Last month, we paid tribute to one of the most influential Americans of my generation, indeed, of any time in our country's history, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. As a "child of the 60s," I remember vividly the struggles led by Dr. King and clearly can recall the year my school in Birmingham, Alabama was integrated. In contrast to the violence, boycotting, and “standing in the doorway” histrionics at some schools, we — in the middle-class suburb of Fairfield — had none of that. Our integration with black students, which occurred in 1967 (my junior year of high school), was not only uneventful, it was a truly remarkable time in my life and the lives of my classmates.
Our school and the little suburban world we lived in was enriched — culturally, athletically, and educationally — with the addition of black students. We all grew — as students and people — with the experience of integration after years of segregation. The black students I went to school with were interested in the same things I was — an education. We studied together, we sang together, we played athletics together, and we all grew together. And those experiences were all due to the efforts of Dr. King and others who broke down barriers and, through civil disobedience, fought to become a truly equal and integral part of American society.
As I think back on those stressful but incredibly enlightening times for me, personally, I also look around today bewildered. I wonder about how Dr. King would view the world we live in today. In our times of "political correctness," I wonder how Dr. King would view our society's "progress" toward his goal of integration and racial equality. I think he might be surprised at what he sees. Dr. King fought hard and, ultimately, died for a society that was "color blind." I believe Dr. King wanted one society with equal rights and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race or religion.
As I look around, I see a more pernicious form of segregation today than I saw 30 years ago. It appears to me that we are moving farther and farther away from a "color blind" society and closer and closer to a more subtle, but no less distinct, form of segregation.
To make my point, let me give you a "what if" to think about. What if Rupert Murdock or some other non-black multimillionaire announced to the world, on Martin Luther King Day 2006, that he was starting a new television network. This television network would present programming directed to the white demographic, specifically white adults between the ages of 18 and 49. This network would be called "White Entertainment Television" with the call letters, "WET." The cable and satellite network would also be presenting the first of an annual "Miss White America Pageant" in the summer. In the fall, programming would also include the first of an annual "Image Awards" ceremony which would honor white Americans who have made significant contributions to American white culture. What if, in making his announcement, the fictitious owner stated:
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Well, the key thing is that this is entirely voluntary self-segregation. Part of an attempt to preserve and perpetuate a particular cultural identity. And that's okay when you're the minority, apparently. You know that there's an active movement among African Americans to create all-black schools in the inner city, on the theory that black kids can learn better in a racially homogeneous environment.
dave
2 - Diet Doc
Dave wrote:
"And that's okay when you're the minority, apparently."
Reply: Dave, that's where I have the question. I understand that, when Johnson established his business in the 1940s, it was sorely needed. But, today, I wonder why the dicotomy? I guess it goes to the bigger question: Can a truly multiethnic, multicultural society long exist? And, more cogently, what (who?) defines "political correctness?"
3 - Dave Nalle
I believe Political Correctness is defined by those who feel they have the right to be offended by something. But, of course, white Anglo-American males NEVER have the right to be offended by anything.
And yes, I think a truly multicultural society can exist just fine, so long as none of the legal institutions recognize any difference between the races. So right now the biggest real threat to multiculturalism is probably Affirmative Action and similar programs which grant one group a priveleged status, both creating resentment among other groups and an unjustified sense of entitlement in the priveleged group.
Dave
4 - Diet Doc
Dave writes:
"But, of course, white Anglo-American males NEVER have the right to be offended by anything."
Reply: I have to admit, I really haven't felt "offended" by anything in some time. Probably because the world has become so intriguing with its conundrums and incongruency. I am bewildered and bemused but rarely offended. Besides, who would care if a middle-aged Anglo was offended?
5 - Eric Olsen
this is very well done and I understand the concern, but remember there is all kinds of specialized programming: women, gays, Spanish-speakers (and all kinds of other languages as well), young people ,old people
6 - Roy Smith
Another question: Why is it that every other (previously) despised minority in American history has successfully integrated into American culture? Think of the experiences of the Irish, Chinese, and Japanese. More recently, Southeast Asians and Hispanics are overcoming the same sorts of challenges and are on the way to successfully integrating. But blacks seem to be stuck, and it doesn't make sense to me why. And before anybody says that it is because the majority culture is racist, every other one of the minorities I listed above also went through severe racial discrimination - but they moved past it.
7 - Distorted Angel
It might have something to do with the fact that all of the other minorities arrived here of their own free will, don't you think? My own grandparents came here from somewhere else, but as far as I know, they were the ones who made the decision to get on the boat. The psychological and cultural baggage of slavery has yet to be cast off. I don't understand why people find that so difficult to comprehend. No other minority groups that I am aware of were forced to endure years of legally enforced segregation from the mainstream of society. Why is it so hard for people to understand that the history of blacks in America is quite different than it was/is for other minorities?
8 - Diet Doc
Eric writes:
"but remember there is all kinds of specialized programming: women, gays, Spanish-speakers (and all kinds of other languages as well), young people ,old people"
Reply: Absolutely. But, consider my premise: why would it be so offensive if someone directed similar programming to, specifically, WASPs? I have no problem understanding ethnic and culturally directed programming, advertising, etc. It's just trying to get to understanding why the flip side of the coin is so inflammatory.
Roy writes:
"Think of the experiences of the Irish, Chinese, and Japanese. More recently, Southeast Asians and Hispanics are overcoming the same sorts of challenges and are on the way to successfully integrating."
Reply: Well said. I wonder myself.
9 - Eric Olsen
yes, as DA says, there is that small issue of slavery
10 - Aaman
Jedi wannabe, you are, I see
11 - Distorted Angel
I don't buy into the myth of the poor, discriminated-against white male, guys, sorry. To not understand why the flip side of the coin is inflammatory is to ignore the notion that for many generations, white Anglo-Saxon (and predominantly male) culture was pretty much all we had. White people whining about how unfair it all is just doesn't cut it for me.
12 - Eric Olsen
Doc, the flipside is so "infammatory" because the male WASP ethos is seen to be pervasive throughout the culture anyway, superceding and subsuming all of the other elements that have gone into that culture, so something that explicitly was geared to that sensibility is seen as absurdly redundant and gratuitous
13 - Diet Doc
Distorted Angel writes:
"White people whining about how unfair it all is just doesn't cut it for me."
Reply: You misunderstand. I am NOT whining! I just said I can't remember when I have been offended, culturally or otherwise. I am just trying to understand the duality of it all. As for the slavery issue, I agree that is is unique. Other minorities, though, have had endured servitude and downright slavery in early America as well. Early Chinese immigrants - I am not sure they were all voluntary either! - in California are a good example. I am not disputing, at all, the importance of slavery.
Cheers,
Ron
14 - Diet Doc
Correction: Should have read
"indentured servitude"
Sorry.
15 - JR
Another question: Why is it that every other (previously) despised minority in American history has successfully integrated into American culture? Think of the experiences of the Irish, Chinese, and Japanese.
They have ballots in Chinese in San Francisco. I've seen Korean and Vietnamese on ballots in Southern California. Is that supposed to be successful integration?
Looking at academic performance, the experience of the Asians seems to be that they can be more successful if they don't fully integrate into American culture.
16 - Distorted Angel
Diet Doc, I do think that failing to understand the duality is a somewhat disingenuous position to take.
17 - Roy Smith
Distorted Angel: No other minority groups that I am aware of were forced to endure years of legally enforced segregation from the mainstream of society.
Ever heard of NINA? Or the experiences of Chinese laborers on the railroads and in Alaskan fish canneries? There were (enforced) laws on the books for years forbidding Chinese from becoming citizens, owning land, entering certain occupations, or marrying non-Chinese. The Japanese were interned (and most of their property stolen) during World War 2.
18 - andy marsh
When I read DA's argument, what I hear in my head is: reverse discrimination is OK because of the way it used to be. Basically, fuck the white guy, he fucked everybody else for so long, he deserves it?
19 - Diet Doc
Distorted Angel writes:
"Diet Doc, I do think that failing to understand the duality is a somewhat disingenuous position to take."
Reply: I wish I could convince you of the depth of my confusion on this (among other) issues. Really, I understand why culturally and ethnically oriented media is fine, but the inverse is taboo. That is my "disingenuoos position," for better or worse. I wish I could understand why one is OK and the other is not with your clarity of vision. I really do.
Cheers,
Ron
20 - alienboy
there is specialist programming for white folk, it's called fox news! lol
21 - Distorted Angel
Agreed, Roy, but I think that historically those situations were not as long-lived or woven into the fabric of society as was slavery, and I don't think the situation with the Japanese during WWII is analagous at all. Segregation against blacks was still alive and well in my lifetime, so I don't think we are so historically removed from it as we would like to think.
22 - Distorted Angel
Andy, you completely misunderstand me. I guess what I'm saying is that I fail to see how the majority (that would be us white folks) is in any way discriminated against in this country, and I also fail to see how anyone perceives that to be the case.
23 - andy marsh
DA - not to long ago, right here on this very site, there was a person, that it was almost a given, if she knew you were white and not a liberal, would scream from the heavens that you were in fact a racist!
The issue that this post is discussing is not discrimination, but reverse discrimination and why is it OK. Why are quotos OK? I've asked the question that Ron asks here a million times. Of course, you can't ask it outloud without being branded a racist. Why is BET OK? Why is a black miss america pagaent OK?
I've heard answers in the past like, it's ok because every other channel on TV is WET, or every other pagaent is a white pagaent. But that excuse doesn't cut it for me. Racism is racism is racism!
Why did minorities fight so hard for desegregation only to voluntarily segregate themselves after they got it?
24 - Mark Saleski
and why do people get so beside themselves about 'reverse discrimination' and yet things like legacy admissions to colleges and sports scholarships are given a pass?
25 - Distorted Angel
Andy, first off, I hope you're not implying that I've called anyone here a racist.
The answer that I would give you is that I just don't see efforts to level the playing field as reverse discrimination. I don't know why we're even talking about BET, for heaven's sake -- it's a television network that has programming aimed at a specific market, not unlike Lifetime, Spike or MTV. If you feel that we need make no efforts as a society to see to it that the doors of opportunity are not systematically closed to groups of people on the basis of demographics, then we will have to agree to disagree about this issue. And I still fail to see how the majority can be discriminated against, Andy.