« Kane vs. The God | Main | For absolutely no reason... »

More evidence that the blacks may, in fact, be humans

27 Jun 2008 08:59 pm

Heh, from the department of "Black people found to be capable of language" comes a new study which tells us that blacks, "don't share similar views of the world." I'm tired, and I've been beating this drum for months now. Needless to say that anyone out there who's shocked that tend to not always agree with each other, is in trouble. The study, which was commissioned by Radio One, actually doesn't look as stupid as USA Today presents it. I can't figure out whether journalists--in particular--are just clueless, or whether this is symptom of a great ignorance and prejudice at work in the country. More likely, journalists are working on deadlines, and in that scenario, complexity in general tends to be a casualty.

On that note, check out One Drop's thread debating who has the right to define what it means to be black. I'm not sure anyone has that right. But I know who doesn't--people whose livelihood depends on drawing stark contrasts, regardless of how much said contrasts reflects the actual world. If you think reparations is a voting issue, if you haven't even given Dreams Of My Father a thorough read, but feel comfortable saying that Obama is "more white than black," if you believe that actual black people still use phrases like "Whitey" or "Black Is Beautiful" in everyday parlance, your credentials are fraudulent. More simply put, if you don't really know many black people. you probably should sit back and listen--and read. There is a reason you don't see me opining on the impact of immigration reform on the Latino communities in the Southwest...

Comments (5)

Frist! How white is that?

hmmm.. I haven't read the study (or even glanced at it). But from reading your post, I'd say that finding that "blacks, "don't share similar views of the world." sounds like fairly powerful findings.

I know it was a joke, but even so do you really think that's on par with finding that "Black people found to be capable of language".

One gives scientific grounding to a socially understood construct. The other, you know, doesn't.

have been following your blog since reading your peice on bill cosby that ran in the atlantic monthly...and have become a big fan.
a new line: did you see "traces of the trade' on pbs's POV?
I learn a lot from you and your respondence. I have been reading your blog since your article about bill cosby in the atlantic monthly.... 'traces of the trade' shows a white family coming to terms with their heritage. their family was the major slave traders of the north and built a town , bristol, as result.
the white family members retrace the steps of their ancestors. they go to ghana to cuba and home again, facing their white guilt head on. they struggle at each phase. I am curious if you saw it and what you thought of it. these very few whites taking steps to understand their families role in the trade. and then what to do upon return.

accidently posted twice, sorry, my first time. checkout pbs.og if you missed it..

I've found that when people try and police the "blackness" of others, they tend to dip more into the realms of stereotype rather than individuality. For example, because you listen to X, you aren't black. You do X on a regular basis, so you're black. If identifying with a race is nothing more than identifying with an an aesthetic, then what's the point of identifying with anything?

Furthermore, these cues of blackness come from sources that really shouldn't be speaking, in my opinion, for what it means to be a black foot soldier, if you will. I am a hypocrite in a way because, yes, I listen to "hard core" rap, and I do enjoy it but that is a minuscule part of my black life. I'd venture to say every race has a little 50 cent in them. So when people force the whole race into a mold of one person who they happened to see in some music video, that does more harm than good.

But that really isn't the issue now, is it?