. This begs the question: are we?

1“The Pledge of Allegiance.” Bellamy, Francis. Modified by Eisnehower, Dwight D.

Who's Got the Power?

The climate of our classroom for the past week has been…interesting, to say the least. Frustration, dissention, and negativity seem to have been at an all time high. Yet the issues we are discussing this week are no different than the issues we have been discussing for the other weeks of class. So why does everybody care all of a sudden? My opinion is that this is the first time in the class where many of the students have had the subject relate directly to their lives. They were each put into a group (white male, white female, black male, etc.), and were told what that symbolized – they were, in essence, stereotyped, and for many, the stereotype rang true. To make another generalization, what do teenagers dislike more than being told who they are and where they are going? The smallest incongruence with their “true selves” sparks an volley of retorts: “Yes, but I’m not…Not exactly…etc,” which is comical, because how many high schoolers actually have any clue as to who they are or where they are going? This week’s discussion was about who had the power in America. It was essentially declared that white males do. Statistically, it is not something that you can argue with. Therefore, my class looked to the more analytical elements of the argument, such as, “Why do we feel the need to classify people into groups like this?” and some even asked (generally outside of the classroom setting), “Who cares if white males are in power? It’s that way because there are more white males, and they historically have been in power.” It was interesting to me that it seemed to be the white males making the vast majority of these comments. Was it because there were more of them in the class? Or because they felt like they were defending our justifying their “kind”, which is an odd concept on its own.

Accordingly, we read “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” by Peggy McIntosh. Regarding white privilege, McIntosh states, “I had been conditioned into oblivion about its existence.”1 That is to say that McIntosh had been conditioned to ignore her “privilege.” Perhaps that is why the white males in my class were so frustrated. They had spent their entire lives being conditioned that there was no white privilege: that they struggled, others struggled, and skin color didn’t really play a role any more. Therefore, when this concept of white privilege was presented to them, it made them uncomfortable, and the only way that they knew how to fix it was to blame the system, and this classification system in the first place. However, sight is one of our most elementary senses. Without hearing a single word of what a person has to say, without knowing a thing about them, we immediately classify them based on what we can see: their race, their level of attractiveness and approachableness, their apparent demeanor, etc. Judging something by its appearance is a trait that evolutionarily helps us to survive; we run away from the threatening looking tiger. It is a characteristic that, no matter how much we want it to, may never disappear from human nature. In my opinion, white males are in power because they have been in power, and people are generally uncomfortable with change. So yes, that does give white males a bit of an advantage. However, can we really generalize this; can we categorize a group of people by nothing more than their skin color and gender? It makes us uncomfortable because we see it, recognize the logical flaw, and continue to do it anyways. We may speak of things such as white privilege, but we do little to correct it, because that only serves to draw more attention to it, which makes us even more uncomfortable. It’s a vicious cycle.

1 McIntosh, Peggy. "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." Essay.

Motivation

Why do we listen to anything?
Why do we listen to each other, music, or the stories of fictional characters created for no one but us?
Why do we do anything?
Why do we talk to each other, tell each other our problems, our deepest secrets?
Why do I give you my testimony, and why do you want to hear it?
Why do we write books for others to read, and songs for others to listen to and sing?
Do we do anything for ourselves?
Or do I do everything for you?
Nothing means anything, so everything means something.
The way you speak, the words you use – you justify your apathy in your own mind.
And then you tell us about it.

Don’t make me apathetic.
You’re pathetic.


In this piece of writing, I tried to explore the motivation, the “why,” behind why people do the things that they do. I believe if we understand the motivations behind people’s actions, whether it be in day-to-day life or in a music video, we can more fully understand the intent.

I also tried to explore our seemingly pervasive and widespread desensitization of language – why people now think that it’s acceptable to use words like “retarded” and “fag” in order to insult someone. However, I feel that this may have the opposite effect. We would not be able to have a class discussion about it if it did not, as people would simply not recognize the issue if there where not one. In the line where I said, “Nothing means everything, so everything means something,” I meant that humans for one reason or another search for deeper meaning and purpose in most aspects of their lives. Accordingly, when nothing carries meaning, when no word has the significance that it used to bear, humans then will analyze that, and the words that we use as insults will be scrutinized, and analyzed for this “new” meaning – this meaning which allows it to become an insult. When people say things such as, “but I’m not saying that they’re gay, it just is a word that I use as an insult,” they are justifying their manipulation of the language into something that it is not, and, in turn, desensitizing those around them. This in turn brings everyone’s language down to their level, and makes that which we say even less important. Even non-offensive words or expressions have lost their meaning. I love you is now a phrase that two girls can share with each other after knowing each other for ten minutes. That is just a blatant lie. Yes, this may seem trivial, but the manipulation of language seems to have had a deeply profound affect on our culture. Language is our primary mode of expression, and when we become desensitized to language, it seems that we also become desensitized to various actions. We tolerate it because “everyone does it”, or because it will make money. Isn’t there more to life than that? At the end of the day, when you are alone in your bed, are you actually happy? Did you say what you meant? If no one else were around, would you act the same way? In my opinion, most people will do what makes them feel good. In the past, this may have served to help people make decisions that benefit themselves; however, in our present society, there are so many factors that make people feel good, such as attention and money. Both of these things directly involve other people. Therefore, peoples’ actions become altered to satisfy the wants of others, because that in turn satisfies their primary desire.

Challenging God...Adam Did It...

The last stanza of Langston Hughes’ poem, Café: 3 a.m., says,

“Police lady or Lesbian
over there?
Where?”1

To me, this highlights many of the themes that surround the issue of homophobia. Fear is a driving motivational factor that influences the actions and attitudes of a large percentage of the population. That fear can take many forms: fear for personal safety, fear of others, fear of rejection, fear of neglect, fear of the unknown, and many more. I believe that Hughes is making a point that society would do well to take note of. Externally, you generally cannot tell if someone is homosexual. Homosexuality is not a disease or a disorder; there is no logical reason for a person to fear someone that is homosexual. In my mind, acts such as hate crimes stem from fear; the only plausible solution that can be seen by that those who cannot accept things different from themselves seems to be to eliminate the threat. History will tell us that humans are creatures of habit. That which is established generally continues to exist, and ideas can often be accepted simply because they have been accepted for an extended period of time. Just because something has been practiced for hundreds of years, does that make it correct? Make it righteous? I think not. Perhaps the most obvious example of something that has existed for centuries but might not be completely correct is the Bible’s decree about homosexuality.

The Bible denounces homosexuality, and calls it “a detestable sin.”2 In a country where religion, particularly Christianity, at times seems to play a prominent role in the government, how can we expect to overcome this seemingly stifling ultimatum? I say the religious look again to the Bible. As a non-religious person, I admit my naiveté about the teachings of the Bible or how they are to be followed. However, doesn’t Adam defy God and eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Yes, Adam and Eve are subsequently expelled from the Garden of Eden, and man is born into sin because of it, but I refuse to believe that this story of the origin of man is simply to serve as a template for what not to do, and something that establishes that man has to work his way out of sin. If the original Adam, the Adam that God created, was created “in his [God’s] own image,”3 this person should represent the ideal. Adam’s capability to defy God should then symbolize man’s own ability to defy God. Yes, the Bible does say that homosexuality is wrong, but since Adam has the ability to defy God, so too should man now have the ability to defy God. This is the type of person that God created, again, “in his own image.” Ultimately, based on my interpretation of the model of Adam, I believe that the Bible itself encourages man to challenge it, and to make decisions like Adam did, even if it requires falling from the grace of God. Just as God’s very explicit decree that if Adam ate from the tree he was “sure to die,” so too is the Bible’s decree to man that he is detestably sinning if he practices homosexuality. Let us look to God’s creation in his own image, and follow his example. We must do what we are compelled to do, even if it goes against God’s decree. Something tells me that even if I were religious, I would not listen to a text that so explicitly said to hate another group of people. I would instead question and challenge it, just as Adam questioned and challenged God.

1Hughes, Langston. Café: 3 a.m.
2Bible. Leviticus 18:22.
3Bible. Genesis 1:27.

Special Camp

I got down on my knees, unbuttoned his pants, and slid them to his ankles. There we were, alone in the bathroom at Knott’s Berry Farm. As I struggled to change his diaper, Sam let out a blood-curdling scream and ferociously bit the scarred part of his hand between his thumb and forefinger. I tried, to no avail, to pull his pants up, to calm him, to do something to abate the panic overwhelming both of us. At the time, Sam was a six-year-old boy with autism. I was a first year counselor with no idea how to handle the situation before me. This was the first of my now five years with Special Camp for Special Kids, a non-profit organization that pairs a counselor with a child with a disability.

When I think back on my years with Special Camp, what I remember most are my campers’ laughs: Sam’s slow approach to a smile, then his quick, rhythmic laughter; Brianka’s hysterical giggles that followed us everywhere we went; Alexa’s shrieks as she clapped her hands and smiled; Scott’s slight smirk and low, quick laugh. Though our times together were not all joyful, those moments are what stand out most in my memory. What began as an educational summer experience has become the most formative adventure of my life.

At Camp, I have been hit, spit at, bitten, cursed at, and kicked. I have had to talk even if I got not response, and act calm even if I wasn't. So why do I do it? The truth of the matter is that Special Camp has made as much of an impact on my life as it has on the campers’ lives. It has given me tremendous insight and perspective into many facets of life, with or without a disability.

“Get a real disability!” A man in a wheelchair screamed at us for using a disability pass to get my group on a roller coaster because he felt his broken leg was more of a disability than autism. “It’s not fair! What’s wrong with me?” Alexa wept as she watched other campers run into the ocean, confined to her wheelchair by cerebral palsy. “Give him some sedatives! He should be in an institution!” The exasperated woman at the bowling alley shrieked at me as one of our campers ran across the top of her lane. These are the moments that cause my face to redden and my stomach to tighten; I feel the hatred and stereotypes that these children deal with continuously. These moments are not like a difficult exam or opening night of a play: they are piercing and illuminating, showing you life through another’s eyes, thus forcing you to more clearly see life through your own.

Reflecting on my years with Special Camp, I recognize that I have changed and grown in ways that I never could have imagined. I have learned to accept and embrace those who are different from me, and to value the new ways of seeing the world that they offer. I have learned how to remain calm in even the most frustrating of circumstances. I have learned to relish even the smallest of successes. Hearing Sam, whose severe autism limited his vocabulary to three words, say my name unprompted was as rewarding as any other possible achievement. My experiences with the campers have taught me how to show as well as tell my feelings, and how to be sensitive and compassionate in any circumstance. Special Camp has truly revealed to me the lasting influence that one person can have on another – the influence I have had on my campers, and the influence my campers have had on me. I can think of no better example of this than my experience as Sam’s counselor. I initially struggled to connect with Sam, each day bringing in a new assortment of books and music for him. Eventually, I brought in an Enya CD, thinking that this music might reach him. He listened to it every day, and I gave him his own Enya CD as a gift at the conclusion of camp. When I saw him walk into camp the following year with his mother, I immediately noticed that he had headphones on. I walked quickly over to them, and as I hugged him, I could hear Enya emanating from his headphones. A huge smile came over my face as I realized that Sam was still listening to the CD that I had given him. It is moments like this that make me return to camp every year - the moments of human connection that make the moments of struggle fade away.