From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Subject: Re: peculiar language
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 14:18:09 GMT

In <1992Oct8.163516.13378@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu> stclair@ldgo.columbia.edu (moanna stclair) writes:

>In article <1992Oct6.030654.2241@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>>Details:
>>I was recently disturbed by a headline that Denver's "biggest" newspaper,
>>the Rocky Mountain News, ran on the front page.  It had a picture of a
>>newly appointed judge to Colorado's Supreme Court, namely DU law professor
>>Gregory Scott, and his family.  Above the picture in large print it said
>>"Black named to high court".
>>
>The only time I think such a thing is necessary, is when they are trying
>to prove that  African-Americans are achieving some success despite the 
>odds.

Ah, but right here, you've already put up an assumption that there are odds.
I'm not saying they don't exist, no no no.   But when a *newspaper* says
or implies that these "odds" have been "beaten", it reinforces to everyone
that these odds exist.  In some sense, it *creates* these odds, it makes it
more difficult to beat them.

It was obvious from the picture what his skin color was.  Even if it wasn't,
I'll go all the way and say it STILL doesn't matter.  As you say about Jesse
Jackson, it is harmful to say/imply this judge is Black.  Even if it does say
"he beat some odds", it also says to everyone else "he only got it because
of his skin color".  THIS creates those odds.

If they just completely ignored his skin color, yes, it has the (I think
temporary) negative effect of not showing a "success against the odds" (which
might serve as, e.g., a role model for kids) but it has the far more damaging
long term effect of reinforcing the notion in society that skin color is more
than skin color.  If this simple bias were eliminated, then skin color wouldn't
make someone a role model or not; that person's accomplisments alone would be
the determining factor.

>For example, Jesse Jackson was the first African-American president
>of the U.S.  However, I do notice that most of the time it is used negatively
>Take for instance when Jesse Jackson was running for president during 
>the 1988 election.  I was going to school at Dartmouth College in N.H.
>and all I heard over and over again about Jackson was that he was the 
>"Black" presidential candidate.  It was almost as if they couldn't believe
>it or they wanted to make sure that everyone knew whose name to eliminate
>when they got into the poll booths.  I resent it because most of the time
>it is used by the media to group us into that infamous "they" category.  
>When was the last time you heard the media report that George Bush, the
>white candidate or "so & so, the white rapist" did or say whatever.  

Exactly my point!  Your hardly ever see the media mention the color of
the predominant skin color in the US.  They have to mention, though, if
there's something meaninglessly different about someone.  This is a very
bad thing.  It encourages others to do likewise.

It might even be well intentioned, but to me that would be "pity" or "charity".
I don't want someone offering me pity or charity, let alone based on something
meaningless like shoe size, skin color, blood type, etc.

The very act of mentioning something meaningless like this is just plain
insulting.

>I think that African-Americans are regarded as one big homogenous group
>while whites are viewed as individuals.

You've hit the nail on the head.  By avoiding the words that imply someone
is a group member rather than an individual we will make everyone treated as
individuals.

The whole point of naming a group is to refer to the commonality
shared by all members of that group.  This causes people to judge individuals
not as themselves, but based on how someone feels about the whole group.  This
is fine if the group is valid and all members share the same attributes (e.g.,
Prof. Scott and I are both "professors" and even "members of the faculty at
the University of Denver" (though I don't know him personally, BTW).  So if
there is something that implies that we share (e.g., I think it's fair to say
that "all" professors want to help educat students), then use my group
membership to draw that conclusion.  That we work for the same employer means,
well, we have the same boss; work in the same city; etc.  It doesn't mean
we share the same political views, feel the same about commercialism on the
Internet, etc.

My whole original point is that humans need to quit judging other humans on
irrelevant group memberships.  This won't be easy.  We need to get the media
to do this too, as that will start the snowball rolling.  (Though slowly, since
this is a snowball useful by its *absence* not presence; it'll take people
a long time to catch on that the media is no longer mentioning skin color, etc.
but the less they do it the less other people will too.)

>By the way, since there was
>a picture couldn't the readers tell he was African-American?

Yeah, and you know, it didn't even occur to me until just now that they
might have only used the picture because it showed that.  I didn't think about
that (this is a Good Thing) until just now, but I would hope they would have run
a picture of the new judge no matter what he looked like.  I will continue
to belive this, because that's how it *should* be.
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

      "And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american