Thursday, October 23, 2014

Sometimes Music White Boys Like Isn't Everything It Seems

Bearded Old People are Sometimes as Wise as They Look: Hollinger's "One Drop and One Hate" rules

“Blogs enable a lot of folks who would otherwise not be in regular and direct communication to be in touch with each other whenever they feel like it, and surely that is a good thing (…)” -David A. Hollinger

This week, as two Murats, we’ll be taking a detailed look at David A. Hollinger’s “The One Drop Rule & The One Hate Rule.” In the process, we will not only tell you what’s going on but also try and help you have a better grasp of its historical background, as well as discuss its present applications and its relevance to our course material. So, what do those terms mean? Do they only effect blacks in the US? Let’s find out.

PS: We wanted create some room for individual interpretation as well. Although this text was written by both of us, there are bits that reflect only what one of us think on the issue and they’re tagged as such.

The One Drop Rule

To understand the issue at hand here, one must first understand the concept of hypodescent. Put simply, hypodescent is a white American invention, one that decides who’s black. Disgustingly, this formulated discrimination was even reflected in and supported by federal and state legislature. Although the exact measurements differed from one state to another, and from time to time, the central idea is that a certain amount of “Negro” blood in one’s veins renders them entirely black. In Virginia, for instance, the threshold was set at ¼ Negro blood. One drop you say? It’s when you take hypodescent and introduce it to an intense regime of steroids and feed it 5 tubes of protein powder every hour: Any amount of blackness makes you a hundred percent black. That grand-grand-grandmother of yours that you didn’t even know existed happened to be black? Well, you are too. Don’t forget to hand over your rights on the way out, see you.

"What are you?" they'd ask, head tilted and eyes squinted.
"Black," I'd reply.
"No... but like, what else are you? I know it's not all black."

Hollinger says “It is common for people to say, "I'm half Irish and half Jewish" without one's listener translating the declaration into terms other than the speaker's. But those who say things like "I'm half Irish and half black" are generally understood really to be black, and "I'm one-eighth African American" is not part of the genealogical boasting that infuses American popular culture.” Gandhi says: “You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is like an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.” Not super related to our topic but it is at the same time; black blood, the “colored blood,” is dirty to many Americans still today, we are not analyzing the past here. Throughout history, white people argued so many times that the black race is mentally and physically inferior to white, yet with one drop rule they are proving otherwise. IF the white race was so superior to black how come a single drop, or a single grand-grand parent can taint this superior gene pool? Shouldn’t it be otherwise? Shouldn’t a single drop of white blood elevate the status of a black person that is normally being undervalued by the society? Yes, “hypocrisy” is indeed the word you’re looking for.

The roots of this approach are entirely based on wealth, just like the very existence of the country (“Free land across the ocean! We have absolutely no idea what it is like! And the land doesn’t even belong to us, people actually live there!” “Best deal ever, yay!”). One’s race used to determine his or her rights to inherit property and land as well. Imagine the average slaveholder with a few legitimate children and dozens had from his slaves. Surely, it would be a disaster for those in power if those “extra” children could inherit his wealth.

The One Hate rule and People of Color

Now that we know what the first half of the title stands for, let’s take a look at its second half: The One Hate Rule. Put simply, it is a way of approaching white racism in the United States, dictating that each and every single one of its victims have been and still are being discriminated in identical ways. Well, guess what, they’re not. The problems that minorities have been facing in the States differ tremendously from each other. A very simple illustration would be the stereotypes created for Asians and African-Americans. This will be well-reflected as we take a look at the issues of over and underrepresentation. Expressions such as “people of color” are a very good example of this phenomenon and are problematic in some ways. (Remember George Carlin)

The problems that the average Mexican-American face on a daily basis differ from those that Asians or Blacks face, again on a daily basis. Furthermore, even smaller parts of these groups will have entirely different experiences in the land of the free, home of the burger-lover (We love burgers as well, just not as much). Just think of how large of a continent Asia is. People from Japan, China, Pakistan, India, Turkey and so on just can’t have the same experience in the US. That’s just not happening. Period.

Genius Coming this Way: Beating Racism in its Own Game

However, the idea of one hate was embraced by minorities as well. This idea enabled them to rally greater masses under a single banner and strengthened their struggle. It wasn’t only a certain shade of black people that fought side by side during the Civil Rights Movement, it was anyone with any sort of blackness willing to join in. Smart, very smart.

Non-black minorities were able to identify themselves and blacks under the single tag of “minority” and therefore gained a substantial advantage in the struggle to acquire equality. In fact, even Asians, who are doing better than Non-Hispanic whites, were at some point eligible for affirmative action programs. Of course, this did not last long and they were silently crossed off the list. If only the US government could act as quickly on actually fighting discrimination.

But, how could it? The government has also been participating in the One Hate approach. A brilliant example here would be Bill Clinton’s “One America in the 21^st Century”, where he ignores more details than he takes a look at. The part of the report focusing on economic disadvantage is as ignorant as it gets until you take a look at the footnotes. When the report claims that there isn’t a huge economic gap between whites and blacks, it only takes a look at income levels, ignoring wealth altogether. Sure, a group that has been collection wealth all along since before the Declaration of Independence lives on equal grounds as those who have been subjected to economic discrimination since their arrival. But, in Clinton’s defense, this is mentioned in the footnotes! You know, those small texts at the bottom that no one reads.

Additional bit by Murat G:

“While as late as the early 1960s, spokespersons for Mexican Americans in Los Angeles made numerous statements that their community wanted little to do with blacks in the same city. However, in the late 1960s as political alliances were forged between black advocacy organizations and organizations speaking for other descent groups; including Mexicans. I am just hoping that everyone can appreciate the hypocrisy of this situation. I believe that people have too much to gain from social events such as this and the motivations for such movements are purely spiritual or moral only in theory but completely economic in practice.”

Over and Underrepresentation

This is perhaps the easiest part of the text to comprehend, but the most problematic at the same time if you try to figure out its roots. Overrepresentation, say, in the field of high level managerial positions will reveal itself in statistical data: There are tons of Asian people in those positions, even though they’re a minority. Underrepresentation, consequently, the exact opposite of that, a certain group being rather hard to spot in the field examined. Think Asians in NBA.

Again we are calling everyone here to see the hypocrisy. We often discuss things in class so one-sidedly, that we tend to forget; this issue is nowhere near black and white but has more shades of grey then the book. This issue, just like million others is driven by socioeconomic and sociopolitical concerns of those who are handling these cases. We see people in the media, people who we can relate to, but they are not the ones that working for this in actuality. They are just being used to suck our empathy; not that they don’t deserve it but they are not the ones that are benefiting from it directly. Money mongers, property owners, people who stand to make great deal of money and gain great deal of political power are. We are not trying to undervalue the issue, and we are truly not trying to disregard the blatant suffering of minorities. The suffering is indeed there, but it is often abused.

Despite having the same name, Murat and I (Well…) sometimes find ourselves not quite agreeing and often defending opposite views. Please find below such a case, where we will be presenting two different views on over and underrepresentation. Feel free to join the discussion in the comments section!

Murat G:

Remedying the abuse of nonblacks was almost an afterthought to remedying anti-black racism. And Hollinger argues that “Nothing illustrates this fact more dramatically than the lack of sustained public debate on the eligibility of immigrants and their offspring for affirmative action.” Is this true? I don’t know, and I am certainly not the first person to decide if it is true or not. But I am inclined to say no because of what Hollinger later on goes to say; Asian minorities, specifically Japanese. Everything had been taken away from Japanese people during the World War 2, they have been imprisoned illegally with no premise. They have been driven away from their homes and businesses yet they are the one minority group which thrived more than any other. Why? Hollinger doesn’t seem to be able to answer to that. He is aware of the problem and he does more than pointing it out. He offers valuable insight by giving us the Clinton’s initiative: “The proximity of Asian Americans to non-Hispanic whites in one statistical sector after another is downplayed, ignored, or concealed. Asian American success in overcoming the worst consequences of white racism is the elephant in the advisory board's room.” Yet he doesn’t know the reason why this has happened, why a race that was called non-white by the Supreme Court (Japanese) was able to surpass a race that was considered white by the US law (Mexicans). Hollinger calls it overrepresentation, however Japanese were not represented as minorities and they didn’t pursue social rights as any other race did. But they excelled in the society with their household income, wealth, level of education and such. Was it all because of the guilty conscience of American people after the H-bombs? I think it has more to do with social values. I have seen firsthand what a hardworking society looks like, and I have seen what a lazy society looks like too. I believe this exists because Japanese people did not give up, no matter how difficult it was. They pursued knowledge and they were rewarded accordingly. This doesn’t mean that others have not either, but still they weren’t able to achieve the same level of comfort in the society as Japanese. We might argue that other races, minorities etc. had to deal with more racism but we all know US history; all the minorities had their fair share of trouble within the white America.

Murat A:

Although I do recognize the powerful influence that culture has over economic trends I do not think culture alone can be chosen as the reason why different minorities have considerably different levels of wealth. Work ethic does play a huge role in determining one’s level of income and wealth; but it is far from being the only factor at play.

The difficulty of picking a single element of culture and making it the only culprit is as difficult as it is for good reason: One simply cannot put the entire blame on culture as there are way too many variables at play. So, rather than pointing at just one detail and declaring it the culprit, I just wanted to make list of some potential obstacles standing in the way of a minority group.

Education plays a tremendously important role in one’s chances of “making it.” The Asian immigrants tend to be really well-educated in their fields, compared to the average Mexican. Before blaming the guy, however, just compare the opportunities for education you’d have in Japan to those in Mexico. Even if the Mexican guy tried, how can he even receive an education as good as the Japanese have the chance to.
Similarly, pre-immigration work experience is just as important. Without going into too much detail, the average Asian does indeed have the higher ground due to this small detail.
It is a lot harder for a hardworking Hispanic or Black person to shake off the stereotype assigned to their races. They must fight against the perception that they are lazy, not just actually be hardworking. How can a person with distinctively Asian physical traits and one with Hispanic ones have the same chances in, say, a job interview? Even if they have identical CVs, the Asian guy is more likely to land the job. Just because.
Different ethnic groups often immigrate to different states. And as we know, states within the America differ from each other to such an extent that they make all the European countries look similar to each other. The immigrant groups, therefore, are very likely to struggle under entirely different conditions, simply due to a geographical misfortune –or they’ll be fortunate.

Just some food for thought.

Questions for discussion:

Please feel free to join the discussion we’ve started above. How do you explain the success of Asian Americans, despite all the discrimination they’ve been subjected to?
Do you agree with us when we say that the concept of hypodescent has its roots in owning/inheriting wealth? Why? Why not?

Enjoy the 5 days holiday everyone! Thanks for listening, for reading and for your participation in the discussions.

Links

The “Evenin Govuhnuh” video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWynJkN5HbQ

The song played at the beginning: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/short-change-hero/id474262480?i=474262754

Interview with Hollinger: http://s-usih.org/2012/11/an-interview-with-david-hollinger.html

The .pptx file, as promised: http://1drv.ms/1tLeu8K
Note: The music at the beginning and the video have been removed to reduce file size. The music is just a few lines above, and the video is embedded in this post.

Refresh your memory on G. Carlin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lszfpmpKNv8

Further enlightenment:

http://mic.com/articles/80841/12-beautiful-portraits-of-black-identity-challenging-the-one-drop-rule

-Buğra Murat Altan
-Murat Güzeller

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

#STOP Racial Profiling

Hi guys,

(If you cannot see the video from an unknown reason, here is the link: http://vimeo.com/76430214)

One of my friends shared this short yet powerful video on Facebook and I think this is a great example that shows how people are still racially profiled and this is such a corrupted idea!

"Racial/ ethnic profiling is a form of institutionalized racism and entails the discriminatory use of personal attributes (such as skin color, ethnic or religious affiliation, national origin or language) as a basis for identity checks and searches without a concrete warrant by the police." said by the website which my friend linked the video to; http://www.stoppt-racial-profiling.de/english/ (This is for signing a petition to the German Parliament about institutionalized racial profiling.However, there is some important information on racism in Europe and especially German there too.) I found it really interesting maybe it was because I did not read about racism in Europe as much as in America. Anyway, I hope you like the video.

Have a good day~

Ezgi ULUSOY

Hi everyone,

I want to share a movie,which is relevant our course. This movie is a kind of provacative satire about being black in a white place especially in the presidency of Obama. I think this movie can give us an idea about race issues in the USA, currently.

I think it will release 24th of October in nationwide.

Here you can reach this movie's webpage and get a a detailed information about the movie. :)

http://www.dearwhitepeoplemovie.com/

İrem Aydoğdu

Monday, October 13, 2014

PURSUIT UNITY, FLOURISH DIVERSITY!

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ON MEXICAN IMMIGRATION

In his article “The Hispanic Challenge” conservative political scientist Samuel P. Huntington claims that the Hispanics divide the US culture into two by rejecting Anglo-Protestant values that he holds to be core of US cultural values, by his definition. On the other hand, Chicana feminist lesbian poet and author Gloria Evangelina Anzaldúa roots for diversity and multiculturalism in the US and tell how mestizas contribute to the bonding of different identities in the country.

In order to grasp both of these articles and their claims, we need to know about the historical background of Mexican immigration, the push and pull factors. The first significant wave of Mexican workers coming into the United States began in late 19^th century. They replaced Chinese workforce that was diminished after the enforcement of Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) which banned all immigration of Chinese laborers. When the Unites States entered World War I, the need for Mexican labor increased sharply; so the Mexican government sent Mexican workers as contract laborers to the US. After the war ended, a nativist atmosphere was dominant in the US, and this caused restrictions on immigration quotas and to the creation of the U.S. Border Patrol. However, the demand for unskilled workforce continued much after the war, and Mexicans kept crossing the border, either legally or not. Mexican migrants worked mainly in agriculture, mining industry, and railroads. The poor conditions for Mexican citizens after the Mexican Revolution in 1910 spurred another wave of Mexican immigration to the US. Immigrants were first concentrated on southwest, later southern states (which are called the Sun Belt states) most which was Mexican land not long ago. They helped this area bounce back after the WWI and develop further.

The push factor in Mexican immigration to the US was an economic restructuring and urban poverty in Mexico made worse by the Mexican Revolution; whereas the labor demand in US Southwest acted as a pull factor. By looking at the history of Mexican immigration, Hispanic resistance towards assimilation and their rejection of Anglo-Protestant values can be understood better. They helped the land develop and were in fact called out of need. Moreover, they don’t feel that they need to conform with the culture of the land they migrate to, because the land was, to quote from Anzaldúa, “Mexican once / was Indian always / and is. / And will be again.”

THE HISPANIC CHALLENGE

Political Scientist Samuel P. Huntington, known for his very famous “The Clash of Civilizations” book, shares his views about the rapid growth of Hispanic immigration in the U.S., in his article “The Hispanic Challenge”. Huntington, in the article, argues that America is losing its “origins” and the components he claims the nation was founded on. These components according to him are ethnicity, referring to white British, the Protestant Christian religion and the English language. As a result of immigration from other European countries, he claims that the U.S started to lose its foundations when Catholics started arriving. However, it is the rise of immigration rates, particularly from Latin America and Mexico what he fears the most as they have the fastest growth rates in the last few decades. He truly sees Hispanic immigration as the greatest threat to the American national identity as their increasing presence have caused a lot of changes in education systems and policies. He lists 6 factors that makes Hispanic immigration different from other immigration groups and gives reasons for his fears:

· Contiguity: Close border, easy access to the country

· Scale: Growth rates in the last few decades

· Regional Concentration: Immigrants forming their own communities in specific regions and resisting assimilation

· Persistence: Continuity of immigration instead of subsiding like other immgration waves

· Illegality: Number of illegal immigration into the country

· Historical Presence: Claiming their long lost land in the U.S.

Huntington criticizes the Civil Rights movement and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, both of which had a significant role in promoting immigration and not making enough restrictions for this inflow of Hispanics into America. His fear is that, if nothing is done to stop this immigration, the U.S will have fully transformed into a bilingual, multi-racial and multi-ethnic society and not be the same America it used to be, an English-speaking, dominantly European, Protestant Nation.

He also goes on to suggest that if immigration is stopped or significantly reduced, it will provide several benefits to the nation like preventing illegal entries into the country, improving wages of low-income native citizens, ending controversies of bilingual education and debates of whether English or Spanish should be the official language.

GLORIA E. ANZALDUA

“Cradled in one culture, sandwiched between two cultures, straddling all three cultures and their value systems”

“Todas las partes de nosotros valen”

Contrary to what Samuel Huntington claims, she is in favor of multiculturalism and diversity. The best way to cure injuries of the past is related to embracing dual identity. By mentioning “nahual” (which means the shape shifter), she claims that mestiza absorbs various components of the two cultures and create a new identity and a new existence for herself. She praises mestiza people with regards to their being resolute. We can understand this view of hers by looking at the corn example in her text. As she says “mestiza holds tight to the earth, she will survive the crossroads.” Also corn signifies “pueblos” living together harmoniously. No matter how their shape or sizes are different all kennels are bound to the same ground, to the same cob. A corn when it nourishes from its roots it grows more. This is another symbolic meaning in her using corn as an example for multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is associated with the husk over the corn because it leaves no part outside by weaving the whole. If kernels are separated from each other it will not be able to flourish and become unhealthy. Her choice bases on inclusion rather than exclusion. In her essay, she explicitly tells us that our role should be link people with each other. It’s to transfer ideas and information from one culture to another.

According to her, ignorance is the main danger. It also is a tool for white culture to kill mestiza culture. She resents that white culture never allows others to “be fully themselves”. As she states in her texts, the thing which splits people and creates prejudices is this ignorance.

“Let’s try it our way, the mestiza way, the Chicana way, the woman way.”

“I change myself, I change the world.”

Anzaldúa mentions the struggle is inner. The remedy shouldn’t be reactive but active. The first step towards remedy lies behind to raise awareness of the situation. Only awareness can open a door to further changes. She emphasizes that firstly, the self has to start creating a change in him/her. Only after that, a total change in the society can be possible. Another remedy that she poses is about proving visibility. Being “weaponless with open arms” is the final step on the way towards spiritual freedom and towards curing the open wound according to her.

“Se hace moldeadore de su alma”

Anzaldúa explicitly offers some solutions to the problems caused by historical injuries and its consequences such as the pursuit of unity in diversity. Although she projects a cultural collision, in other words un choque, she believes in the possibility of creating a more extensive unifying culture. She proposes to create a mestiza consciousness which is related to shifting point of view from being a prisoner of the past to face the history even if it gives pain. It is also associated with keeping on living with a new understanding that involves belonging to a larger entity.

Assimilation

Minority cultures had to face with aggressive assaults on their culture sometimes in a bloody way and sometimes in a way through subconscious. Being accepted usually is a common desire because human beings are social creatures and they tend to prove existence in a social group. In order to “melt in the pot” as way of acceptance, they sometimes willingly consent to be root out, in other words to be exposed to assimilation.