August 02, 2009

Beerfests for racial understanding?

Tackling race, one beer at a time

Obama may be on to something--maybe throwing back a few with is the future of conflict resolution.

By Gregory Rodriguez
I'm not suggesting that Budweiser should sponsor a Middle East summit, but in the case of intra-national squabbles, which are essentially family squabbles--Henry Louis Gates Jr. and James Crowley actually share distant Irish ancestors--casual get-togethers might be more productive than formal "dialogue."

As simple as that sounds, it's actually heresy in the world of professional human relations, which is partial to statistics, mediation and the tit-for-tat airing of grievances. The other day, Yale University Press sent me the newly published report of President Clinton's 1997 Initiative on Race. It's full of really exciting bar graphs, testimony and legislative recommendations--the stuff of dialogue. I don't mean to be ungrateful or anything but, really, who's going to read that? And if they did, what exactly would it change?

Maybe it's because their paychecks depend on it, but there's still an entire cast and crew of academic and activist "race experts" who insist that if Americans of different backgrounds sit down together, it should be to air their historical grievances, not just to drink a beer. I don't agree. Is there anyone left who has not yet heard of slavery or Jim Crow or prejudice or discrimination? At this point in our history, progress is no longer about "educating" anyone except school kids about the past.

Nor will racial harmony be forged by race leaders and representatives speaking on behalf of millions of their fellow whatevers. In any racial "dialogue," the black man (or the white woman) automatically becomes a representative for the whole kit and caboodle. He is obliged to read from a script that he didn't necessarily write. By definition, to speak of race is to speak in generalizations. The individual is subsumed by the collective.

But isn't that the source of racial incidents in the first place? Isn't the very nature of prejudice the act of superimposing generally negative characteristics that one attributes to a group onto all members of that group? Isn't racism itself the act of stripping away someone's individuality?

Romantic as they were, the days in which collective action led to racial progress are long gone. The next step requires intimacy and individuals. We know that younger Americans are far more tolerant of each others' differences than their elders. We think that it's because they were raised in much more diverse environments. That tells us that it is everyday, routine contact with individuals of various backgrounds that helps erode the generalizations that serve as rationales for discrimination.

The lesson, then, is that we need to create more opportunities for mixed-race communication that isn't obligatory and isn't self-consciously about race. We're more likely to understand how race is lived by listening to one person's stories of his childhood and how he got his middle name, rather than studying the data on a cohort.
Comment:  Interesting take on the Professor Gates/Officer Crowley contretemps. And since it implicitly criticizes the approach I've taken here, worth discussing.

First, there's Rodriguez's claim about education: "Is there anyone left who has not yet heard of slavery or Jim Crow or prejudice or discrimination?" Most people have heard of these things--although I bet they'd fumble the term "Jim Crow." But how many truly understand them? How many think anything deeper than, "Oh, racism is something that used to happen. But now we've elected a black man president, so it's over."

We know that many Americans are woefully ignorant about Indians. I haven't seen an opinion poll, but I bet most Americans know more about the stereotypes (savages, teepees, chiefs, etc.) than the reality. Even those who should know better, like the German "hobbyists" who supposedly love Indians, focus on the past. People still need a lot of education on this subject.

Second, Rodriguez claims the current generation has learned about race "because they were raised in much more diverse environments." A big part of this environment are the ongoing efforts to educate people. Schools have upgraded their curricula significantly since I was young. Many movies and TV shows try to include minorities and portray them accurately. And so forth and so on.

I'm sure there's more racial mixing on a personal level too. But Rodriguez is deluding himself if he thinks most Americans have met Indians and learned to accept them in person. The majority of people's exposure to Indians still comes through the media.

No need for collective action?

Rodriguez claims "the days in which collective action led to racial progress are long gone." Maybe, but there's no evidence of that. All we know is that the collective approach successfully put women and minorities on the map in the 1960s and 1970s. If it worked once, it can work again.

Nor is there any evidence that the "beerfest" approach works better--or works, period. Will Officer Crowley be more sensitive the next time he meets Professor Gates? Will he be more sensitive to Gates but treat other blacks the way he treated Gates? We don't know and we probably won't find out.

I think more is going on here than simply one approach vs. another. Some places and institutions (e.g., the military) are well-integrated and don't seem to have racial problems. Other places and institutions (e.g., the police) are well-integrated but still seem to have problems. When a police profiling or beating or shooting incident occurs, minority cops are likely to be involved too. Working side by side with these cops hasn't ended the police's "us vs. them" mentality.

We've heard stories about how bad Rapid City is. How is that possible if 10% or whatever of its population is Native--if whites and Indians live and work together in close proximity? If Rodriguez were right, Rapid City would be the least racist place in America, not the most racist.

We're back to educating people about others, not just exposing them to others. I think police officers, teachers, social workers, doctors--i.e., people in public positions--still go through diversity training. Why is that necessary if seeing and meeting people is enough? Answer: Because it isn't enough.

Cyber-beerfest

Despite these comments, I'm all in favor of the "beerfest" approach. I like the idea of kids meeting real Indians in class, for instance. As long as the presentations are authentic and not stereotypical, I think they help.

That's part of what I'm doing here: a cyberspace version of the "beerfest" approach. I'm quoting Native writers who tell their own stories, and Natives are commenting on these stories. In the privacy of our homes, we're essentially sitting around and chatting with Indians about Indians.

I'm also encouraging people to see and read things that portray Natives authentically. Seeing an accurate portrayal isn't quite the same as sitting down and breaking bread with an Indian, but it also isn't a harangue on genocide and broken treaties. It's a mix of exposure and education.

Of course, it's impossible to have everyone meet with everyone else. We educate people through schools and the media precisely because we can't educate everyone one-on-one. The remote approach is a necessity in our vast, sprawling culture.

Conclusion

As I always say, my bottom line is "whatever works." If someone could prove my blogging had no effect, I'd probably give it up. I'd switch to arranging coffee klatsches between Indians and non-Indians. But only if someone could prove that approach works.

I think we need both approaches. In fact, I think we need a whole range of approaches--especially since people learn in different ways. I say let's keep trying every approach until 1) there's proof that only one approach works, or 2) our racial problems disappear.

For more on the subject, see "Birthers" = Scared White People and Highlights of the US Report to the UN on Racism.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

While racism is still evident everywhere. The idea that the "younger generation is more tolerant" actually depends on the demographic location in which they live. For instance, the upper-middle communities which comprises mainly of white folks whose public school has a higher percentage of whites who attend there, will still harbor the same racial notions as their parents/grandparents. Partly due to the lack social interaction with non-whites(and indians alike). So the racial stereotypes stays alive.

While its true in general that younger people are indeed more tolerant(and I have seen this first hand) of their peers despite their skin color. I, myself was a skateboarder while living in SLC and Ut County back in the mid to late 90's. And our circle of friends was far more diverse and racially acceptance of one another as opposed to street gangs, punks, skinheads and rednecks etc. whose members usually comprises of the same race. In the meantime as the article points out that we are hearing horrble racisms in Rapid City, we won't be seeing the total eradication of racism anytime soon. Nevermind the retarded belief that we have a Black president in office doesn't mean racism no longer exist.

GENO--

dmarks said...

Good comment.

Stephen said...

"How many think anything deeper than, "Oh, racism is something that used to happen. But now we've elected a black man president, so it's over."

While it's extremely naive to assume that just because Obama won that racism suddenly vanished his election proves that America is not a country dominated by racism, could the same be said of the UK or other countries? Especially in light of the hate crimes on minorities in Belfast? (Of course there's hilarious and stomach churning hypocrisy of Martin McGuinness of all people lecturing about 'inhumanity'.)

"We know that many Americans are woefully ignorant about Indians."

I'm not so sure, the Indian genocide is widely excepted and denied mostly by a few neocons here and there, not to mention I think the popularity of Tony Hillerman's novels show that most Americans do not think of Indians as relics of the past.

"I haven't seen an opinion poll, but I bet most Americans know more about the stereotypes (savages, teepees, chiefs, etc.) than the reality."

Another example of your anti-American prejudice.

"But Rodriguez is deluding himself if he thinks most Americans have met Indians and learned to accept them in person. The majority of people's exposure to Indians still comes through the media."

Good point.

"Other places and institutions (e.g., the police) are well-integrated but still seem to have problems. When a police profiling or beating or shooting incident occurs, minority cops are likely to be involved too."

I think has more to do with the sad and simple fact that power corrupts even the slightest bit of it. While I know quite a few cops who don't fit the 'pig' stereotype law enforcements obviously attracts people who's interests are not exactly altruistic.

"I'm also encouraging people to see and read things that portray Natives authentically. Seeing an accurate portrayal isn't quite the same as sitting down and breaking bread with an Indian, but it also isn't a harangue on genocide and broken treaties. It's a mix of exposure and education."

Excellent idea.

Anonymous said...

When he meant that "many Americans are woefully ignorant about Indians." He simply was referring to the popular stereotypes percieved on Indians by the general public/audience. The "GENO"cidal impact on Indigenous peoples is an unrelated subject and has nothing to do with racial stereotypes. Sure, everybody knows about the "GENO"cide of American Indians, then again its irrelevent. Define stereotypes and you will know what we mean. You exemply our point when we mean "woefully ignorant". It has nothing to do with Tony Hillerman's novels. That would be reminiscent of watching hollywood movies to learn about the authenticity of Indians.
Speaking of authentic, another way to see Indians "authentically" is by visiting the annual pow wows, which BTW, is the closest thing in seeing real Indians in person. Most cities/towns hold such events which is open to the public. But for some odd reason, most Americans refuse to learn that Indians are not what they see in the movies--hence the stereotyping.

GENO--

dmarks said...

Stephen said: "I'm not so sure, the Indian genocide is widely excepted and denied mostly by a few neocons here and there"

Are you really so sure that Indian holocaust denial is found mainly among the few/rare "neocons" ?

Let's see the main example of such denial:

"Rush Limbaugh, "There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?" (Told You So, p. 68)"

Limbaugh, for better or worse, is a mainstream conservative. Not a neo-anything. Where are some of the worst comments concerning Natives found in mainstream political culture? Pat Buchanan. Even though he is largely splintered from regular "conservativism", he too is not a "neocon", and fears the neocons he sees under his bed at night.

(As an aside on Limbaugh's comment. Using his logic, once the population of European Jews exceeds the pre-Hitler level, in some future century, it would logically follow that the Holocaust did not occur).

Geno: Yes, there are plenty of modern stereotypes of Natives. Not just the persistant ones from the heydey of the Hollywood western and before, but newer ones. Such as the idea that Indians are all lazy casino millionaires who don't pay taxes.

Anonymous said...

Also, the stereotypical assumption that we all get paid from the casinos.
You're right, DMarks. I also recall Donald Trump made some referrentail stereotypes regarding Indian Casinos in which he was competing with if memory serves me correctly.

GENO--

Stephen said...

"Limbaugh, for better or worse, is a mainstream conservative. Not a neo-anything. Where are some of the worst comments concerning Natives found in mainstream political culture? Pat Buchanan. Even though he is largely splintered from regular "conservativism", he too is not a "neocon", and fears the neocons he sees under his bed at night."

By neocon I meant conservative, I thought conservative and neocon meant the same thing.

Stephen said...

Oh yeah and Limbaugh's population 'argument' has also been used by scum who deny the Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides.

Stephen said...

"He simply was referring to the popular stereotypes percieved on Indians by the general public/audience."

Just because stereotypes exist doesn't mean the majority of American believe them.

"You exemply our point when we mean "woefully ignorant". It has nothing to do with Tony Hillerman's novels."

The popularity of his novels show that a great deal of people don't see Indians as 'primitive people of the past'.

"That would be reminiscent of watching hollywood movies to learn about the authenticity of Indians."

That's not my point, if the majority of Americans held streotypical views Hillerman's accurate novels wouldn't be so popular, after all why would someone who sees Indians as one dimensional stereotypical plains 'savages' buy one of Tony's novels?

"Speaking of authentic, another way to see Indians "authentically" is by visiting the annual pow wows, which BTW, is the closest thing in seeing real Indians in person. Most cities/towns hold such events which is open to the public. But for some odd reason, most Americans refuse to learn that Indians are not what they see in the movies--hence the stereotyping."

While I don't visit such events (I'm not really interested in the various Native cultures, currently I'm 'obsessed' with the history and cultures of the Balkans) I'm well aware of powwows.