Race/Ethnicity
Questions 571-580
Feel free to browse the following questions, some of which may
still await answers. You can then post an answer or counter an answer
that has already been posted. Please read the
guidelines for answering questions
before making a posting.
Previous 10 this topic
area 
Next
10 this topic area
THE
QUESTION:
R580: Why is it that if a black person says that they only
want to date black people, they are showing racial pride, but if a
white person says they only want to date white people, they are
racist?
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
Hayley, 28, white, straight, Chicago, IL
ANSWER 1:
For the same reason that if whites organize, they are
racists or supremacists, but La Raza or the Nation of Islam are not
racist. And for the same reasons that only whites are charged with
hate crimes, even though studies show whites commit only 50 percent
of racially motivated assaults. Also, for the same reasons that the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not take seriously
charges of reverse discrimination. I believe it's double
standards.
POSTED JAN. 27, 1999
Dave, Angry White Male, straight, 35, San Francisco , CA
FURTHER NOTICE:
I'm not sure I can agree with that response. When white
people date only people who share their interests and background,
both ethnic and class-based, they are being ethno-centered and
possibly snobbish, but not necessarily racist. When white people have
a preconceived notion that no black person can possibly be worthy of
marriage, that's racist. One reason I primarily date black men is
that I don't have to explain certain things to them about complexion,
history, oppression, hair ... it's a long list. Also, I don't have to
educate them about certain realities of racism that our children will
face, just by virtue of living in the United States. It's not that I
perceive black men as "superior." I just assume they have a better
understanding of how history has shaped me, and that's part of what I
want in a mate. Someday, a white man may come along whom I would
marry. I haven't ruled it out. But I think he would have a harder
time bridging the "understanding" gap that I consider important in a
mate.
Some black people have very race-related reasons for their views
against interracial marriage. Some still feel very violated by the
continued racism in society and see whites as "the enemy," either by
their actions, or simply by their position of privilege (this
position of privilege isn't always obvious to white people). Given
the history of our country and the prevalent attitudes toward black
people, which have only really started changing in the last 30 years,
I have difficulty calling this "racist," as in "one race is superior
to another."
POSTED FEB. 28, 1999
Lauren, 35, black female, Reading, MA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
To Dave: I argue that none of the "double standards" you
claim exist actually do. The Nation of Islam is seen as racist
by most people, including many non-whites like myself. As for their
support among blacks, I think it is mostly confined to the Northeast,
where the traditional black churches are far weaker. There are also
many blacks who support the Nation of Islam in spite of its racism,
simply because they can often get things done. Non-whites can and
have been charged and convicted of hate crimes, both of whites and
other non-whites. Including whites under the hate crimes laws was not
even controversial at the time it was passed. Only the inclusion of
gays was. Finally, the EEOC does prosecute cases of
discrimination against whites. In fact, during the Reagan-Bush years,
there were complaints that they almost entirely focused on "reverse
discrimination." I think you should admit your anger is misplaced,
ignorant, even hateful.
POSTED MARCH 9, 1999
A.C.C., Mexican and American Indian, San Antonio , TX
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
R579: Why are white people expected to "pay" for their
ancestors' stupidity?
POSTED JAN. 12, 1999
Wendy W., female
<elninnie@aol.com>,
Nassau, NY
ANSWER 1:
Because, even after all these years, you are benefitting
from your ancestors' stupidity.
POSTED JAN. 13, 1999
Gelong, black female, 37
<gelong@usa.net>,Chicago,
IL
FURTHER NOTICE:
It is unreasonable for anyone to have to "pay" for the
transgressions of ancestors (this is just the "sins of the father"
nonsense); authority and responsibility must go hand in hand. This is
not to say that property stolen by an ancestor should not be returned
to the estate of the victim, or that damages cannot be levied against
the estate of the perpetrator, but the onus is on the victim (or his
heirs) to convince an impartial judicial body that specific property
or specific damages are warranted on a case-by-case basis; the
concept of "blanket compensation" to any group of people based solely
on racial grounds is irrational and immoral. Granted, the more time
that passes between the alleged crime and subsequent reparations, the
harder it becomes to assess guilt, to the point of becoming virtually
impossible. The alternative perspective, however, that "some of your
great grandfathers owned some of our great grandfathers, therefore
you all owe us money" is patently wrong.
POSTED JAN. 19, 1999
Jeff E., white male, Redondo Beach, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Not only am I not benefiting from my ancestors' stupidity,
I am still seeing it redefine itself so it can hurt other Americans.
Racial discrimination is alive and well in America. However, it now
has enlarged its appitite to includeanyone who is not white, male,
Baptist, heterosexual, Anglo, Harvard-educated and native born. The
good part about this is these factors are now noticable because
Americans in general are speaking out against them. Think about it:
Racial discrimination rose to new heights in America when Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. started educating Americans about the stupidity of
bigotry. That's when change started to take place. You can't have
change without confrontation. If I were reaping the benefits of my
ancestors' stupidity, I wouldnt have a bachelor's degree and still be
stuck in a clerk's job and having my tires slashed because I didn't
respond to a man's sexual advanaces.
POSTED JAN. 19, 1999
Alma, white lesbian
<pridewks@seacove.net>,
Kempner , TX
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
To Gelong: I have asked this question of others, so I am
looking for other opinions and thoughts on the following (related to
what you have said): 1) What are the ways in which white people today
benefit from the stupidity of their ancestors (or the ancestors of
other white people)? 2) How can white people today cease to benefit
from that stupidity, or rather, how can white people go about
avoiding these benefits, many of which they do not want? and 3) When
will white people have finally "paid" this debt in full, and who gets
to decide when that time has come? (Please, anyone jump in here.)
POSTED JAN. 19, 1999
John K., 25
<the-macs@geocities.com>,
Cranford , NJ
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
I have a master's degree, yet work for whites still
working on their bachelor's; I have more than 15 years' experience in
my field, yet make less ($10,000 to $15,000) than the last two new
(and less experienced) white hires in my office; I have spoken with
Realtors over the phone regarding looking at listed properties, yet
when I arrive for my appointment suddenly nothing is available and
"they made a mistake"; and just last week, I was called a nigger by a
teenager working in his father's garage (a nationwide franchise, no
less), and when I complained was told by his father "Don't come back
- we don't care to wait on your kind, anyway."
Which of you can state that these are things you have do deal with
on a daily basis? When I and others who look like me no longer have
to deal with indignities such as these, the debt will be paid.
POSTED JAN. 20, 1999
Gelong, black female, 37
<gelong@usa.net>, Chicago,
IL
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
To Gelong: Try being an overweight white female and see
what happens to you. People think you are a slob, undisciplined and
generally not worthy of anything but ridicule. I bet when you walk by
a crowd, no one calls you "nigger," but people think nothing of
shouting insults and making animal noises when a heavy white female
walks by. You think you have it bad? Try it from my side of the fence
and see how you like it. Any other overweight white females
agree?
POSTED JAN. 27, 1999
H.D., 44, Big Beautiful Woman, white, Cleveland, OH
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
Only overweight white females are targets of ignorance? I
can imagine that makes many overweight black females breathe so much
easier. Also, size can be changed - my skin color cannot.
POSTED JAN. 28, 1999
Gelong, black female, 37
<gelong@usa.net>, Chicago,
IL
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
R578: Is it true that black families are not allowed to adopt
other ethnic groups (i.e. Caucasian, Japanese, etc.), but Caucasians
are allowed to adopt any race regardless?
POSTED JAN. 11, 1999
Shalonda L., female
<adnolahs@umh.hfs>,
Westland MI
ANSWER 1:
No, it's not exactly true. I think adoption guidelines
vary somewhat from state to state, but I think most states have a
policy that they would prefer to place children with families of the
same race, but that they will not delay or prevent the adoption of a
child because a family of the same race cannot be found. So if for
instance a black family and a white family both wanted to adopt a
black child, the black family would be preferred, but if there was no
black family available, the child could be adopted by a white family.
In theory the reverse would also be true if the child were white.
However, there are many more black children available for adoption
than there are black families able to adopt them, and many fewer
white children available than there are white families looking to
adopt, due to the economic injustice and institutional racism in our
society. (I don't know how it is for Asian and Latino children and
families.) So the end result is that you sometimes see white families
that have adopted black children, but not vice versa.
POSTED JAN. 18, 1999
S.W., Berkeley, CA
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
R577: A single black man from New York recently moved into a
house on our middle-class cul-de-sac. He may be from a foreign
country, though I'm not sure. We have driveways averaging about 75 to
100 feet long. He has taken to parking his car so that it faces
outward at the very end of the driveway, so that the front end almost
touches the road. Why would he park his car so far from his house,
instead of in or near the garage? And why is it bothering me?
POSTED JAN. 7, 1999
P., white, Florida
ANSWER 1:
I find that with immigrants, any difference in behavior
grates on me, even if it is insignificant, like the example you gave.
I think this is because people expect conformity from those around
them, and are disturbed when they see nonconformity, especially in
"suspicious" (ethnically different) individuals. I think this is why
the non-conformity you saw bothers you.
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
Mark S., 30, white male
<xsites@aol.com>, Houston ,
TX
FURTHER NOTICE:
Clearly, he parked there to avoid digging out (he used to
live in New York). In the Northeast, we all park at the ends of our
driveways to avoid having to shovel out after a snow storm. Hope this
helps.
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
Monica, female, Needham, MA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Why don't you ask him why he does this, rather than defer
the question to faceless masses? Would it be that difficult to ask a
civil question of someone of a race other than your own?
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
G. Long, 37, black female
<gelong@usa.net>, Chicago,
IL
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
I agree with the "digging out" response - living with
snowy winters makes us do funny things. Also, he may be trying to
park away from the house to avoid waking his family up when he starts
the car in the morning.
POSTED JAN. 18, 1999
M.W.F., Boston MA
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
My guess is that this person is tyring to prohibit other
cars from entering or parking in his driveway - who knows?
POSTED JAN. 18, 1999
Pas <fordson85@aol.com>,
Dearborn , MI
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
To G. Long: It is not that easy. Other black women I've
known have requested that whites "Don't ask us things like 'what we
put in our hair'." It's confusing, because different individuals have
different views about what bothers them. So some black people I've
met would have been offended or annoyed if I asked them why they
parked their car there. Most of us want to get along, but we just
don't always understand each other. I guess the best thing is for a
person to be open-minded and tolerant of differences, and at the same
time be tolerant of those who may be curious about her/her own
differences. These kinds of things wouldn't be a problem if we worked
together and trusted each other more.
POSTED JAN. 18, 1999
Matt, 24, white male
<mchurch97@hotmail.com>,
New York, NY
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
To Matt: Yes, it is that easy if you approach people with
intelligence and respect. Commenting on someone's physical appearance
is one thing; asking them something about an inanimate object they
own is completely different. While I would not tolerate an insulting
or ignorant question regarding what I put in my hair (what benefit do
you get out of knowing), I would readily respond to a question
regarding how I parked my car because 1) it is an inanimate object,
and 2) for all I know I could be blocking a sewer, and discussing
your question could point this out to me.
POSTED JAN. 20, 1999
G. Long, 37, black female
<gelong@usa.net>, Chicago ,
IL
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
R576: As the Caucasian mother of a wonderful little girl
adopted from China, I'm curious about how the Chinese community feels
about these foreign adoptions, as well as the issue of abandonment of
infants in China.
POSTED JAN. 7, 1999
Dianne, female
janl@sympatico.ca>,
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
ANSWER 1:
I am the youngest of four sons of Chinese immigrants. I've
always felt like an outside observer of both the Chinese and American
cultures. As far as I can tell, your little girl will be seen as
"privileged" because you will be seen as her network into mainstream
America. If there is any tongue-clucking, it will be out of jealousy.
At the prospect of being an outsider of two cultures, your little
girl will choose to do one of two things: Reject both cultures, or
embrace both. Choosing one culture alone may be an option, but I
don't see it. If she chooses to embrace both, learning Chinese as a
language will help her. Believe it or not, mainstream American
culture will be more accepting of her if she knows Chinese than if
she doesn't. (I can only assume the same is true across the border.)
As to the question of abandonment, well, in homogenous communities
(with little diversity), in general, some practices are more accepted
because they know people who have done it. Or some practices are seen
with suspicion, because they don't know anyone in their community who
is doing it. As far as I know, there is no Chinese word for
"privacy." Imagine the effect this has on respect for
individuality.
POSTED JAN. 8, 1999
Mike, 29, Chinese, male
<leungm@ix.netcom.com>,
Minneapolis, MN
FURTHER NOTICE:
I think most Chinese Americans or Asian Americans don't
really think about it On the other hand, I would say most native
Chinese or other Asians (i.e. Koreans) feel shame that so many young
babies are unable to find homes in their native countries. As someone
with many Asian adoptee friends, I think it's great that kids who
otherwise wouldn't have a home are able to placed with families in
the United States. I am offended by the first reply and his assertion
that Asian adoptees with white parents would somehow have a
"privileged" position in mainstream society. Perhaps he takes that
view as a result of growing up in Minnesota. Regardless, his comments
show that there's no such thing as the Asian or Chinese "community" -
like there's no such thing as the "white community."
POSTED JAN. 12, 1999
Ray, 24, Asian American
<yangban@erols.com>,
Washington , DC
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
As an adopted minority, I will tell that regardless of how
"privileged" other Chinese people may find your daughter, many will
view her as an outsider, for she will be completely unfamiliar with
the culture she was meant to grow up in . My parents run an adoption
agency that focuses on foreign adoptions, and it's really sad to see
children of color placed with white families. These children will
most likely become brainwashed by Anglo values and culture.
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
Miguel, 22, Chicano
<btool@edgewood.edu>,
Madison, WI
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
To Ray: Had I asserted that Asian adoptees with white
parents are privileged, I would understand your offense. I am
confused, however, because I didn't say that. I'm wondering if it was
my reply that you read. Perhaps you thought this because you thought
I had grown up in Minnesota. I am confused, again, how you could
think this, since I grew up in New Jersey, went to college in New
York City and did four years in the military stationed in Nebraska,
before moving to Minnesota. Is there something you want to say about
the constituency of Minnesota? By the way, even in Nebraska I get
asked if I speak Chinese when I walk into a Chinese restaurant. How
do you avoid the Chinese community in a major metropolis like
Washington, DC?
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
Mike, 29, Chinese male
<leungm@ix.netcom.com>,
Minneapolis, MN
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
As a second-generation Asian-American, I think that as
long as you are raising your adopted child in a loving and nurturing
environment, more power to you. If you haven't started yet, you may
wish to gather information about the Chinese culture so you'll be
able to educate your child if she starts to question/wonder about her
roots.
I am saddened by the abandonment of children in China. I believe
it is mainly caused by the cultural pressure of having a male child
as the first-born. Another factor would be the Chinese government
restricting families to having only one child. It is the combination
of these two factors that cause a very unfortunate situation for a
lot of Chinese children. I'm happy to find that you are opening your
heart to raising a child from a different culture. I see it as a
wonderful opportunity for both of you to learn from each other.
POSTED JAN. 28, 1999
Victor, Chinese-American, 34, male, San Francisco , CA
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
R575: Why do black people like to wear hockey jerseys? Hockey
is a sport with more white fans than black. In fact, when my uncle,
who is white, a hockey player and the son of a Canadian (where hockey
is the national sport) wears a hockey jersey, some black people
accuse him of wanting to be black. Why is that?
POSTED JAN. 6, 1999
Hayley, white, 28, straight, Chicago, IL
ANSWER 1:
Many African Americans wear them just as a fashion
statement. That's it. If you wear a cowboy hat, does that mean you
should immediately jump on a horse and ride off into the sunset?
Clothes are just clothes. I've seen short, heavy overweight guys
wearing basketball jerseys. Everyone knows that all basketball
players are tall and slender, right? Also, remember there have been
black professional hockey players as far back as the early 1900s. The
first black to break through to the NHL, Willie O'Ree, played for the
Boston Bruins and is still alive, teaching the sport to inner-city
kids. And there are more black hockey players than ever right now
(you've probably seen a few). And I myself used to watch Blackhawk
games on closed-circuit at a local movie theater (thanks to cheap
owner Bill Wirtz). I am very familiar with the sport and played it a
little with my friends when we were kids. So don't assume that blacks
know nothing about hockey and that it is a "white sport." And
remember, clothes are just clothes.
POSTED FEB. 3, 1999
Ken G., African American
<KennyG9@yahoo.com>,
Chicago , Il
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
R574: When speaking with friends about where I like to go in
Atlanta, I find them asking frequently, "But isn't that an unsafe
neighborhood?" or "Oh, that's not safe at night, is it?" They have
also made comments about various neighborhoods and places they avoid
because of "crime." I know these neighborhoods are not nearly as
dangerous as my friends think. The only thing that sets them apart
from "safe" neighborhoods is that they're predominantly black. I know
that if these same neighborhoods and places were predominantly white,
my friends would think they were fine. Why do people think like
this?
POSTED JAN. 5, 1999
Wendy, 24, white, bisexual
<wiebke@juno.com>,
Atlanta, GA
ANSWER 1:
People assume that black areas are bound to be bad
neighborhoods due to the way they tend to be portrayed in media
coverage. The media tend to focus on many "black" cases, and so this
creates a smokescreen for us to see, and we assume by this that all
black people are bad. Although it is a fact proven by many
sociologists that white people tend to commit as many and if not more
crimes, if you have noticed (at least in England), the cases that are
shown on the news are of average crimes commited by whites and one
bad crime commited by a black person. This all leadsus to believe
blacks are worse than the rest of us.
POSTED JAN. 13, 1999
Laura S., female, 17, sociology student, Kent, UK
FURTHER NOTICE:
Prejudice, stereotyping, media hype and hysteria.
POSTED JAN. 13, 1999
A.A.W., 42, black female
<ANABWI@aol.com>,
Plantation, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I can tell you from firsthand experience that your friends
are right more often than not. I have lived all over Atlanta,
including several neighborhoods that your friends might consider "not
safe." These include Midtown, Grant Park, Cabbagetown and East
Atlanta/Kirkwood. My house was broken into in Midtown, Grant Park and
Cabbagetown (three times in four months). I have dealt with
threatening encounters from strangers (mostly homeless people) in all
of these neighborhoods. My good friend was shot (he survived) at a
Christmas party in Grant Park. This was a random act of violence the
police attributed to "a gang initiation." Intown neighborhoods are
not safe, plain and simple. Crime can happen anywhere, but there are
some areas where it is more likely to occur. Unfortunately, Intown
neighborhoods tend to fit this profile.
POSTED JAN. 13, 1999
K.L., 32
<frankblack@geocities.com>,
Atlanta , GA
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
Are we really so afraid of the truth that we can't admit
that some neighborhoods are more dangerous than others? Some ethnic
neighborhoods are full of crime and criminals. Let's just admit that
the minority of troublemakers from any race cause bad press for the
rest of us. When thugs and gangstas are glorified and tolerated, we
all lose.
POSTED JAN. 27, 1999
Nick C., white male, 46
<nickc@surfsouth.com>,
Lagrange, GA
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
R573: Is there a sentiment among the majority of white people
that blacks should go back to Africa or other countries where blacks
are the dominant race?
POSTED JAN. 5, 1999
Marc S., 24, black male, Kingston, Jamaica
ANSWER 1:
I don't think most white people think black people should
go back to Africa. I think there is so much discrimination on both
sides of the race issue that a lot of people I have read about and
seen and talked with feel it would be better to separate the races. I
think we have made big strides on the race issue, but that we need to
continue the dialogue.
I also see black people calling "discrimination" at every little
thing. I think there is discrimination, but not at simple things. For
example, my mother owns an apartment building and rented to a black
couple. She had to call the woman every month to get her rent. Then
there were some flooding problems in the basements of the building,
and my mom would call her so we could get in there to fix it. The
woman gave my mom such a problem that my mom asked her to leave. The
woman said my mom was discriminating against her. My mom said, "No I
am not, but you are discriminating against me." I do not know if we
can ever get past all this discrimination talk.
POSTED JAN. 7, 1999
Kelly, female, OH
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
R572: To blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, gays, Jews and
other members of minority groups: Do you see a trend toward being
post-black, post-gay, post-whatever? By "post," I mean feeling less
emotional energy around your diversity group and having more focus on
your individuality.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
B. Hale, 43, straight white Protestant male
<halehart@aol.com>,
Hartford, CT
ANSWER 1:
I think being "post-whatever'' is unlikely to happen until
that particular minority is truly accepted by dominant, mainstream
society. And even after a group is accepted - if that Utopia comes to
pass - it's still proper to stay in touch with your roots.
POSTED JAN. 5, 1999
Andrew, 35, Jewish
<ziptron@start.com.au>,
Huntington, NY
FURTHER NOTICE:
I think you're using "post-black" in the same sense as in
"post-feminism." In my experience, these are really different things.
Being multi-ethnic is an intrinsic part of my individuality, and has
always been. Feminism is a rational choice that I made for myself. I
don't necessarily focus on myself as "the multi-ethnic woman, Janon";
I focus on myself as "Janon, a woman who is multi-ethnic." I think
(although obviously I can't speak for everyone in any of these
groups) that most of the "minorities" you mentioned would feel the
same way. If this is what you meant, then I don't feel that there's
any trend one way or the other - this is how I have always felt. Do
you think of yourself first as white, or do you think of yourself
first as B. Hale?
POSTED JAN. 5, 1999
Janon, 38, multi-ethnic
<janon_rogers@hp.com>,
Lebanon, OR
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I think the question you ask is brimming with
Americanness. (That's not intended as an insult, just an
observation). Many Americans, especially white ones, subscribe
heavily to the American ideology of individualism, and reject the
notion that individuals are affected powerfully by their cultural
identities of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual identity, etc.
Furthermore, many white Americans lack the awareness that categories
such as white, male, heterosexual, Christian, etc. are cultural
identities as well. White people are as affected by their race as are
people of color; men as are as affected by their gender as are women,
etc. It seems to me that people who lack an awareness of their own
cultural identities often do not understand the "emotional
investment" people have in their minority cultural identities. They
want people to act as "individuals" who are presumably as void of
cultural identity as they themselves imagine themselves to be.
POSTED JAN. 5, 1999
Rhiannon, 28, white Jewish heterosexual female
<rock0048@tc.umn.edu>,
Minneapolis , MN
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
I'd prefer to be "post-Asian" and focus on my
individuality, but it's tough to do when the rest of society
prejudges me on the basis of my race. Because I'm Asian American,
many white Americans I encounter seem to assume that my English is
poor, that I am foreign and exotic, etc. - regardless of who I truly
am or would like to be. These "little" annoyances (like having gas
station attendants speak extra slo-o-o-wlly to you because they think
you won't understand, being constantly stared at every time you leave
a major city, or being continually asked which country you are from,
when you are in fact from the United States) over a lifetime begin to
add up, bit by bit, until they become a major chip on the shoulder.
At this point, you realize that no matter how much of an individual
you are on the inside, you will never escape what you look like on
the outside. Yes, I'd like to be "post-Asian," because that for me
means being able to live like any normal white person in America: As
an individual.
POSTED JAN. 5, 1999
Ray, 24, Asian American
<yangban@erols.com>,
Washington, DC
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
On the contrary - I am experiencing a huge resurgence
of ethnic (Jewish) identity, because as individuals that's a huge
part of where our values come from. And I don't want to be a
whitebread American. I do not share the values of football, money and
world domination through marketing Coca Cola.
POSTED JAN. 7, 1999
E.M.
<magidson@ties.k12.mn.us>,
St. Paul, MN
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
I don't see a trend toward using the term "post-something"
other than as a linear time reference point (i.e. post-World War II
baby boom, post-Title IX sports, etc.). Since most diversity
references are more an innate attribute, rather than something to
"get past," I don't imagine that term would be an accurate one, even
for those wishing strongly to assimilate into the majority culture.
Particularly in the "post-gay" example, with all the controversy and
hype regarding the so-called "ex-gay" movement, the term "post-gay"
would be highly suspect and unpopular. Although I was married for 18
years, I do not think of myself as "post-heterosexual."
Most people likely see themselves first as individuals, and then
as mixtures of various diversity attributes. Which attribute carries
more emotional weight is likely to vary both by group, individual and
even daily within one person. For example, gay white people tend to
list sexual orientation first while black gay people tend to list
race first when using both terms to describe themselves. While I
often identify in my Y? Forum postings with the terms white,
lesbian, feminist, engineer, mother or biker, depending on
relevance to the question, my strongest individual identity and the
one that most strongly shapes my overall view of life is that of
woman. One day one attribute may carry more emotional weight
than another simply because of circumstances or the day's events. But
all the attributes combined are what help to make me uniquely me.
POSTED JAN. 12, 1999
DykeOnByke, 48, woman
<DykeOnByke@aol.com>,
Southfield , MI
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
R571: As a naive youngster, I wonder: How did the White Man
achieve his supremacy in society? Greed? Avarice? Brilliance? A
likely combination of these qualities?
POSTED DEC. 30, 1998
R. Wagner, 21, Mendoza, Argentina
ANSWER 1:
Science can easily show us that white people are
essentially no different from non-white people, so it must have
something to do with cultural influence. If you trace history, you
can see that just about every type of culture had its own empire.
That empire could only grow so large before it started to fall apart.
The only one to really outlive its own existence is the Roman Empire.
Why? It comes out of the union between the Roman Empire and
Christianity. After that union, the Christian movement became far
more organized and political. The mandate of the Church required that
any non-Christian peoples must be shown the truth of Christ. The
method used for centuries was conversion by conquest. Education,
which allowed for the advancement of weapons technology, was reserved
for believers. So the predominantly white Europeans would have the
benefit of more efficient weapons: Better swords and defenses, as
well as the missionary system. Part of the missionary system, as
evidenced in Ireland and Scotland, was to supplant the existing
culture with the Romanized Christian culture. The Church provided a
binding force that allowed the continually warring nations of Europe
to still act as though it were an empire. The only other unified
forces that could stand up to the white European power, the Chinese
and Ottoman empires, were either too far away or roughly equal in
power. These early methods of the Church provided an example that
later became the "manifest destiny" of the European nations that
spread colonialism throughout the world. This may be a more
complicated answer than you were expecting, but even this is a
simplification of the issue.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
John K., 25
<the-macs@geocities.com>,
Cranford, NJ
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
You like to ask sweeping questions! My guess: 1)
Technological accident: Whites' invention of guns and reliable modes
of water transportation placed us in an advantageous strategic
position. 2) Microorganisms: For reasons I think are understood (but
not by me), European germs were horrifyingly good at killing
non-Europeans, but not vice-versa. North and South America,
Polynesia, etc. were wiped out, not by European guns so much as the
horrible plagues of measles, smallpox and other diseases imported by
the conquerors, which in many lands killed upwards of 90 percent of
the local people. 3) Religious and cultural intolerance
(ethnocentrism): The Christian mindset led to a belief that all
Others were inferior (surprisingly this is not a universal belief),
and so they had to be subjugated (or "saved," if the conqueror wanted
to think kindly of himself). Similarly, European ways of knowledge
and thought were elevated to an artificial superiority, making all
other peoples "savages" to the European mind. Since Euros were "the
only important people," they could imagine that they were
"discovering," and thus laying claim to land that had been occupied
for millennia. Put all this together, and you have a world-traveling
culture that simply overruns the world, kills off the local people,
takes ownership of all they survey as if they had a right to it, and
cart all the wealth back to the Motherland, thereby vastly increasing
their wealth and power. It only takes a couple of centuries to create
an incredible mess this way!
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
Will H., Euro-American
<tccwill@flash.net>,
Dallas , TX
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
"White Man"' achieved "supremacy" because Europe was
historically the most overpopulated continent in the world. This led
to the colonization of other continents, and to frequent wars.
Europe's fertile soils and healthy climate led to population growth
(in most of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, most areas are afflicted
with diseases that prevent draft animals from surviving, so
agriculture was always handicapped). China is similar to Europe in
that it has fertile soils and healthy climate, but China always
lacked any type of significant enemies. Because of this, China lagged
behind Europe militarily. And Europe possessed good harbors and was
surrounded by sea, and cut off by hostile Muslim states on land, so
Europeans took to the sea in order to trade directly with the east
Indies, and to set up colonies. So in military, agricultural and
maritime technology, Western Europe was always ahead. Today, we see
non-European countries such as Japan having economic power. But
non-white nations are still handicapped by the same problems faced
for centuries: Poor soil, unhealthy climatesand the fact that these
countries missed out on earlier developement.
J. Carter, black male student, 18
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
As a white man, I wish I had half of the power and control
over the world that some minorities would like to believe I have.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
Kevin H. 41, white male
<kevin@javanet.com>,
Holyoke, MA
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
The current status of white race(s) being socially and
economically dominate is probably a combination of all of those
mentioned in the question, plus a technology advantage. There is
nothing inherently better (or worse) about the white race, however.
At one time, the Chinese were the most advantaged group in the world;
at another time, the Egyptians; and so forth. When viewed on a
long-term basis, it is all temporary.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
Lazarus, 45, white male
<lazarus99@usa.net>,
Atlanta, GA
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
Exactly which society are you talking about? If you are
referring to the society in America, it's due to the fact that the
majority of the population is Caucasian. Greed, avarice and
brilliance would only depend on each individual, regardless of
race.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
J. Williams, 43, NY , NY
FURTHER NOTICE 7:
There is no simple answer as to why white Europeans
eventually achieved world domination. Certainly, it is not because
white Europeans are genetically superior to other races, or because
they're inherently more intelligent. After all, at many points in
history, a neutral observer would have concluded that the Chinese,
the Persians, the Indians, the Arabs, perhaps even the Aztecs and
Mayans were more advanced culturally and technologically than the
Europeans. I think the best explanation is that by the 15th Century,
white Europeans had learned to turn gunpowder into an effective
weapon, and had become the best shipbuilders in the world. Thus,
nations like England, France and Spain had both the mightiest weapons
in the world and the ability to project their power, on ships,
all over the globe.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
Astorian, 37, Irish-American male
<Astorian@aol.com>,
Austin, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 8:
Try a mix of geography and luck. Whites come from Europe,
which constitutes the longest contingent, temperate land mass on
Earth. The historical result was an interplay between a connected
population that provided a synergy not possible in the other,
less-geographically blessed continents of the world. With this "head
start" on other peoples, whites conquered the rest of the world
through their better technology and with virulent diseases (smallpox,
measles, syphillis, etc.) that were also believed to be the results
of their geography. Skin color does not determine brillance, avarice
or anything else of note. For a more detailed answer, please refer to
the excellent book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
S.F., black male
<sfinley@wans.net>,
Naperville, IL
FURTHER NOTICE 9:
The answer is simple and has nothing to do with qualities
of race: We had the fast ships and the big guns first. White people
do not have a monopoly on greed or brilliance. The histories of
blacks, Asians and Native Americans are also full of war, oppression
and conquest. Historically, it has nearly always been the people with
the superior weapons technology who conquered, whether it was the
knights who first had stirrups on their horses, the Romans who had
bronze swords instead of stone weapons, or the Conquistadors who used
cannons against people with spears and arrows.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
Colette, white female
<inkwolf@earthlink.net>,
Seymour, WI
FURTHER NOTICE 10:
I wouldnt call it supremacy; there's nothing supreme about
treating those around you like dirt because their skin is not the
same color as yours. But I believe what your question strongly speaks
to is learned behavior. If humans aren't taught to treat others
differently, we generally won't do so. Look at kids on the
playground. Have you ever noticed that those who play together well
don't seem to notice if their playmates are black, Chinese, Indian,
etc.? It hasn't occurred to them that "different" means "bad." Then
they learn how to be cruel from either other kids or their parents.
On a good note, I believe what this also proves is that human beings
are basically good. We're not natural bigots. And what we learn, we
can unlearn. That is what gives me hope.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
Alma, white lesbian
<pridewks@seacove.net>,
Kempner, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 11:
Europeans traded technology back and forth with a wide
variety of cultures, and science took off. They developed advantages
in transportation, weaponry and tools. The printing press allowed
more rapid expansion of knowledge and manufactured goods. This
technology edge, combined with a desire for conquest and
colonialization of other races, a belief that European culture was
superior and that Europeans were inherently superior in the eyes of
God led to the White Man being in control of large expanses of the
globe.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
B. Hale, white
<halehart@aol.com>,
Hartford, CT
To
respond
BACK TO TOP