Good Night and Good Luck

When I first started this blog, I intended it to be a place where white people could ask me questions about black people, white people, racism, etc. The reasoning is this: I know a lot of white people and I like white people. Sometimes they really annoy me, but most of the time they're fine. I thought that would make me a good candidate to ask questions of, because I wouldn't get so pissed all the time. Also, I would be doing my part to help increase awareness and understanding about this very complicated and (for most people,) uncomfortable issue.

So far no one has really asked me anything, so I've noticed that it's turned into me sharing my own experiences with race. I think that's fine because it does the whole increasing understanding bit, but I have to say my intention was for the blog to be a little more interactive. So if you're reading this...ask me a question!

So...what do I want to talk about today? Ah yes... Why does Byron Pitts always do the stories related to black people on the CBS evening news?

For those of you that don't know, Byron is black and he covers a wide variety of stories as their National Correspondent. But you can almost be certain that if it's about black people--it's Byron. James Brown dies? Byron. Ed Bradley's funeral? Byron. Two black coaches in the Super Bowl? Byron.

Why does it seem like it's Byron who interviews all the black people? I just went to the CBSnews.com website, typed in "African-American" and lo and behold, every story (with one exception) I clicked on that wasn't from another news source was either covered by Byron Pitts or Michelle Miller, another black reporter.

I can think of two possible explanations. First, people at CBS News think that black people who are about to be interviewed will be more comfortable if they're talking to a fellow black person, so the story might be better.

The second possibility is that the CBS News people don't really like the "black stories" so they give them to the "black reporters." What I mean is that the execs don't care and/or don't think their white viewing audience will care about the story so they say, "Well, since the black people are the ones who'll be watching this--let's put the black reporter on it."

There are problems with both of these ways of thinking. With the first rationale, that may be true that the black interviewees would prefer to talk to a black newsperson. But, how are they ever going to get more comfortable with the idea of talking to a white person if they don't have to? AND, how are white journalists ever going to get more comfortable interviewing people of color if the stories are always given to the non-white people on the staff?

If it's the second reason, that's a little more disturbing. If we live in a country where white people hear about stories regarding black people or see stories covered by black journalists, and become immediately less interested...that's a problem that we have to talk about.

I can venture to say that there are some white people who see stories about people of another race and say "this is not relevant to me, I'm not interested." Whether or not they add the layer of "I don't like hearing stories about people who aren't white," I don't know and can't say. I doubt it because that would be more blatant, and I think most white people like to be very subtle when it comes to their attitudes about race.

That's all for now.. as always, I welcome your comments.

confidential and anonymous

I am a graduate student in psychology. Maybe I already said that--maybe not. Anyhow, I was in class last night listening to a presentation in my research methods class. We had to do an assignment where we had to develop a measure and then give a brief presentation. One group chose to make their measure about couple satisfaction, and the students in our class made up the bulk of the sample.

Pretty interesting survey: it asked about shared interests, values, household labor, sex, hobbies, etc.

At the end of the survey I noticed that one of their demographic questions was race. I was hestitant to fill it out because I _knew_ that they were probably not going to have a racially diverse sample (I am the only person of color in my class,) and my concern was that if I indicated my race, the survey would no longer be anonymous, and they would have pretty detailed information about my level of satisfaction in my relationship.

I thought about it and decided that I wasn't going to check "white" because I was not white. But I was concerned enough that when I turned this survey in I made a point to say to one of the group members, "Make sure that you get some other 'African-American' respondents because I don't want it to be obvious what survey is mine." She assured me that they would.

Lo and behold, when they are presenting to the class they have gotten no other African-American respondents, so my results are availalable for everyone in class to see. So much for "confidential and anonymous."

Now is the part where I say: I don't think these women are racist dumbasses who did this intentionally. I know both of them: they're friendly people.

However, I think what they did was extremely irresponsible. It was very short sighted of them not to realize that if they had a demographic group of only one person, it is pretty pointless to present the results. First, because it has absolutely no statistical significance. Second, because the results are no longer confidential if the respondent is easily identified by others.

It also makes me upset, because I went through the trouble of bringing my concerns to one of the members, only to have her basically lie to me. It's like, "If you're not going to have a racially diverse sample, don't tell me that you are. That's just rude."

So I debated sending them both an email saying that I thought it was irresponsible, but decided against it because I thought they would immediately become defensive, and I didn't feel like dealing with it.

So instead I write about it on my blog, for who knows who in the universe to find it and read about it.

As always, I welcome your comments.

And all I got was this lousy t-shirt...

I'm going to tell you a little story about my Halloween. I went to a party where the theme was "drag." The most obvious interpretation was that you were supposed to come dressed in drag, but guests were free to be a little more "creative" if they wished. I personally think it was just a way to give guys a way out of dressing up in women's clothing, but whatever...

So most people at the party did come in the clothing more common for the opposite gender. I was an old man--Hawaiian shirt, floppy hat, flip-flops with socks--it was a good look. There was one guy who came as a cigarette. And then there was another guy who came in wearing a t-shirt that said:

"I got dragged in Jasper, TX and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."

His t-shirt had fake blood on it, and I think that was pretty much the whole costume. He saved us the pleasure of seeing him in blackface, but the point of the costume was clear. He was coming as James Byrd Jr., the black man who was dragged to his death by two white men in 1998.

How clever. And funny.

A lot of the people at this party were gay, and I doubt that this dude would have come as Matthew Shepard tied to a post if the theme had been "Wyoming" or something like that.

The whole incident pissed me off for several reasons: 1) The guy thought it would be funny to come as a person that was a victim of a hate crime. I understand that people like to dress up as dead people for Halloween, but I have never heard of a person coming as a murder victim, much less the victim of a hate crime. 2) This guy would not have worn this costume to a party full of black people, so why did he wear it to this party?

I have the answer to my own question: He wore it because he knew that more than likely no one was going to say anything to him about it. I got all kinds of excuses from my white fellow guests about why talking to him was not a good idea: It's a party, everyone's trying to have a good time, he didn't mean anything by it, etc., etc.

There are always a ton of excuses that can be made to try to avoid putting yourself out there for something that doesn't directly affect you. I find as I get older that my patience is wearing thin for people who like to make excuses. If you don't give a shit about racism because as a white person you benefit from it, then just say that. I can understand that, it makes logical sense. But don't act like you care (like some of my white liberal friends,) and then fail to do anything when your feet are to the fire.

That's all for now. As always, I welcome your comments.

Peach would work

The other day I wrote to the proprietors of spanx.com about the names that they use for their color choices. This is the first time that I have ever done anything like this, but the books that I read about this sort of thing say that you have to take action of you want anything to change.

Backstory: Spanx.com uses the word "nude" to describe one of their colors. I think we all know the approximate shade of this color, because they are not the first in the pantyhose material industry to use this word. Problem is, this color is nowhere near to what I look like when I am nude. And I'm sure that the same is true for many other people. Like the title of this post says, it's not really necessary to call it nude, because when we were all using our coloring books back in the day, we knew that "peach" was the color that you used for Ken and Barbie. And peach isn't particularly exclusionary. So what follows is a copy of the email that I sent them:

Hello-

I am writing to say that I have heard nothing but rave
reviews about your products, and was excited to visit
your website to see what products you might have that
would be suitable for me to wear during my upcoming
wedding.

My excitement quickly turned to dismay however, when I
saw the color names for your products. The use of the
term "nude" is unfortunate, because women with no
clothes on come in a variety of shades. Most women
when "nude" do not match the color of the products
that you have displayed.

Realize that I am not requesting that you make a line
of products for every skin tone, I understand that you
are a business and that probably would not be cost
effective. I am just asking that you reconsider your
choice of wording in describing your most popular
color, in order to be more inclusive of all women and
to acknowledge the diversity of all of our shades.
This would allow many more women to feel "comfortable
and confident" in your products.

I look forward to receiving your reply.

Sincerely-
myblackfriend

I put my real name at the end, that change is purely for branding purposes :) I was really proud of myself about the "comfortable and confident" part, because that's what's in their misson statement. Anyhow, I sent that email about a week and a half ago to every person who's email address was listed on their website (about 5 people). So far I haven't heard anything back.

The thing that sucks about it is I really think because I am black, they are not as likely to listen to me as they would be if I was white. Because they can tell themselves that the black person is being "oversensitive." And it's true, I am being sensitive, in the sense that I am paying attention. However, I didn't lose any sleep over it nor was I checking my email every five minutes waiting for a response. I would look at this as an example of just one more annoying thing that I have to put up with.
I am just supposed to know that nude doesn't really mean nude for me.

So if you're white and give a crap, maybe you should write them. If you're not white you can write them too, but try to find 50 more of your non-white friends to do it with you. their email address is contactus@spanx.com

As always, I welcome your comments.

Ghetto Fabulous

I am watching American Justice (if you haven't figured it out, I watch a lot of tv--Tivo is a wonderful thing.)
So I'm watching American Justice about the Central Park Jogger case from the late 80's. First: did you know that all the people that were orginally convicted were set free because someone else confessed? So much for that whole "wilding" theory...

Anyway, I'm watching it and there's some white woman talking about crime in NY in the 80's. There was a lot more than there is now, and she says, "There was a concern that the ghetto crime would spill over into the white neighborhoods." What? Let's think about this critically, people: What is she saying with this statement?

White people don't live in ghettos
White people don't live in neighborhoods with crime
ghetto=non-white----> non white people do not live in low crime neighborhoods

Now, she seems to have enough savvy not to say, "There's was a concern that black/Latino crime would spread into white neighborhoods." No no no, that would be racist. But she can substitute the eupehmism, "ghetto" and we think nothing of it.
I'd also like to point out that this woman works for the Columbia Journalism School, responsible for shaping the young minds of the future media. Whoo hoo!