Best of the Week
of Nov. 15, 1998
Here are the most intriguing cross-cultural exchanges either begun or
advanced during the week of Nov. 15, 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:
GD49: To people of all classes
and races: What do you think is the real meaning of success in your
life?
POSTED NOV. 21, 1998
Cynthia H. <yukofujita@hotmail.com>, San Francisco, CA
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
SO98: To straight people: If one
of your favorite movie stars came out as gay, would that affect you,
and if so, how?
POSTED NOV. 21, 1998
Lance B., male, San Mateo , CA
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
R119: As a white male living
in the South, the often-times ugly racial history of my region is
constantly brought up. I honestly feel relations between blacks and
whites are better in this part of the country than anywhere else. I
hope this is because the races have had to work and coexist together
here longer - even though not always in the right way. What do black
Southerners think who have traveled around, and what do other folks
from other parts of the country think?
POSTED MARCH 31, 1998
Wallace, Southern-American, Atlanta, GA
FURTHER NOTICE 8:
I had the misfortune of
having a layover in the Atlanta airport just as O.J. was being run to
the ground in his Bronco. I was in a cafe filled with white people
and serviced by blacks. I don't know how many of these people were
from the South, but I assume the majority. The interplay between the
blacks and whites in the room was far more interesting than the one
playing out on the TV. The glee in the expressions and postures of
the whites grew more evident as the chase wore on, as did the
distress of the blacks. The truly amazing part was that the whites
didn't even notice the effect this event was having on the blacks in
the room. The looked right through them as if they were somehow
unreal or fixtures of the room itself. I have encountered prejudice
before in the North and the West. I have even met members of the Klan
whose ancestors fought for the Union, but that scene in the cafe was
surreal. Eventually, one of the waitresses broke down and started
screaming and crying at the crowd, and looking at me for support,
which I gave as best I could. The rest seemed oblivious as to the
source of this blatant breach of social etiquette. Based on this
experience, I would suggest that the peculiar attitude of the South
toward race is alive and well.
POSTED NOV. 21, 1998
Kevin, 28, white male <hotemet@aol.com>, AZ
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
O36: I am a white 43-year-old
female who has taught preschool for about 20 years. Why is the
occupation of teaching young children so low-paying? In my humble
opinion, it is a highly skilled and sometimes stressful (though
rewarding) job. Is the pay low solely because early childhood
education is pretty much a tradionally female occupation? Or perhaps
does the low pay pertain to society's low value of children? I'm told
that good childcare is expensive. I teach at a very good preschool,
but I do not think anyone in particular is pocketing much money.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Cil, 43, white female <Cil@AOL.com>, Denver, CO
ANSWER 1:
Normally most salaries are
figures that are economically justified. This is usually based on the
laws of supply and demand. Economically justified does not mean
importance of the job to society. If it did, then policemen, firemen,
teachers and members of the military, for example, would all have
high-paying jobs because they are all vital to our society. On the
same note, professional atheletes and musicians would not command the
salaries they do because they are not essential for society. However,
professional atheletes and entertainers generate lots of money and
economic activity. In other words, many people make money off their
talents. Conversely, in the case of child-care workers, teachers,
military personnel, policemen, etc., very little economic activity is
generated by their activities and talents. I'm not saying this is
fair or idealistic. It is just the economic facts of life.
POSTED NOV. 21, 1998
Al, 38, male <alan@adler.net>, Jacksonville, NC
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE95: Do Jewish people prefer to
be called "Jewish" or "Jews"? To me the word "Jew" just sounds
derogatory, and I prefer to call Jewish people Jewish.
POSTED SEPT. 7, 1998
Whitney T., 19, black female <wkthomps@olemiss.edu>, Oxford, MS
ANSWER 1:
Considering some of the
less-attractive alternatives, I don't have a problem with either of
the choices. It's really more of a grammatical issue - "Jew'' is a
noun and "Jewish'' is an adjective.
POSTED SEPT. 9, 1998
Andrew, 34, Jewish (or a Jew, take your pick) <ziptron@hotmail.com>, Huntington, NY
FURTHER NOTICE:
I feel Jew sounds derogatory
and Jewish people does not. I am Jewish and have often lived and
worked among non-Jewish people. The word Jew always sends chills up
my spine. Why? I'm not sure. It's a gut reaction. I think if I have
to analyze my feeling further, I'd say it's because all the
derogatory adjectives precede the term Jew and not Jewish person.
Dirty Jew is impersonal. If you said "You're a dirty Jewish person,"
it would sound silly or too personal, and you just wouldn't say
it.
POSTED OCT. 13, 1998
Lorie, Jewish female whose mother was born Christian Scientist, New
York, NY
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Strictly speaking, I don't
think the word "Jew" is inherently derogatory. What matters, of
course, is the context the word is placed in. That being said, I
would echo the previous comment. I also have this "gut" feeling the
word "Jew," especially when used alone without any adjectives, at
least "sounds" potentially sinister. For example, the sentence "Jeff
is Jewish" seems much more pleasant to me than the more ominous
sounding "Jeff is a Jew" (at least it sounds ominous to me). On the
other hand, a sentence like "Jeff is an Orthodox Jew" seems perfectly
all right with me because there is a benign adjective (besides, you
can't say "Orthodox Jewish"). Again, I think it's important to focus
on the context. I believe the concern over the use of the word "Jew"
has more to do with the historical context it's been used in and the
tone that has often gone along with its utterance, rather than the
word itself.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Mihir, Indian/Jain, 25 <mishah@vt.edu>, Skokie, IL
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
R354: I have noticed a number of
younger African Americans wearing knee-high pantyhose on their heads.
I would like to know why this is done, and where this trend came
from.
POSTED JUNE 24, 1998
Jason <microft@westol.com>, Washington, DC
ANSWER 1:
I'm not exactly sure where
this latest trend came from for young black men, especially when you
consider all the fashion designers who have their signature models of
these caps. However, black women have used them for ages. They come
in really handy for keeping hair neat and in place while you're
sleeping. I used them when I was a kid. We'd take a pair of new
pantyhose, cut off most of the legs, tie what was left of the legs
into a knot and stretch the seat area over our heads. We called them
"stocking caps."
Denise, 27, black, Bronx, NY
FURTHER NOTICE:
This trend dates back to the
days of pirates, when men wore "scullies" to protect their hair from
the enviroment (wind, rain, saltwater). Also, it was a way of
controlling their hair without a lot of grooming. This later evolved
into the wave cap and "do rag," where black men would put
hair-processing ingredients to condition, put waves or straighten
their hair at a time in history when this was the trend. Now it's
more for putting waves or a fashion statement of the black male.
POSTED OCT. 23, 1998
E. White, 43, Afro American, Fairless Hills, PA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
My son's friend (both
14-year-old white males) said that my son could get his hair to be a
stickup, flat-top style by wearing a stocking over his hair while he
slept. We never could quite figure out how to get the stocking on
right, though.
OCT. 26, 1998
Barbara S. <sudek@worldnet.att.net>, Las Vegas, NV
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
The apparent root of this
fashion rage is a bit more sinister in its origin. Among the vast
numbers of African-American males populating the nation's
correctional facilities is a significant number of men who are or
claim to be Muslim. I'm not sure if you've ever noticed, but there is
a specific type of cap these men (as do many Muslim men) wear, at
least for praying. Since caps of this type are not readily available
in prison, the Muslim inmates improvised by sewing up underpants. No
kidding. And, as is the case with much of contemporary black culture,
unfortunately, yet another fashion trend for our young males sprouted
from the criminal subculture. The really sad part is that the
(white-owned and operated) fashion design companies are reaping the
profits of this not-so-subtle degradation. And, as usual, the
shepherdless sheep among our youth empty their pockets for it.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Samuel H., 30, African-American male <samalex67@aol.com>, Chicago, Il
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
R527: Why do Native Americans
live almost exclusively on reservations?
POSTED NOV. 17, 1998
D. Price <abqteachr@netscape.net>, Albuquerque, NM
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE71: Why don't Zoroastrians
permit new converts?
POSTED JUNE 26, 1998
John, Chicago, IL
ANSWER 1:
This question requires
clarification. Hopefully what I'm saying is accurate since I don't
follow Zoroastrianism. My understanding is that specifically Parsis
do not permit conversion. Parsis are the decendants of Zoroastrians
who fled from Persia (present-day Iran) about 1,000 years ago due to
persecution from the Muslim regime then in power there. The Parsis
arrived on the west coast of India at Sanjan, and as one of the
conditions of acceptance into Indian/Hindu society, the local king
proclaimed that the Parsis should not convert anyone. I believe this
is recorded in the Parsi chronicle called the Kissah-i-Sanjan. However, I don't think Zoroastrians who remained in
Persia were ever against conversion, although the religion has never
actively prostelytized. Thus, at least in the West, it seems there is
disagreement and debate between "Parsi" Zoroastrians and "Iranian"
Zoroastrians over conversion.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Mihir, Indian/Jain, 25 <mishah@vt.edu>, Skokie, IL
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
GE88: Why do most women find male
exhibition disgusting, if not criminal, while most men find women
showing off their bodies to be very intriguing? Men seem to welcome a
woman's public display of skin, but women view a man as perverted if
he displays any "private" area of his body in public.
POSTED OCT. 29, 1998
R.J., Cincinnati, OH
ANSWER 1:
I think it depends on the
context of the display. If it controlled by the woman (e.g.
Chippendale's-type clubs), I don't believe that all (or even most)
women are bothered. There are probably some women who have been
socialized to feel this public display is disgusting, but they'd
probably feel that way about a woman's public display, too. However,
if the display is controlled by the man (e.g., a flasher), in my
opinion, there is an element of intimidation involved. I don't
believe the flasher is saying "look how sexy I am," but rather "I can
do this to you and you can't do anything about it." I don't think
most women are offended by the display so much as threatened by it. I
have had this discussion with my husband, when some friends of ours
were flashed while out walking in the park. He couldn't understand
why they were so upset about "a prank." I could (and can) only
explain that it doesn't "feel" like a prank, it "feels" like a
threat! In a diversity class I attended, the women listed things the
didn't like about being a woman (and the men did the same about being
men). One of the things was "being prey." A lot of the men laughed
when this was read in the class - not viciously, but because they
didn't realize the depth of feeling involved.
POSTED NOV. 17, 1998
Janon, 38, female <janon_rogers@hp.com>, Lebanon, OR
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
R524: To people of all races: In
your opinion, would it be good for the United States to have an
African-American president (female or male), and what would be the
benefits and drawbacks if one were elected?
POSTED NOV. 17, 1998
D. Price <abqteachr@netscape.net>, Albuquerque, NM
ANSWER 1:
Overall it would be positive,
just as Kennedy's election laid to rest some of the Catholic stigma
in the United States. One concern is that assassination attempts are
common (Truman, Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, someone with an automatic
weapon outside the White House and another inside the Capitol
recently, a pilot crashing a small plane at the White House, etc.),
and a random nutcase shooting at a black president could prove very
divisive in the short run. Long term, a good thing.
POSTED NOV. 21, 1998
B. Hale, white <halehart@aol.com>, Hartford, CT
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
A33: Why is it that people are
required to have a license in order to drive and to hunt, and you
must be 18 to vote, but anyone may have a child? What do people think
about passing a law that made reproducing a privilege, and what would
be the impact?
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Julia S., 17, female <ming_tea9@hotmail.com>, Sutter Creek, CA
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
R519: I've read different news
articles recently about how African Americans see nothing wrong with
President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, and reject
traditional morals. Do African Americans really feel differently than
whites about the issues of marital fidelity and truthfulness? I'm not
racist, I just want to know.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Lou F., 40, white male <lflum@iac.net>, Cincinnati, OH
ANSWER 1:
I am a little surprised by
this question, namely why it was let out on the Y? Forum. I am a
white person who sees nothing wrong with Clinton's affair, and to
assume that all African Americans condone or even think in a block on
this topic is racist. Is it the assumption that all whites are
condemning and want him out, and thus how could blacks be so
different? I think you know what you are trying to say, but you don't
have the courage to face your own feelings of anger over the
Clinton/Republican/Starr thing.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Matthew, 40ish, white, gay, New York, NY
FURTHER NOTICE:
I think the difference lies
in that African Americans view the issue as one of hypocrisy, not
morality. Further, I feel we as African Americans have developed a
keen sensitivity to double standards and phony righteousness. Our
history as the objects of such treatment makes it difficult not to
sympathize with a person being subjected to the kind of mean-spirited
scrutiny that has marked the Starr persecution. We most certainly
don't condone infidelity, or other moral transgressions. However,
perhaps the more relevant moral issue we see is "Let he who is
without sin throw the first stone."
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
S.F., male, black <sfinley@wans.net>, Naperville, IL
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I am an African American, or
black American, or Negro, whatever, from Cincinnati. We both know
just how extremely conservative this city is and its thinking. So let
me try to give you my opinion. What the President did was much more
than just extremely stupid. It was not something black people see as
good or proper behavior. Infidelity is a bad thing, no matter who
does it. But it has been so very long since black people have found a
President willing to listen, and what you hear and see is black
people trying to protect their political interest. Every President
has done something to been impeached for, it's just that President
Clinton was told on by an immature 21-year-old who was recorded by
someone looking to get the goods on a President she feels should be
removed. If you look at the previous two Presidents, you can point
them directly to drug trafficking, through support of the Contras.
There were no tape recordings of the specifics, thus Reagan and Bush
got away with it, and those drugs were sold right here in America. I
found that white Americans flocked to the defense of Reagan, just as
blacks to the defense of Clinton. I think drug trafficking is far,
far worse than any amount of infidelity. It is not a matter of
morality, Christian beliefs or fidelity. It is a matter of politics,
power and influence. And after President Carter, black people had to
wait 12 long years to have any kind of influence with a President.
And President Clinton has hired more blacks into his Presidency than
any other President in history. I think black people will overlook a
lot to maintain this. There are far worse things a President could
have done. Even the great Ike had a mistress, along with Roosevelt,
Kennedy and many others, including Thomas Jefferson and George
Washington. People will just be human...
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Tony, 43, black American male, <cinatisoulman@mailexcite.com>, Cincinnati, OH
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
Lou, be careful not to
believe everything you read in the papers. African Americans are just
as diverse in their thinking and opinions as any other ethnic group.
Without attempting to speak for the entire African-American
community, I will say that some (including myself) have chosen to
separate the sin from the job. While Mr. Clinton did lie about his
sexual encounters with Ms. Lewinsky, I submit to you that that has
nothing to do with the price of tea in China; that is, his job
performance. I also ask how many other public servants, if their own
sex lives were publicly scrutinized, would walk away clean? I suspect
that both sides of the aisle at the Capitol would require some 409 to
remove the stains! As for the moral issue, it is precisely why I, and
perhaps other African Americans, support Mr. Clinton. As the
scripture goes, "Let he without sin cast the first stone." Many
Americans are quick to stand in moral judgment, but refuse to look in
the mirror and acknowledge their own daily transgressions.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
R. Mitchell <rdm2@vwarch.com>, Chicago, IL
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
Lou, it sounds like the
articles you've been reading were written by someone trying to stir
the pot of ignorance and miseducation (fancy that happening in the
political arena). As an African American who was raised as a strict
Christian, I feel Clinton's actions were immoral and wrong. However,
under the laws of our nation, they were not illegal and therefore not
subject to questioning in a legal forum. As to African Americans
feeling differently about marital infidelity and truthfulness,
consider that for generations many blacks have accepted that Sally
Hemmings was not only Thomas Jefferson's slave, but also his mistress
and the father of (at least) one of his children. Whites
traditionally have denied this fact (recently proven through DNA
analysis) out of hand, reasoning that so great an architect of
freedom and democracy (in spite of engaging in the most obvious
contradiction of enslaving his fellow human beings) could never stoop
to such philandering. The point is that blacks value truthfulness and
fidelity just as much as anyone, but perhaps we recognize that all
humans, great and small, are capable of cheating and lying about it,
and we aren't in a hurry to throw stones from inside glass houses (a
la Henry Hyde and Dan Burton).
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Sam, 30, male, brown American <SamAlex67@aol.com>, Chicago, Il
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
As an African-American woman,
I support President Clinton. That support does not mean I have
abandoned traditional morals or believe Clinton's behavior was
acceptable. It was clearly not right to cheat on his wife. The reason
he gets my support is that he is being attacked by people who are not
"without sin" themselves. Look at the Republicans who condemned him
and then were revealed to have had affairs years before. Look at the
revelations about Starr's contact with Paula Jones' attorneys and the
appearance of collusion in his selection as a replacement for the
"not rabid enough" prosecutor who was there first. I see people
playing politics with a private marital issue. He was deceitful and
wrong to have an affair, but his punishment should come from Hillary,
Chelsea and God, not the Congressional hypocrites.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Diane, African-American female, Durham, NC
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
I am a white woman who
happens to socialize with primarily other white people. While I am
appalled at the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, most people I know really
don't care, don't think it's "our business," and don't think it's
really that big a deal. I'm not familiar with the articles you read
that specify African-American reaction, but in my experience, plenty
of white people have abandoned traditional morals on this issue.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Michelle, 26, white female, St. Louis, MO
FURTHER NOTICE 7:
I don't think African
Americans are so more less tolerant of Bill Clinton's actions or that
we are rejecting "traditional" moral values. I would be appalled if
my boyfriend did what the President did and I would wring his neck!
However, when you live your life knowing what it's like to be
misjudged or persecuted, you have a tendency to be a little more
tolerant. One also has to remember that Bill Clinton has done a lot
during his two administrations to advance the causes of African
Americans and women and has appointed women and minorities to Cabinet
posts, judgeships, etc. We tend to be more forgiving and definitely
don't bite the hand that has fed us. Also, Clinton has steered the
country into prosperity, and I believe that has a lot to do with
tolerance as well. Clinton has had a record of standing by African
Americans with his actions, and therefore we will stand by him. At
least, I will.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Tiffany T., 25, African-American female, Houston, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 8:
We hold the same moral code
as most people. It's not that we see nothing "wrong" with
extramarital affairs, but, like many people of all races, I don't
think Clinton's personal life is my business. I, personally, do not
want to hear about anyone's sexual liaisons with someone other than
their husband/wife. It's not my business. Yes, he is the President.
However, I don't feel his affair with Lewinsky affected his handling
of his job, and therefore, it is not my business. He is not the only
person, man or woman, to have had an extramarital affair. This
happens all the time, everyday, to everyone. No one else (well, not
many, anyway) has their personal business put out for all to
see.
Also, not many bosses' names are
trashed when caught having an affair with the secretary or any other
employee. They are not prosecuted for having the affair. I'd think
that most of the people who found out about the affair would think it
was wrong, but, as I said before, would also think it was none of
their business. They would be disgusted, but as long as it didn't
interfere with the man's/woman's handling of his/her job, I doubt
anyone would really care. Also, I think many people, not only black,
see this scandal as a set-up. After all, what kind of woman saves a
semen-stained dress? Not a very stable one. And maybe it could have
been hidden better if Ken Starr had not been like a dog after a cat.
I believe Starr had to find "something" to justify spending millions
of taxpayers' dollars on the Paula Jones scandal. He couldn't afford
to do otherwise. But who cares? It's time to move on. I believe many
people, black and otherwise, think this same money could have been
put to better use in education or some other worthy cause. I'm tired
of hearing about it, having my favorite programs interrupted with
"new" news on it and would like the whole thing to be put to rest so
we Americans can focus on improving things here at home.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Whitney T., 19, black female belonging to neither the Democratic nor
Republican party, <scrumpies@juno.com>, Oxford, MS
FURTHER NOTICE 9:
I don't know who they were
polling, but I for one am not impressed with Bill's infidelity. It is
true that infidelity is, in some areas of black communities, thought
of as cute, OK or even expected ... but not in my house. I am sure
"cheating" is considered OK or at least a dirty secret among whites,
too. (I know of a girl who is living with her baby's father and her
current boyfriend. Who does she sleep with? She's cheating on
somebody. Anyway, the point is, "A dog is a dog is a dog," no matter
what color. The only difference is Bill has more money than most of
us. To general society, if you have money, then anything you do is
considered OK because if you get into trouble, you pay Johnny
Cochran-type lawyers to bail you out. Cheating is never OK, as Bill
is finding out.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Chandra, 22, black <randolph@ismie.com>, Chicago, IL
FURTHER NOTICE 10:
This question assumes all
white people feel the same way the writer does. I am a 26-year-old
white female, and I can honestly say I couldn't care less about the
private life of our elected leader, unless it breaks laws. The
question I've had in my head for quite a while is, Why does it seem
that men are more offended by the President's actions than women? I
come to this conclusion by listening to the opinions of the men I
work with, overhearing conversations between men and women on the
subject, reading letters to the editor, and even in such magazines as
The New Yorker (where I would think that viewpoints would be a little
more liberal). Maybe black people don't feel the hypocritical need to
state to the world how "moral" they are, like white men do.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Amber, 26, white female, Las Vegas, NV
FURTHER NOTICE 11:
Those articles could not have
possibly asked all 33 million African Americans what they think about
marital fidelity. Each and every one of us feels differently. For my
part, I care about what my husband is doing. I really don't think
that what Clinton does sexually is anyone else's business except
Hillary's. Of course, I can only speak for myself. No one can speak
for an entire race. We are individuals who happen to share some
physical characteristics. One fact that might be clouding the issue
of race and marital fidelity is that blacks from other countries are
visually lumped in with American blacks. And other countries have
different mores than Americans. There are many cultures where
fidelity is not expected or required. And there are certainly many,
many Americans of all races who break their marriage vows. It is not
something that can be litigated.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Jesse D., 35, African-American female, Chicago, IL
FURTHER NOTICE 12:
While I can't speak for all
African Americans, I will say that we have always been considered a
very forgiving people. I don't condone what President Clinton has
done with Monica Lewinsky or any other woman who has claimed to have
been with him. I do feel that this is a personal matter that need
only be discussed with Hillary and Chelsea. While I'm at it, let me
say that none of his extramarital affairs are cause for
impeachment.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Janet, 33, African American, Capitol Heights, Md
FURTHER NOTICE 13:
I've read some of the same
press, and I don't get the impression that African Americans think
less of marriage vows than European Americans. I believe what you are
seeing is that most African Americans (myself included) are rallying
around our president. I understand that "misleading the public" was
somewhat short of morally bankrupt of him to do, however, I see this
as a mistake, and I can't say if I would or would not have done the
same thing if I were in his shoes (we already have witness that many
ex-presidents as well as Republican politicians have done the same
thing). I see this president as finally giving African Americans a
voice in the White House; the talks on race relations may be just
"talks," but it's a start. But getting back to the point, African
Americans do not view truthfulness differently than European
Americans. Some just disagree with your view of the situation.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Demetris <demetris@earthlink.net>, Frederick, MD
FURTHER NOTICE 14:
African Americans, as a
whole, have more insight and experience on being the accused and the
underdog than white people. Because we know first-hand that the
government can be the enemy, that there can be trumped-up charges, we
are more inclined to give an accused the benefit of the doubt.
Fidelity in the marital unit is just as important to African
Americans as it is to whites.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
27, black female <caramel@hotmail.com>, Jackson, MS
FURTHER NOTICE 15:
Rather than saying there's
nothing wrong with the Clinton-Lewinsky affair or rejecting
traditional morals, I and most of my friends feel this is a personal
matter and not our responsibility to judge such personal items in
such a public arena. I would not have married the man, but that's not
what we elected him for. I tend to feel that a lot of white Americans
are somewhat hypocritical on this matter; for example, holding up the
"Founding Fathers" as examples of moral rectitude (truthfulness, at
least in the political arena, has always seemed to be more expedient
than not).
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
André, Houston, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 16:
I have yet to hear a black
religious person say that Clinton was right to do what he did. They
do not defend his actions in any way. So it is not true that blacks
are less moral (that's racist, by the way). However, keep in mind
that blacks and other minorities are traditionally Democratic in
their politics. Without pressing my point too far, black religious
groups "forgiving" Clinton is much like the mostly white Christian
Coalition "forgiving" Newt Gingrich for his possible ethics
violations. Had it been Ronald Reagan or George Bush (both Republican
presidents) who had been charged with these same crimes, I would have
expected black religious leaders to have strongly backed impeachment,
just as the CC is pushing for Clinton's ouster. In short, when the
matter is political, you have to look for the political angle!
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
John K., 25, <the-macs@geocities.com>, Cranford, NJ
FURTHER NOTICE 17:
I believe President Clinton
should be thrown out of office, not because I believe he is a
disgusting man, but because his behavior shows a lack of respect for
his wife, daughter, his party and basically the entire American
public. If he can risk everything for something so petty, even as he
is being investigated for other similar acts, it says to me he isn't
one who should be trusted. In my experience, marital fidelity and
morality are just as important to blacks as whites. I think the
reaction you see in some of the polls comes from the realization that
Clinton is much more aligned with so-called ''black political
agendas'' than the ''scary, potentially racist Republicans.'' My
parents taught me it was important to forgive, but that never, ever
meant a forfeiture of punishment. If he did this several years ago,
before he was in office and didn't continue such acts while in power,
then that would be different. But he knew the political climate and
what his removal would mean to so many people, and that didn't stop
him from acting like a sex-starved idiot.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Issac B., 25, black, recently married <ibailey@thesunnews.com>, Myrtle Beach, S.C.
FURTHER NOTICE 18:
I am not African American.
However, the black ministers seem clearly to believe that (1) Clinton
has been on their side more than most other presidents, and (2) that
Clinton may have sinned but that the Bible teaches forgiveness and
compassion. I suggest you take a look at the current bestselling book
The Color of
Water, in which a white woman
raises 12 chilren and has two black husbands (one after the first
dies). She notes that the black community was always understanding,
forgiving, warm and accepting of her - a troubled woman from an
abusive background - but that this was not so among whites.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Fred, 69, white male, married <flap.@mindspring.com>, CT
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
G2: I am a native Atlantan and
would like to know why many Northern transplants and Northerners in
general appear to be rude and condescending to Southern people when
they move here. I noticed it a great deal in the UK this summer as
well. The only people who really seemed to dislike me were other
Americans from the North.
POSTED MARCH 15, 1998
Todd, Atlanta, GA
ANSWER 1:
Unfortunately, many
Northerners automatically associate a Southern dialect with
"unschooled" and "ignorant," which of course is not true. There seems
to be an embedded belief by many people in this country that the
Northern "white" dialect of American English is the only correct, and
therefore acceptable, way of speaking in the United States.
Therefore, people who speak any other way are "ignorant," and can be
talked "down" to because of their dialect.
POSTED MARCH 19, 1998
Suzanne, 23, Ann Arbor , MI
FURTHER NOTICE:
As a native Long Islander who
has been transplanted to the South for the last five years, I think I
know the answer. It's not so much that we're being rude, it's more
we're being normal. I am amazed, every time I go home, how rude and
obnoxious everyone is to each other. Even if they are friends!
Everyone's got something to say. Half of the people I know would
argue with the Pope himself. That accounts for about 95 percent of
the rudeness. The other 5 percent are just jerks, and I apologize on
their behalf. They're the first ones who make fun of the way you
talk. If it ever really bothers you, sit back and listen to them. A
good Long Island accent is by far worse than any Southern accent.
POSTED MARCH 28, 1998
Casey, 22, Reston, VA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I am a many-generations back
Southerner who went to college for a year in Connecticut. I lost
track of the number of times complete strangers would see me in a
Florida shirt or see my license plate as I filled my tank, approach
me and say, "You from Florida? You people from Florida act so nasty
about us but you would starve if it weren't for us." I was shocked.
And so were the many, many native New Englanders who are far too
kind, well-bred and open-minded to ever think like that, the people I
was lucky to have as friends. In any group, there are jerks and there
are wonderful folks, I guess.
POSTED OCT. 15, 1998
Midori, 38, white <midorichan1@juno.com>, Orlando, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
I will not apologize for the
condescending nature of Northerners. Yes, the Southern accent is
associated with ignorance, but I think it is important to recognize
that Southern schools consistently rank at the bottom of the national
list. Stereotypes are often rooted in truth; they become damaging
when they outlive the truth from which they were born. This is not
the case for Southern public schools; the sad truth of their
inferiority still exists today. Does it mean that there are no
well-educated people in the South? Absolutely not. Nor does it give
Northerners the right to generalize that Southerners as uneducated.
Nor does it give Southerners the right to generalize that Northerners
as condescending. However, I am sick of groups (racial, sexual,
geographic, etc.) focusing on the way they are treated as a result of
their flaws instead of taking responsibility for their shortcomings
and thus not giving anyone a reason to believe in the stereotype.
Maybe Northerners will stop being condescending to Southerners for
their perceived ignorance when the South shows that it cares about
education.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
The Last Girl You Will Ever Catch Twirling Her Hair and Giggling So
You Can Never Stereotype Me As A Ditz, Charleston, SC
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
R526: To people of all races: Is
it hard for you to get along with people of other races, and if so,
which races, and why?
POSTED NOV. 17, 1998
D. Price <abqteachr@netscape.net>, Albuquerque, NM
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
O33: Why do we lower physical
standards for women in police and fire occupations? Are we not
risking the lives of people in the interest of equality? I for one
would not want a woman half my size attempting to carry me out of a
burning building. I would much rather it be a man who I know has the
physical capability.
POSTED NOV. 12, 1998
Pete, male, Toledo, OH
ANSWER 1:
I agree we should not lower
standards for any position in order to include a particular group of
people. However, a man is not necessarily stronger or more physically
fit by mere virtue of his sex. Ever seen a couch potato? I'd much
rather have a physically fit female carry me around than some fireman
who spends his free time sitting on his butt. At the same time, when
standards are lowered in the interest of including other groups, it
ultimately sends the message that those groups aren't up for the
challenge. And let's face it, the level of strength needed to be an
effective firefighter, for example, is not unattainable by most
people, regardless of sex. I'm not saying firefighters are not
incredibly well-conditioned people, just that anyone with a passion
for that field should be capable of achieving the level of fitness
required. I think reasonable standards, determined by the demands of
a position, should be set and required of all employees/volunteers.
Those who can't meet them should either seek other work, or find a
way to serve that does not require physical strength. Everyone has
his/her limitations; if yours is physical fitness, then maybe
firefighting (or lifeguarding or military service) is not the field
for you - male, female or otherwise.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
D.M.M., white, female, 24 <donikam@hotmail.com>, Charleston, SC
FURTHER NOTICE:
I do see your point, but do
not believe the police and fire departments would suffer any woman or
man to fill physically demanding positions if they were incapable of
executing reasonable physical feats. Now if a woman will risk her own
life to save another, so be it; are not her male colleagues also
risking theirs? As for a woman risking others' lives, what if a woman
half your size did pull/drag you out of a burning building - how
would you feel then?
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Alonzo C., 32, African American, Jacksonville, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Why do they lower height
requirements so certain ethnic groups can qualify? Height is also
important, particularly in a firefighter's job. You gotta be fair all
the way around. As a female firefighter (reserve - competition is
stiff ) I know there are plenty of us who can do the job and work
circles around some of our plumper, lazier man-fellows. Besides,
there's that new firefighter "two-in-two-out" law that passed, so I
doubt one guy is gonna run into a burning building and save you
single-handedly. Also noteworthy, under the influence of adrenalin,
anything is possible!
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
K.B., 37, white female, Riverside area, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
The technical term for
differing standards for men and women is "gender norming."
Essentially, the theory goes that "based on physiological
differences, the women's equivalent of a man doing 12 pullups is (for
example) four pullups." The idea is to assign not equal standards,
but equivalent standards. I'm in the military, and we deal with this
all the time. I believe there is a reason for a given standard, such
as carrying someone out of a burning building, and that standard
should be the same regardless of the sex of the rescuer. The other
problem is one of physiology: How can we say for sure what is
equivalent to what? I do caution you not to assume a woman couldn't
rescue you, though. In my judo classes, I've run across many a
"little old lady" who could move my 200 lbs around with no effort at
all.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Charles <Sw1mFast@aol.com>, Fairview Heights, IL
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
SO97: Considering that gay people
are a minority, why does it seem there is bigotry and racism within
the gay community as it relates to black/white gay couples and other
mixed couples?
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
A World Without Borders <cyberjoe@aol.com>, Pittsburgh, PA
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE
QUESTION:
R511: I recently saw part of a
truly awful movie on HBO that involved a "boot camp" for juvenile
offenders. One character, an African-American guard, lectured an
inmate, also an African American, about his lack of character. In
doing so, he distinguished between "niggers" and "blacks," stating
that "niggers" are the gang-bangers and dope addicts, while "blacks"
are the hard-working, law-abiding citizens. Do African Americans
commonly make this distinction within the African-American
community?
POSTED NOV. 9, 1998
Jerry, 65, white male, Tampa , FL
ANSWER 1:
Yes, black people do
distingish between the two. Haven't you heard Chis Rock's standup
routine about "I love black people, can't stand niggers!" There is a
difference: Black people care about the neighborhood, niggers don't.
In effect, niggers are the ones looting, stealing and just plane
trifling. They don't care about nothing, and people who do that are
considered niggers.
POSTED NOV. 13, 1998
Gerald <g-battle@nwu.edu>, Chicago, IL
FURTHER NOTICE:
I saw the movie and recall
the reference. Movies, particularly those about "black life," are
designed to convey messages or ideas, or to persuade or validate
thought. The comment that you referred to was intended to motivate
the young, troubled man to correct his steps in life. In layman's
terms, the kid was being advised to take a critical look at his life,
to change his ways, and to, as a young black man, develop a sense of
personal pride and dignity. The older character was simply using a
euphemism to illustrate his point. Television and media
sensationalism seldom capture fully the true attitudes and values of
"all" black folk. However, what it does do well is market the ongoing
myth that there is one vein of black ideology of which all of us buy
into. The reality is that the majority of black people have high
values, standards, moral and ethical principles, and a positive
vision for our children. The advice of parents and loved ones is not
usually as harsh as the comments made in the movie, but most of us
are familiar with being advised by an older black person(s) to "do
right" or to "keep on keepin' on". A sense of racial pride and a
positive self-identity is important to raising emotionally intact
black children (if we don't tell them they are good and valuable,
certainly no one else will). However, most people do not go around
challenging our children to view themselves purely in a racial
context. So, the "nigger is..." and "black is..." reference in the
movie reflected the author's creative control - his/her personal
opinion, ideas, values, or experience. Some of us may agree with the
comment, while others may not.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Dee W., black female <westde@hiram.edu>, Cleveland, OH
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE100: Whenever I tell a Catholic
I am an atheist, I get told "You're too young to have made that
decision." How can anyone say this, knowing that the standard age for
confirmation is about 13?
POSTED SEPT. 30, 1998
Stef, female, 19 <Sidhe_devil@hotmail.com>, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
ANSWER 1:
My friend told his parents at
age 12 that he was no longer going to church because he did not
believe there was a God. He is now 27 and still believes the same
thing, although he lives a life of helping and loving others.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Craig, 35, Christian <cmorris@loft.org>, Minneapolis MN
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
O34: Why does a principal and or
school official have the right to search students, but the police
need to have a warrant to search someone?
POSTED NOV. 13, 1998
Sara S., 17 <sarasamuel@hotmail.com>, Pioneer, CA
ANSWER 1:
Two reasons. First, during
the school day, your school and its officials are considered to be
acting as your guardians. Just as your parents have the right to
search your room, your school has the right to search your locker.
Also, technically, the locker belongs to the school, not you. The
school's just letting you use it. The other reason is that police
have greater powers than school officials. Police can arrest you and
start the legal process toward imprisonment. That's why they need a
warrant.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Andrew, 34 <ziptron@start.com.au>, Huntington, NY
FURTHER NOTICE:
Are you talking about a
personal search, like "frisking?" If you are, then, as far as I know,
a police officer does not need a warrant to check a person's body if
that person has come under suspicion of something. This would assume
that the person being searched is out in public, and possibly a
danger to others. If that person were inside their home on private
property, then the police would probably need a warrant. I suspect it
is similar for school officials. Anytime you go into a confined space
containing large numbers of people (school, ballgames, concerts,
etc.), you might be subject to a search if a danger is suspected. I
have been frisked several times before, and I never thought my
privacy was being invaded.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Stephen S., 31, San Antonio, TX
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
Copyright and disclaimer