Best of the Week
of Aug. 16, 1998
Here are the most intriguing cross-cultural exchanges either begun or
advanced during the week of Aug. 16, 1998, as selected by Y?
These postings, as well as "Best of the Week" entries from previous
weeks, also can be found in their respective
archives, which we invite you to browse.
There, you will find questions that have received answers, as well as
questions still awaiting responses. We encourage you to answer any
questions relevant to your demographic background, as well as to ask
any provocative question you desire. Answers posted are not
necessarily meant to represent the views of an entire demographic
group, but can provide a window into the insights of an individual
from that group.
First-time users should first make a quick stop at our
guidelines pages for asking and
answering questions.
THE QUESTION:
R428: To U.S. immigrants,
especially Mexicans: What prompted you to leave your home country in
the first place? Can you describe your situation or the circumstances
of that country?
POSTED AUG. 12, 1998
Mike, white male, Oxnard, CA
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE64: I am aware that there has
long been hatred of Jews, but I have never understood why. What is it
about Jews that has caused this history of hatred?
POSTED JUNE 13, 1998
Ray K., RayK50plus@aol.com, Ramona, CA
ANSWER 1:
Some of the reasons are
irrational, some contradictory, some absurd and some dishonest, and a
few have some small basis in reality. Let's start with
ancient, pre-Christian times. The Jews alone, among all peoples in
the world, held that there is only one God. This was an affront to
all other nations. Though pagan nations had different names for their
gods, they all believed in pretty much the same gods, and respected
each other's gods. Jews, however, proclaimed the pagan gods did not
exist. This made them unpopular in the ancient world.
Things got worse for the Jews during
the Christian era - though Jesus was a Jew, and so were all the
earliest Christians, by 70 AD, most Christians were Gentiles, and
increasingly, they perceived Jews who did not embrace Christianity as
"stiff-necked" people who rejected Jesus. Over time, these Gentile
Christians began to blame the Jews, rather than the Romans, for the
crucifixion of Christ (this is often called "the blood libel" by
Jews).
In medieval Europe, Jews were often
denied the right to own land and were often forced by law to live in
"ghettos" isolated from Christians. This isolation spawned new
anti-Semitism in two ways: First, because Jews were not allowed to
own land, they often turned to other trades, including trades
Christians were not allowed to pursue - like money lending. The
notion that Jews are moneygrubbers arose during medieval times, when
most leading moneylenders were Jews. Second, Jews have always been
greatly concerned with hygiene. The Jewish ghettos were kept quite
clean, which meant Jews did not have the same problems with rats and
lice that Christians did. That meant Jews did not suffer from the
Black Plague. When Christians saw that Jews were not dying from the
Black Plague, they began to think Jews were in league with Satan.
POSTED JUNE 25, 1998
Astorian <Astorian@aol.com>, Austin, TX
FURTHER NOTICE:
Another reason may be that
the Jewish people have a strict code of behavior dictated by the
Torah. The Torah has served the Jews well for 5,000 years, and they
are not willing to bend to current thought. They are unchanging and
have existed successfully in almost every nation on earth by
following the precepts found in the Torah. I believe this makes many
people distrustful of Jewish people because they will not accept
other beliefs as their own.
POSTED AUG. 21, 1998
Roy M., 58 <roym@umd5.umd.edu>, Baltimore, MD
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
GE66: Why do many of the same
women who battle sexual harassment seem so willing to forgive
President Clinton for his actions and subsequent "misleading" of his
family? Would they feel the same if he were a Republican?
POSTED AUG. 20, 1998
Dan, 34, voted for Clinton twice, Charlottesville, VA
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
R353: Second- and
third-generation Americans from Asia, Mexico, Europe and other
regions generally speak American English very well. They have no
national accent and no differing word pronunciations. Why is it that
many African Americans seem unable to speak American English?
POSTED JUNE 23, 1998
Susan, 34, white female, 34, Salem, OR
ANSWER 1:
I am able to speak "American"
English just fine. I think there has been a major problem in all of
these questions and many of the answers concerning black English.
Many of the people who respond do not realize they are coming from a
certain background. What you need to realize first is that language
is the most important part of a culture. When people talk about
"Standard" or "American" English being "proper," they are making
dangerous cultural assumptions that all things from European origin
(including "Standard" English) are right and the pure form, and all
others are wrong. Black English has different origins. Black English
was actually used as a medium to unite all West African languages so
that people of different African communities could communicate with
each other during the periods of slavery. Over time, black English
was the only thing Africans could pass down to future generations to
let descendants know about Africa, as they were not allowed to know
anything of their African past. Whether other African Americans who
speak this form of English know it or not, they are keeping their
African past alive. Other third- and fourth- generation Americans may
have other means to pass down their culture without the use of
language. Since this is the only thing African Americans have, this
is probably the reason they still speak this form of English.
POSTED JULY 1, 1998
Kara, African American, Japan <micheka@rocketmail.com>
FURTHER NOTICE:
Are you sure African
Americans are "unable" to speak American English"? I am able to speak
American English, but around certain black friends/family members I
speak differently. If you are genuinely interested,do a little
research on black English - you'll find it interesting. But have you
ever wondered why Southern whites speak their own form of American
English? Ever wonder about Cajuns, Bostonians, New Yorkers?
POSTED JULY 18, 1998
Jon, 36, black <jgeeter@staffsolution.com>, San Francisco, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
There are many reasons, not
the least of which is to communicate with one another. In the black
community, there is a lot of pressure to "keep it real" or "stay
black." Being that proper English is most often associated with white
America, many blacks fear they would appear to be "selling out"or
"acting white" if they do not use black English. Notions that this
was a way to unify different enslaved African peoples make no more
sense than if we said standard English or Spanish or Chinese were
used for the same purpose. It really has its roots in the South, and
in ignorance of the way the language should be spoken. It is
perpetuated by those who speak it out of ignorance, fear, a misplaced
sense of pride, television shows and commercials that show black
people communicating in this manner, and educators who believe it
should be taught or encouraged.
POSTED AUG. 5, 1998
Steve H., 39, black, Foster City, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
To Kara: English, by
definition, is the language of England and its people. It is not any
more "dangerous" to assume that the European form of English is
correct than it is dangerous to assume that the Japanese people
should be the ones to decide how the Japanese language should be
properly pronounced. American English is only a dialect of real
English, and every region and most cultural groups have their own
sub-dialects. These don't become "proper English" just because other
people in the area or group understand them. In Wisconsin, you can
hear people talk like this: "Oh for cry-yi, meet me at da bubbler at
tree-turdy, if youse guys godda come wit. Buttcha kin betcha yrr bein
a royal pain in the dupa . Yah, hey! Howsabout dem Packers, hey? Rr
ya comin' ta da booyah?" All of us here understand it, and it
reflects our history and culture. It was a way for all those German,
Polish, Belgian, etc. settlers to understand each other, as they also
had no common language. But it definitely is not "proper
English."
POSTED AUG. 14, 1998
Colette, <inkwolf@earthlink.net>, Seymour, WI
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
Language is regional and is
learned. While second- and third-generation people may master
"standard" English, in most urban areas, they will also master the
colloquials. It's a matter of survival. If you visit a school in any
urban area, i.e. South Central Los Angeles, while the demographics
have changed from 70 percent black to 70 percent Latino, the slang
terms used by the students - black and Latino alike - are the same.
The intonations of the vowels are also the same. You may think you
are listening to a black student, and when you turn around you may
see a Latino kid. Also, the assimilation process for Latino people is
a lot more attainable than it is for African Americans. Latinos are
perceived as less threatening than African Americans. Do not be
mistaken. African Americans can speak "standard" English, but when
among each other, there are certain words and phrases used to add
feeling and emotion to the conversation.
POSTED AUG. 21, 1998
Lydia, multi-racial <ethnikblend@hotmail.com>, Los Angeles, CA
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
GE41: Why do women spend so much
time, energy and money on their appearances, but then become upset
when a man stares at them? And do women really become upset at this,
or are they just pretending?
POSTED JUNE 15, 1998
John, 27, Riverside, CA
ANSWER 1:
I like to dress up and look
nice because it makes me feel good. I'm not dressing up for men, I'm
dressing up for myself. I'm not asking to be stared at. Besides,
staring is just plain rude. There are more discreet ways of
appreciating someone's beauty.
POSTED JUNE 16, 1999
T.H., 23, female, East Lansing, MI
FURTHER NOTICE:
Staring is OK if it is brief
and is stopped when I see someone staring. It is an ego-booster but
not if in excess. Women dress nice and wear makeup to be noticed, and
a whistle or stare is ego-boosting. I just smile back to say thank
you for noticing me, I tried to look nice and you noticed me!
POSTED AUG. 5, 1998
Kathy, 40 <mcslo1@juno.com>, Lancaster, OH
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
There is a difference between
an appreciative look given to note your attractiveness and rude
staring. I don't mind it one bit when I get a second look when I am
dressed up, but I do not appreciate men who stare until I am
uncomfortable. Often they continue to stare, even after they note my
discomfort. I also do not appreciate comments that have been made to
me and about me while walking down a street. I do not dress
provocatively in any way, but I still receive undesirable attention
for simply looking beautiful.
POSTED AUG. 21, 1998
M.F., 21, female, Dallas, TX
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
C3: I have heard single friends
and acquaintances (basically white-collar, middle-class people) say
they would prefer not to date blue-collar, working-class people; that
numerous differences in values and goals are just too difficult to
overcome to try to make such a relationship successful. Moreover, an
invisible boundary line seems to separate union workers from salaried
employees, even if earning similar incomes. How common and valid is
this attitude? I would like to hear from others about their
experiences - good or bad - with dating or maintaining romantic
relationships with people from different socioeconomic
backgrounds.
POSTED MAY 6, 1998
DykeOnByke, engineer <DykeOnByke@aol.com>, Southfield, MI
ANSWER 1:
I was raised in a
white-collar, middle-class family, but despite their expectations and
my own, I was always more attracted to men who worked with their
hands. I am now happily married to a blue-collar man, and we each
value the very different strengths the other brings to our
partnership. My female friends who are married to white-collar men
almost universally envy me: My husband never stays late at the
office; he flawlessly repairs and maintains our house, yard and car;
and most important, he's never too busy or too distracted to spend
time with me. Having tried it both ways, I wouldn't trade him for all
the C.P.A.s in the world.
POSTED MAY 9, 1998
A. Morgan, Houston, TX
FURTHER NOTICE:
The stereotype is that
white-collar workers are greedy and self-serving and that blue-collar
workers are hard workers with no formal education. Neither is true; I
certainly consider going to school for five years as hard work as
some of the things blue-collar workers do.
POSTED MAY 9, 1998
Rob, white <innvertigo@aol.com>, Southfield, MI
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I don't see why your friends
need to put people into classes. We are all human; when two people
fall in love, the color of the collar will not matter.
POSTED MAY 11, 1998
Darryll <dbrock6119@aol.com>, Hagerstown, MD
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
To A. Morgan: I have tried it
both ways, having been a union factory worker for 14 years, then
quitting after graduating from college and now working in a corporate
headquarters. I think there is a definite line separating
white-collar and blue-collar workers and their attitudes, as the
original question asks. I find that my union acquaintances are
obsessed with money, to a degree that the white-collar world could
never approach. The unionists are never home, because they work seven
days a week, often 12 a hours a day. You can't make plans with them,
because the overtime schedule rules their life. White-collar workers
don't understand the overtime thing, but then again, unionists don't
grasp the cause-and-effect relationship between working longer hours
and getting raises and promotions. Union workers are given raises,
white-collar people earn them. Quite a different viewpoint on the
world. I'm not suggesting relationships between the two types are
doomed, but the differences can and do cause friction that has to be
dealt with.
POSTED MAY 14, 1998
B.B., 38, M.B.A., Temperance, MI
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
My first husband was from a
more financially "successful" family than mine. He wanted to go to
law school and even had a vacation home in the mountains. His father
was a judge. After three years, he said he was not ready for this
kind of commitment and walked out. I'm a college-educated lady with a
master's degree, from a family in which all three children have gone
to college, but of my parents, only my father has a degree, so I was
probably predisposed to marry a college man - a fraternity man even -
and appreciate the package he came with: Good white-collar job,
money, etc. However, he also came with an overwhelming credit card
debt, a habit of letting his parents pick up the tab and an inability
to recognize the good in me or himself.
After the divorce, I dated various
men - oddly, most had no college education - and finally married
(happily for three years) a man with no advanced education who is
smart and witty and who reads everything he can find. He is not in a
trade, but manages a warehouse, so the idea that he is even remotely
qualified to operate a power tool or fix a car is laughable, and he
will be the first to agree. He is kind, generous, loving, honest and
terribly funny - he is also not in debt or attached to his mother's
apron strings and is very comfortable with his lot. My parents love
him because he makes me happy and because he values me. His parents
thought I was an oddity because no one in their family had ever been
to college, but when they found out I can shell peas, I was
accepted.
Most people marry people from a
similar background or who have shared experiences such as college,
hobbies or church; or shared friends or professions. No matter where
you find initial attraction, lasting love is based more on the
individuals involved and their baggage and their ability to recognize
joy and goodness and to love than on white-collar vs. blue-collar
issues.
POSTED MAY 27, 1998
Sheila, 27, white, Tallahassee, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
There needs to be an
adjustment made to our "blue- and white-collar" mentality. Bottom
line: The more time in the office, at the construction site or at any
work place, the less time with the loved ones. What are the person's
priorities?
POSTED JUNE 8, 1998
Jim P., Diegoman@AOL.com, San Diego, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
I am a white collar worker
who is married to a truck driver. My family was blue collar, and most
of my friends are working-class people. What I notice the most is
that goals are not the same in the two groups. Middle class blue
collar folks seem to want to acquire things, TVs, stereos, boats,
cars etc., and have a "live for today" attitude. White collar people
also have a desire for things, but usually go for houses and
bigger-ticket items. They have longer-term goals and want to retire
earlier than blue collar folks. This basic difference in the style of
how they live their lives causes friction. Neither way of living your
life is bad; actually, a blend of both in moderation would be great,
but each type wants to think their way is the best. I think the
biggest difference is that many more blue collar type people live
their lives with fewer dreams than their white collar counterparts.
Privilege does bring a sense that you can accomplish anything, and
working at jobs where you use your hands instead of your mind (blue
collar) does limit the scope of your dreams. So a relationship with
different goals and levels of hope for the future is difficult.
POSTED AUG. 21, 1998
S. Finch, 37, white female <SFinch4u@aol.com>, Ft. Worth, TX
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
R412: I wonder: Are black
Americans jealous of gay Americans because they are making such
strides toward equal protection under the law?
POSTED AUG. 11, 1998
Alma J., African American <pridewks@centraltx.net>, Kempner, TX
ANSWER 1:
A number of black Americans
are offended by gay rights activists who equate the gay rights
movement with the civil rights movement. In the eyes of many blacks,
that isn't an apt comparison, because there is/was no closet for a
member of a visible racial minority to retreat to. The thinking is
that the that racial discrimination differs from homosexual
discrimination in that the latter is based on certain types of
behavior that many people believe to be immoral. And being that most
black people either believe in conservative Christianity or were at
least exposed to it in their youth, it is not surprising many might
not be quick so draw a parallel between the two movements.
POSTED AUG. 18, 1998
Jay B., 38, black male, <jayboyd@ameritech.net>, Detroit, MI
FURTHER NOTICE:
Although systematic,
institutional and pervasive racism still maintains white hegemony in
virtually all aspects of American life, it has been many years since
African Americans have been denied the range of civil rights still
denied gay, lesbian and bisexual people. So queer-folk are still
fighting for fundamental rights that (at least on paper) black people
- at least black heterosexuals - enjoy. My concern is that the myth
of "special rights" for gay people, in my opinion, is being steadily
promoted to the African-American community by political interest
groups that want to incite hostility between the two communities.
POSTED AUG. 18, 1998
Max H., semi-white gay male, Oakland, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I do not think black people
are jealous of advances the gay community is making. I do think the
majority of them resent the parallels drawn between the civil rights
movement and the gay rights movement. It is a fact that the majority
of black people are extremely homophobic - it stems from the fact
that this majority was either raised with a Christian or Islamic
background and thus were taught homosexuality was sinful and
disgusting. With that idea firmly entrenched into our psyches from
childhood, it's no wonder black people want no parallels drawn, even
though they exist. We forget that only 80 or so years ago, we were
considered just as immoral and disgusting by the dominant culture as
gays are now. In truth, the gay rights movement has a tremendous way
to go and really has not advanced past the civil rights movement,
though it is true it has benefited tremendously from the precedents
set. So have many other groups, but since they are not persecuted on
moral grounds, they are not resented as much.
POSTED AUG. 20, 1998
Andee B., 20, black female <abrowne@sophia.smith.edu>, Northampton, MA
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
D21: To deaf people: When
someone noiselessly sneaks up on me and does so little as to tap me
on the shoulder, it's alarming. I imagine that if I lost my hearing,
that sort of sudden fright would happen regularly. Or does it? Is it
alarming to be suddenly tapped on the shoulder if you're deaf?
POSTED AUG. 14, 1998
A.S., 34 <abalone@zerodefect.net>, Philadelphia, PA
ANSWER 1:
I became deaf when I was 21.
I tend to startle very easily when people catch me unaware,
especially if I am busy with something or concentrating. My wife, who
has been deaf from an early age, and my son, deaf from an early age,
do not seem to startle as often or as severely as me. But yes, it
probably happens more often than for hearing people. That is also one
reason deaf people try not to "sneak" up on each other. I teach and
ask students to flash the office light before coming in to avoid this
startle tendency. No, the flashing light does not usually startle,
because it is a customary warning.
POSTED AUG. 18, 1998
J.D. Weber, 49 <y8d2k8wl@coastalnet.com>, Wilson, NC
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE86: Every time I see a woman in
traditional Islamic dress, I wonder why female genital circumcision
is practiced in some cultures. What purpose could it serve? Do many
Muslim sects condone this practice? What do Muslims in America think
of it?
POSTED AUG. 6, 1998
Jonathan A. <jdames@intrex.net>, Raleigh, NC
ANSWER 1:
It seems to me that the ideas
that lie behind genital mutilation are not very different from
American ideas about circumcision. Certainly, the degree of
mutilation is far more severe and life threatening, but the ideas
behind some of it, at least in the Sudan, are concepts of purity,
what is desirable and pleasing to the husband and what is deemed
appropriate for marriage. Women who do not go through this ordeal in
many areas are generally not desired for marriage. This is often seen
as unacceptable. I think the main reason for the practice is to
enhance the man's pleasure. The removal of the clitoris, inner and
outer labia and stitching up of the vagina desensitize the woman and
make it tighter for the man. We have similar ideas behind our
practice of male circumcision (health), the stitching up of the
vagina (men's pleasure) and the removal of the clitoral hood (women's
pleasure). Pharonic circumcision (the removal of the two sides of the
vulva), though, is a much more dangerous practice, causing
life-threatening circumstances at times of menstruation, urination,
intercourse and pregnancy. As for people who come to the Units
States, many retain their cultural values and continue to practice
it. Like the issue of the veil, women are often the staunchest
supporters of the practice.
POSTED AUG. 18, 1998
Jaimie W., 23, female, anthropology major, Jacksonville, FL
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE1: What role, if any, do women
play in Tibetan Buddhism?
POSTED JAN. 25, 1998
Lana R., Jacksonville, FL
ANSWER 1:
Contrary to most Western
belief, women do play a role in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. There
are several highly respected female teachers believed to be the
embodiment of Tara, the female aspect of Compassion. In the Buddhist
faith, there is actually no discernment between the male and female
mind, since we are comprised of both aspects equally. Many other
women have become enlightened beings by being married to learned
teachers. In the Tibetan tradition, lamas may marry and become
householders if they choose; they then continue with their teachings,
especially to their immediate family. You will find that there are
several highly repected Western women who have been initiated into
traditional Tibetan practice and have become leading teachers in
their own right.
POSTED AUG. 18, 1998
G. Eldridge <Hauteman@AOL.com>, NJ
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
R420: I have worked in several
hospitals in areas with large Filipino populations. I have noted that
many of the women bring lots of food and love to share with all the
other Filipino staff on the floor, and will often included me. If
this food sharing a cultural thing?
POSTED AUG. 14, 1998
Darci, 31<darlink@hotmail.com>, San Diego, CA
ANSWER 1:
Food is absolutely one of the
most important parts of Filipino culture. My mom, who grew up in the
Philippines, explained to me that in the Philippines, it's almost
rude not to offer food to guests, even if just a piece of fruit. The
Philippines is a poor country, and the most that many hosts can offer
is food, as opposed to air-conditioning or more expensive items to
entertain with. Also, Filipinos are very family- and friends-oriented
- much, much more than Americans - so gatherings are a lot more
common among Filipino groups. We'll find any reason to celebrate and
enjoy good Filipino food!
POSTED AUG. 17, 1998
S. Guthrie, Filipino <sguthrie@gateway.net>, USA
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
GE64: If a girl or woman has a
lot of arm hair, is it considered very unattractive? How do people
generally feel about female arm hair when it is very visible?
POSTED AUG. 17, 1998
H. Smyth, 16, female <WhtStar2@aol.com>, Seattle, WA
ANSWER 1:
I've never quite understood
why women bothered to shave any body hair. Certainly the standards of
beauty perpetrated by the manufacturers of beauty products and
cosmetics encourage the idea that hair is unattractive, but I
couldn't be bothered to wear a wig just because I'm bald.
POSTED AUG. 18, 1998
Al, 58, male, <alarose@ncwc.edu>, Rocky Mount, NC
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
G25: After living in Japan for
two years, I've found that "gaijin," or foreigners, are treated
differently than Japanese people. We're looked at, talked to and
watched differently than Japanese people. I would like to know if
people of other races who live in North America feel this same
pressure or sense of "difference."
POSTED AUG. 10, 1998
Trevor C., 17, white male <trevorc@gol.com>, Kobe, Japan
ANSWER 1:
I am a Japanese national who
has lived in the United States, Italy and Thailand for more than 10
years. The feelings of "difference" vary from country to county and
where you are from, in my opinion. In the United States, the reaction
was quite natural, except for insufficient linguistical capabilities,
and I didn't feel I was treated in special ways. Americans are used
to people of different races as well as people from other counties.
Is was also true in the United Kingdom from my rather short
experience there. In Italy, the situation was a little different. All
Asians are considered "Chinese" and in some ways treated as "these
poor illegal immigrant people" regardless where they are really from.
They actually don't know much about other counties. Meanwhile, they
tend to treat other whites as equals. In Thailand, the Japanese (and
Westerners) are in some ways looked up to as "people from developed
countries." We are curiously looked at and talked about.
The Japanese treat "gaijins" in a
manner similar to the latter example. Western society and people
still symbolize the Japanese ideal in terms of culture and beauty.
They are curious. They are afraid of the unknown (most Japanese still
don't have direct contact with foreigners or think they are unable to
communicate well enough with them). I think that is why you feel
treated in a different way. However, this does not necessarily mean
the Japanese are innocent when it comes to racism. Japanese people
will treat immigrants from other counties differently than they treat
Americans - again, as "these poor illegal immigrant people."
POSTED AUG. 17, 1998
Masaki N. <ssde@ptty.loxinfo.co.th>, Bangkok, Thailand
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
R405: Why do black people have
high blood pressure problems more than white people? (Director's
note: Y? would prefer a person with medical qualifications answer
this question.)
POSTED AUG. 9, 1998
J. Lindsey <lindsey@vnet.net>, Lincolnton, NC
ANSWER 1:
Although I'm not a doctor, I
believe I'm more than qualified to expound on your question. As we
all know, black people were brought to this country, against their
will, in the bottom of slave ships. While on this journey, they were
given just enough food to sustain life for the incredibly long
journey. This food was the worst kind imaginible. Most people
wouldn't feed the food the slaves received to pigs. Their digestive
system regurgitated most of it, but some of them managed to hold down
just enough to survive. Upon thier arrival to America, this tradition
of being given food that wasn't suited for animals continued.
Although the menu increased a little, the food was very high in fat
and had a high salt content. After 300-plus years of that kind of
abuse to the body, black people are inundated with all kinds of heath
problems.With education and time, hopefully we can begin to reverse
the process.
POSTED AUG. 12, 1998
H.K. <yafeu@aol.com>, Fresno, CA
FURTHER NOTICE:
Answer 1 is inconsistent with
the mechanics of evolution. First, 300 years isn't nearly long enough
to produce such a widespread change. Second, people can not pass on
acquired characteristics, so slaves eating high fat/high salt diets
would not cause their descendents to have high blood pressure. In
fact, just the opposite would happen - slaves who were better able to
survive the bad diets and conditions would be more likely to
reproduce, and their descendents would be more likely to be immune to
high blood pressure from high fat/high salt diets. Finally, if this
theory were true, then African blacks would not have similar rates of
high blood pressure. As strange as it sounds, it is more likely that
the tendency to high blood pressure confers some unknown benefit that
helped African blacks survive and reproduce - like sickle-cell
anemia. While inheriting this terrible genetic disease from both
parents results in suffering and early death, people who inherit the
gene from only one parent are less likely to die if they become
infected with malaria. This resulted in such a strong evolutionary
advantage for people in malaria-infested parts of Africa that it
outweighed the disadvantages. The disease still persists in American
blacks 300 years later.
POSTED AUG. 14, 1998
Molly, 47, Costa Mesa, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Although I am not a doctor, I
do believe I can shed some light on this issue as I am an African
American who was born and raised in the South and have taken many
African-American history courses in college. I think the answer to
your question can be summed up in one word: Diet. To expound on
H.K.'s answer: The food given to slaves was the food that would have
been thrown away (pigs' feets, tails and intestines, for example).
The slaves were very creative in their desire to make the food more
palatable. Various spices brought to America during the slave trade,
as well as newly discovered spices, were combined in an attempt to
make this otherwise horrible food more edible. This was the beginning
of soul food. Most soul food consists of fried meats (chicken, fish,
pork chops and beef), highly seasoned vegetables and rich desserts.
Obviously this food is very high in fat and colesterol.
POSTED AUG. 14, 1998
Tony W., 36, African American <tonyway@yahoo.com>, San Francisco, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
In my opinion, there is
nothing medically sound about H.K.'s answer. If the moderator of this
forum is going to request a medical practitioner answer this
question, why was this answer posted? All I can see in that response
is another version of the blaming and finger-pointing that seems to
be pervasive in this forum. There may be a genetic reason for the
higher incidence in blood pressure, or that observation may be
incorrect. Why not let a doctor or nurse answer the question
correctly?
POSTED AUG. 14, 1998
John K., 25, straight Irish-American male <the-macs@geocities.com>, Cranford, NJ
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
You could also add as a
contributing factor the fact that it is extraordinarily stressful for
an African American to live in white American culture.
POSTED AUG. 14, 1998
Al, 59, white <alarose@ncwc.edu>, Rocky Mount, NC
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
Y? was able to contact Dr.
Clarence E. Grim, professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Medical
College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. Dr. Grim offers the
following:
"There are two major
hypotheses:
1) The stress of racism hypothesis:
This posits that the stress of living in a racist society like the
United States activates neuroendocrine factors that raise the blood
pressre (cortisol, adrenaline). The major counter argument to this is
that high blood pressure is as common in non-racist societies -
Haiti, Barbados, Jamaica - as it is in the United States.
2) The
selective-survival-during-slavery hypothesis: I am the one who has
developed this hypothesis and written extensively on the evidence,
pro and con. This hypothesis states that the greater rates of high
blood pressure in Western Hemisphere blacks are a consequence of
selective survival during the slavery period of the African Diaspora
to the Western Hemisphere. The physiological survial mechanisms that
were selected for in this history were the ability to survive under
conditions of extreme heat and lack of access to adequate salt and
water intake. As these factors are controlled by our genes (both in
blacks and whites), selective survival of this genotype would persist
in the descendents of the survivors of this history. When this
genotype is exposed to today's high salt intake, high blood pressure
develops."
POSTED AUG. 17, 1998
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
Copyright and disclaimer