Yet again!

As I work steadily in my department at work, I notice a conversation begin. A dark skinned Hispanic-American worker (named Will) begins talking with a light skinned, European looking hispanic named Juan. They speak to each other in Spanish for the entire conversation about the upcoming semester of school. 

In the middle of the conversation, unnoticed by me and the two gentlemen talking, a white Anglo woman was listening in on the conversation. She approaches the two of them and says "That's so good that you're giving him lessons!" (She was speaking to Will about Juan). When Juan said "No, ma'am. These aren't lessons. We're just speaking.", she replied, "Oh, so he's practicing then". At this point, Will said "No, ma'am. I'm just speaking it with him".

The details after this point are pretty irrelevant to the point of the story. 

The woman saw the two speaking Spanish. She makes the assumption, for whatever reason, that the light skinned guy must be getting taught by the darker skinned one. In her mind, light skinned equals one thing, dark skinned another. 

Now, I know what the responses to this might be. "Maybe she listened to how the light skinned guy spoke and assumed his was less fluent, therefore being a student of the language". To this I say nay, that as being  fluent speaker myself, I can vouch that this young man is as fluent as one gets. 

"Most Hispanics in Texas are darker looking, so isn't it just natural to assume he would be teaching him?" Again, this is wrong. It might very well be true that most are "darker looking", but why would that assume that the other person was a student of the language? Doesn't that comment imply ignorance as to the origins of the language to begin with? Is Spanish not of European origin? Do we know where Spain is? 

It is ridiculous colour coded assumptions like these that create issues in society. Issues that are never spoken about. To the onlooker, the person not involved, or the person making the assumption, it may seem pedantic or "too PC" to get bothered by something like this. But isn't that what puts the monogot majority in the U.S. in the privileged position?

Just sayin'...

I smile.

As I sit in a cafe, I'm reading a book on institutional racism. It's less of a formal non-fiction book and more a collection of racism-related essays. Point being: I'm not reading what your typical person is sitting around reading. Most are looking at the newspaper, some gossip magazine, a novel of some sort, or something else. These are all fine things in some fashion, but not for me today. I'm reading about that damned four letter word and how it fits into our society everyday: race.

It's not always race that I read about. I also often tend to read about sexism or classicism. But today the topic is racism. 

As I read, I begin to notice behavioural patterns from many passer-bys. Most of them passing by are white, and most of them smile when making eye contact. Most of them smiling look at me, look at me reading a book, and then look back to offer the smile. I'm obviously no mind reader, so I can't possibly claim to know what they're thinking. But I can tell you what they're definitley not thinking. 

They're not thinking: "Oh, look at that nice young man reading. I'll bet he's reading on some sort of pressing social topic that would make me, should I ever step outside my comfort zone to take a look, think twice or even critically about the society I live in. I'll bet he's educating himself - voluntarily - on the existence and persistence of racism, sexism, classicism, religious intolerance, or xenophobia." 

Instead, I'll bet it's something else (if anything at all). It's more like "Look at that nice young man. He seems non-threatening, likely educated (I mean, he's reading, right?), and probably has a good future ahead of him. He's going to make America proud some day. God Bless the U.S.A." Consciously I'm sure many don't take the time to think these things, but deep down we'd all be kidding ourselves if it weren't programmed into our social wiring. Every word? No. The general idea? You bet your ass.

I don't mean to say that I don't want to make America proud. The thing is that what I feel would make America a better place, a country to be proud of, that is, is effectively erasing many of our cultural "norms" present and embedded in our social fabric. Does it mean disturbing the silence, rocking the boat, making some uncomfortable, or even getting apprehensive responses? Sure. But when did any change or critical self-reflection come about without any of that?

Yet I smile, because I know that they likely have no clue how wrong the mindset is that I described (if they're even conscious of it to begin with). I smile because I've got this information and I'm not going to use it the way that "Uncle Sam" would want me to. 

The same Uncle Sam who kept Jews in quotas from entering college to protect the WASP status quo. The same Uncle Sam who steamrolled over indigenous populations to amass land and power. The same Uncle Sam who denied human rights to blacks until just a few decades ago. The same Uncle Sam who told women they didn't really matter until a few decades before that even. The same Uncle Sam who felt it acceptable to steamroll over Iraq for it's own jingoistic interests. 

No, I don't think I'll be doing anything to help that Uncle Sam. I'd like to work to create a better America, even if it's down here in the grass with everybody else. This is where things actually happen. I'm not saying that America is terrible and that I'm here to tear it down and erect some radical, unliveable place for most people living here. However, there's plenty of room for America to be not only criticised, but chastised. I love the freedom I have. Especially the freedom to gather information to initiate change that rights wrongs and calls out injustice when I see it.

But until I am able to effectively initiate that change more strongly, I'll just smile as each person walks by. 

Free Speech for all, as long as you're nice to whites.

Often times a question is posed to Americans as to whether or not a Nazi flag should be allowed to be displayed. Most will say "Yes, it's the first amendment right. They have the right to be an asshole".

Now let's not make any bones about it here: the Nazi flag is a flag used today by Europeans (or European-Americans) to signify national socialism for a White supremacy ideology. To put it more succint: it represents white racism against non-whites. This said, it is considered "okay" to be displayed. 

Now, I wondered if this reflects some type of tradition for a respect for freedom of expression, regardless of the political or social end.

Apparently not: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=57375 

When it represents Black Libertation ideology, even if taking place in a foreign country not subject to U.S. laws and regulations, U.S. officials are legally and generally socially justified in stripping the two men of their olympic medals. Media outlets call it "nasty", "un-American", and other sorts of labels. 

Any support of White supremacist hate seems to be acquiesed to by society and media at large (look at most of U.S. history for proof of this - slaver, segregation, etc.) yet historical movements against the white structure have always been suspect (Civil Rights movements and the hosing of protesters, Rosa Parks criticism, even the recent Gates situation with the police). When whites attack non-whites, it is glossed over or justified (lynchings allowed for decades on end, burning crosses in yards, churches burnt down, the plethora of youtube videos showing McCain supporters and their racist comments, or the Philadelphia private pool discrimination, "it's their private business right to discriminate").

You see, when Blacks emphasize some sort of resistance against an oppressive system, it's terms for punishment. When Whites do it, "their rights are protected".

Gotcha.