Home / Archives / Race/Ethnicity Questions 571-580

Race/Ethnicity Questions 571-580

THE QUESTION:
R580: Why is it that if a black person says that they only want to date black people, they are showing racial pride, but if a white person says they only want to date white people, they are racist?
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
Hayley, 28, white, straight, Chicago, IL

ANSWER 1:
For the same reason that if whites organize, they are racists or supremacists, but La Raza or the Nation of Islam are not racist. And for the same reasons that only whites are charged with hate crimes, even though studies show whites commit only 50 percent of racially motivated assaults. Also, for the same reasons that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not take seriously charges of reverse discrimination. I believe it’s double standards.
POSTED JAN. 27, 1999
Dave, Angry White Male, straight, 35, San Francisco , CA

FURTHER NOTICE:
I’m not sure I can agree with that response. When white people date only people who share their interests and background, both ethnic and class-based, they are being ethno-centered and possibly snobbish, but not necessarily racist. When white people have a preconceived notion that no black person can possibly be worthy of marriage, that’s racist. One reason I primarily date black men is that I don’t have to explain certain things to them about complexion, history, oppression, hair … it’s a long list. Also, I don’t have to educate them about certain realities of racism that our children will face, just by virtue of living in the United States. It’s not that I perceive black men as “superior.” I just assume they have a better understanding of how history has shaped me, and that’s part of what I want in a mate. Someday, a white man may come along whom I would marry. I haven’t ruled it out. But I think he would have a harder time bridging the “understanding” gap that I consider important in a mate.

Some black people have very race-related reasons for their views against interracial marriage. Some still feel very violated by the continued racism in society and see whites as “the enemy,” either by their actions, or simply by their position of privilege (this position of privilege isn’t always obvious to white people). Given the history of our country and the prevalent attitudes toward black people, which have only really started changing in the last 30 years, I have difficulty calling this “racist,” as in “one race is superior to another.”
POSTED FEB. 28, 1999
Lauren, 35, black female, Reading, MA

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
To Dave: I argue that none of the “double standards” you claim exist actually do. The Nation of Islam is seen as racist by most people, including many non-whites like myself. As for their support among blacks, I think it is mostly confined to the Northeast, where the traditional black churches are far weaker. There are also many blacks who support the Nation of Islam in spite of its racism, simply because they can often get things done. Non-whites can and have been charged and convicted of hate crimes, both of whites and other non-whites. Including whites under the hate crimes laws was not even controversial at the time it was passed. Only the inclusion of gays was. Finally, the EEOC does prosecute cases of discrimination against whites. In fact, during the Reagan-Bush years, there were complaints that they almost entirely focused on “reverse discrimination.” I think you should admit your anger is misplaced, ignorant, even hateful.
POSTED MARCH 9, 1999
A.C.C., Mexican and American Indian, San Antonio , TX
To respond
BACK TO TOP


THE QUESTION:
R579: Why are white people expected to “pay” for their ancestors’ stupidity?
POSTED JAN. 12, 1999
Wendy W., female <elninnie@aol.com>, Nassau, NY

ANSWER 1:
Because, even after all these years, you are benefitting from your ancestors’ stupidity.
POSTED JAN. 13, 1999
Gelong, black female, 37 <gelong@usa.net>,Chicago, IL

FURTHER NOTICE:
It is unreasonable for anyone to have to “pay” for the transgressions of ancestors (this is just the “sins of the father” nonsense); authority and responsibility must go hand in hand. This is not to say that property stolen by an ancestor should not be returned to the estate of the victim, or that damages cannot be levied against the estate of the perpetrator, but the onus is on the victim (or his heirs) to convince an impartial judicial body that specific property or specific damages are warranted on a case-by-case basis; the concept of “blanket compensation” to any group of people based solely on racial grounds is irrational and immoral. Granted, the more time that passes between the alleged crime and subsequent reparations, the harder it becomes to assess guilt, to the point of becoming virtually impossible. The alternative perspective, however, that “some of your great grandfathers owned some of our great grandfathers, therefore you all owe us money” is patently wrong.
POSTED JAN. 19, 1999
Jeff E., white male, Redondo Beach, CA

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Not only am I not benefiting from my ancestors’ stupidity, I am still seeing it redefine itself so it can hurt other Americans. Racial discrimination is alive and well in America. However, it now has enlarged its appitite to includeanyone who is not white, male, Baptist, heterosexual, Anglo, Harvard-educated and native born. The good part about this is these factors are now noticable because Americans in general are speaking out against them. Think about it: Racial discrimination rose to new heights in America when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. started educating Americans about the stupidity of bigotry. That’s when change started to take place. You can’t have change without confrontation. If I were reaping the benefits of my ancestors’ stupidity, I wouldnt have a bachelor’s degree and still be stuck in a clerk’s job and having my tires slashed because I didn’t respond to a man’s sexual advanaces.
POSTED JAN. 19, 1999
Alma, white lesbian <pridewks@seacove.net>, Kempner , TX

FURTHER NOTICE 3:
To Gelong: I have asked this question of others, so I am looking for other opinions and thoughts on the following (related to what you have said): 1) What are the ways in which white people today benefit from the stupidity of their ancestors (or the ancestors of other white people)? 2) How can white people today cease to benefit from that stupidity, or rather, how can white people go about avoiding these benefits, many of which they do not want? and 3) When will white people have finally “paid” this debt in full, and who gets to decide when that time has come? (Please, anyone jump in here.)
POSTED JAN. 19, 1999
John K., 25 <the-macs@geocities.com>, Cranford , NJ

FURTHER NOTICE 4:
I have a master’s degree, yet work for whites still working on their bachelor’s; I have more than 15 years’ experience in my field, yet make less ($10,000 to $15,000) than the last two new (and less experienced) white hires in my office; I have spoken with Realtors over the phone regarding looking at listed properties, yet when I arrive for my appointment suddenly nothing is available and “they made a mistake”; and just last week, I was called a nigger by a teenager working in his father’s garage (a nationwide franchise, no less), and when I complained was told by his father “Don’t come back – we don’t care to wait on your kind, anyway.”

Which of you can state that these are things you have do deal with on a daily basis? When I and others who look like me no longer have to deal with indignities such as these, the debt will be paid.
POSTED JAN. 20, 1999
Gelong, black female, 37 <gelong@usa.net>, Chicago, IL

FURTHER NOTICE 5:
To Gelong: Try being an overweight white female and see what happens to you. People think you are a slob, undisciplined and generally not worthy of anything but ridicule. I bet when you walk by a crowd, no one calls you “nigger,” but people think nothing of shouting insults and making animal noises when a heavy white female walks by. You think you have it bad? Try it from my side of the fence and see how you like it. Any other overweight white females agree?
POSTED JAN. 27, 1999
H.D., 44, Big Beautiful Woman, white, Cleveland, OH

FURTHER NOTICE 6:
Only overweight white females are targets of ignorance? I can imagine that makes many overweight black females breathe so much easier. Also, size can be changed – my skin color cannot.
POSTED JAN. 28, 1999
Gelong, black female, 37 <gelong@usa.net>, Chicago, IL
To respond
BACK TO TOP


THE QUESTION:
R578: Is it true that black families are not allowed to adopt other ethnic groups (i.e. Caucasian, Japanese, etc.), but Caucasians are allowed to adopt any race regardless?
POSTED JAN. 11, 1999
Shalonda L., female <adnolahs@umh.hfs>, Westland MI

ANSWER 1:
No, it’s not exactly true. I think adoption guidelines vary somewhat from state to state, but I think most states have a policy that they would prefer to place children with families of the same race, but that they will not delay or prevent the adoption of a child because a family of the same race cannot be found. So if for instance a black family and a white family both wanted to adopt a black child, the black family would be preferred, but if there was no black family available, the child could be adopted by a white family. In theory the reverse would also be true if the child were white. However, there are many more black children available for adoption than there are black families able to adopt them, and many fewer white children available than there are white families looking to adopt, due to the economic injustice and institutional racism in our society. (I don’t know how it is for Asian and Latino children and families.) So the end result is that you sometimes see white families that have adopted black children, but not vice versa.
POSTED JAN. 18, 1999
S.W., Berkeley, CA
To respond
BACK TO TOP


THE QUESTION:
R577: A single black man from New York recently moved into a house on our middle-class cul-de-sac. He may be from a foreign country, though I’m not sure. We have driveways averaging about 75 to 100 feet long. He has taken to parking his car so that it faces outward at the very end of the driveway, so that the front end almost touches the road. Why would he park his car so far from his house, instead of in or near the garage? And why is it bothering me?
POSTED JAN. 7, 1999
P., white, Florida

ANSWER 1:
I find that with immigrants, any difference in behavior grates on me, even if it is insignificant, like the example you gave. I think this is because people expect conformity from those around them, and are disturbed when they see nonconformity, especially in “suspicious” (ethnically different) individuals. I think this is why the non-conformity you saw bothers you.
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
Mark S., 30, white male <xsites@aol.com>, Houston , TX

FURTHER NOTICE:
Clearly, he parked there to avoid digging out (he used to live in New York). In the Northeast, we all park at the ends of our driveways to avoid having to shovel out after a snow storm. Hope this helps.
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
Monica, female, Needham, MA

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Why don’t you ask him why he does this, rather than defer the question to faceless masses? Would it be that difficult to ask a civil question of someone of a race other than your own?
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
G. Long, 37, black female <gelong@usa.net>, Chicago, IL

FURTHER NOTICE 3:
I agree with the “digging out” response – living with snowy winters makes us do funny things. Also, he may be trying to park away from the house to avoid waking his family up when he starts the car in the morning.
POSTED JAN. 18, 1999
M.W.F., Boston MA

FURTHER NOTICE 4:
My guess is that this person is tyring to prohibit other cars from entering or parking in his driveway – who knows?
POSTED JAN. 18, 1999
Pas <fordson85@aol.com>, Dearborn , MI

FURTHER NOTICE 5:
To G. Long: It is not that easy. Other black women I’ve known have requested that whites “Don’t ask us things like ‘what we put in our hair’.” It’s confusing, because different individuals have different views about what bothers them. So some black people I’ve met would have been offended or annoyed if I asked them why they parked their car there. Most of us want to get along, but we just don’t always understand each other. I guess the best thing is for a person to be open-minded and tolerant of differences, and at the same time be tolerant of those who may be curious about her/her own differences. These kinds of things wouldn’t be a problem if we worked together and trusted each other more.
POSTED JAN. 18, 1999
Matt, 24, white male <mchurch97@hotmail.com>, New York, NY

FURTHER NOTICE 6:
To Matt: Yes, it is that easy if you approach people with intelligence and respect. Commenting on someone’s physical appearance is one thing; asking them something about an inanimate object they own is completely different. While I would not tolerate an insulting or ignorant question regarding what I put in my hair (what benefit do you get out of knowing), I would readily respond to a question regarding how I parked my car because 1) it is an inanimate object, and 2) for all I know I could be blocking a sewer, and discussing your question could point this out to me.
POSTED JAN. 20, 1999
G. Long, 37, black female <gelong@usa.net>, Chicago , IL
To respond
BACK TO TOP


THE QUESTION:
R576: As the Caucasian mother of a wonderful little girl adopted from China, I’m curious about how the Chinese community feels about these foreign adoptions, as well as the issue of abandonment of infants in China.
POSTED JAN. 7, 1999
Dianne, female janl@sympatico.ca>, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

ANSWER 1:
I am the youngest of four sons of Chinese immigrants. I’ve always felt like an outside observer of both the Chinese and American cultures. As far as I can tell, your little girl will be seen as “privileged” because you will be seen as her network into mainstream America. If there is any tongue-clucking, it will be out of jealousy. At the prospect of being an outsider of two cultures, your little girl will choose to do one of two things: Reject both cultures, or embrace both. Choosing one culture alone may be an option, but I don’t see it. If she chooses to embrace both, learning Chinese as a language will help her. Believe it or not, mainstream American culture will be more accepting of her if she knows Chinese than if she doesn’t. (I can only assume the same is true across the border.) As to the question of abandonment, well, in homogenous communities (with little diversity), in general, some practices are more accepted because they know people who have done it. Or some practices are seen with suspicion, because they don’t know anyone in their community who is doing it. As far as I know, there is no Chinese word for “privacy.” Imagine the effect this has on respect for individuality.
POSTED JAN. 8, 1999
Mike, 29, Chinese, male <leungm@ix.netcom.com>, Minneapolis, MN

FURTHER NOTICE:
I think most Chinese Americans or Asian Americans don’t really think about it On the other hand, I would say most native Chinese or other Asians (i.e. Koreans) feel shame that so many young babies are unable to find homes in their native countries. As someone with many Asian adoptee friends, I think it’s great that kids who otherwise wouldn’t have a home are able to placed with families in the United States. I am offended by the first reply and his assertion that Asian adoptees with white parents would somehow have a “privileged” position in mainstream society. Perhaps he takes that view as a result of growing up in Minnesota. Regardless, his comments show that there’s no such thing as the Asian or Chinese “community” – like there’s no such thing as the “white community.”
POSTED JAN. 12, 1999
Ray, 24, Asian American <yangban@erols.com>, Washington , DC

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
As an adopted minority, I will tell that regardless of how “privileged” other Chinese people may find your daughter, many will view her as an outsider, for she will be completely unfamiliar with the culture she was meant to grow up in . My parents run an adoption agency that focuses on foreign adoptions, and it’s really sad to see children of color placed with white families. These children will most likely become brainwashed by Anglo values and culture.
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
Miguel, 22, Chicano <btool@edgewood.edu>, Madison, WI

FURTHER NOTICE 3:
To Ray: Had I asserted that Asian adoptees with white parents are privileged, I would understand your offense. I am confused, however, because I didn’t say that. I’m wondering if it was my reply that you read. Perhaps you thought this because you thought I had grown up in Minnesota. I am confused, again, how you could think this, since I grew up in New Jersey, went to college in New York City and did four years in the military stationed in Nebraska, before moving to Minnesota. Is there something you want to say about the constituency of Minnesota? By the way, even in Nebraska I get asked if I speak Chinese when I walk into a Chinese restaurant. How do you avoid the Chinese community in a major metropolis like Washington, DC?
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
Mike, 29, Chinese male <leungm@ix.netcom.com>, Minneapolis, MN

FURTHER NOTICE 4:
As a second-generation Asian-American, I think that as long as you are raising your adopted child in a loving and nurturing environment, more power to you. If you haven’t started yet, you may wish to gather information about the Chinese culture so you’ll be able to educate your child if she starts to question/wonder about her roots.

I am saddened by the abandonment of children in China. I believe it is mainly caused by the cultural pressure of having a male child as the first-born. Another factor would be the Chinese government restricting families to having only one child. It is the combination of these two factors that cause a very unfortunate situation for a lot of Chinese children. I’m happy to find that you are opening your heart to raising a child from a different culture. I see it as a wonderful opportunity for both of you to learn from each other.
POSTED JAN. 28, 1999
Victor, Chinese-American, 34, male, San Francisco , CA
To respond
BACK TO TOP


THE QUESTION:
R575: Why do black people like to wear hockey jerseys? Hockey is a sport with more white fans than black. In fact, when my uncle, who is white, a hockey player and the son of a Canadian (where hockey is the national sport) wears a hockey jersey, some black people accuse him of wanting to be black. Why is that?
POSTED JAN. 6, 1999
Hayley, white, 28, straight, Chicago, IL

ANSWER 1:
Many African Americans wear them just as a fashion statement. That’s it. If you wear a cowboy hat, does that mean you should immediately jump on a horse and ride off into the sunset? Clothes are just clothes. I’ve seen short, heavy overweight guys wearing basketball jerseys. Everyone knows that all basketball players are tall and slender, right? Also, remember there have been black professional hockey players as far back as the early 1900s. The first black to break through to the NHL, Willie O’Ree, played for the Boston Bruins and is still alive, teaching the sport to inner-city kids. And there are more black hockey players than ever right now (you’ve probably seen a few). And I myself used to watch Blackhawk games on closed-circuit at a local movie theater (thanks to cheap owner Bill Wirtz). I am very familiar with the sport and played it a little with my friends when we were kids. So don’t assume that blacks know nothing about hockey and that it is a “white sport.” And remember, clothes are just clothes.
POSTED FEB. 3, 1999
Ken G., African American <KennyG9@yahoo.com>, Chicago , Il
To respond
BACK TO TOP


THE QUESTION:
R574: When speaking with friends about where I like to go in Atlanta, I find them asking frequently, “But isn’t that an unsafe neighborhood?” or “Oh, that’s not safe at night, is it?” They have also made comments about various neighborhoods and places they avoid because of “crime.” I know these neighborhoods are not nearly as dangerous as my friends think. The only thing that sets them apart from “safe” neighborhoods is that they’re predominantly black. I know that if these same neighborhoods and places were predominantly white, my friends would think they were fine. Why do people think like this?
POSTED JAN. 5, 1999
Wendy, 24, white, bisexual <wiebke@juno.com>, Atlanta, GA

ANSWER 1:
People assume that black areas are bound to be bad neighborhoods due to the way they tend to be portrayed in media coverage. The media tend to focus on many “black” cases, and so this creates a smokescreen for us to see, and we assume by this that all black people are bad. Although it is a fact proven by many sociologists that white people tend to commit as many and if not more crimes, if you have noticed (at least in England), the cases that are shown on the news are of average crimes commited by whites and one bad crime commited by a black person. This all leadsus to believe blacks are worse than the rest of us.
POSTED JAN. 13, 1999
Laura S., female, 17, sociology student, Kent, UK

FURTHER NOTICE:
Prejudice, stereotyping, media hype and hysteria.
POSTED JAN. 13, 1999
A.A.W., 42, black female <ANABWI@aol.com>, Plantation, FL

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I can tell you from firsthand experience that your friends are right more often than not. I have lived all over Atlanta, including several neighborhoods that your friends might consider “not safe.” These include Midtown, Grant Park, Cabbagetown and East Atlanta/Kirkwood. My house was broken into in Midtown, Grant Park and Cabbagetown (three times in four months). I have dealt with threatening encounters from strangers (mostly homeless people) in all of these neighborhoods. My good friend was shot (he survived) at a Christmas party in Grant Park. This was a random act of violence the police attributed to “a gang initiation.” Intown neighborhoods are not safe, plain and simple. Crime can happen anywhere, but there are some areas where it is more likely to occur. Unfortunately, Intown neighborhoods tend to fit this profile.
POSTED JAN. 13, 1999
K.L., 32 <frankblack@geocities.com>, Atlanta , GA

FURTHER NOTICE 3:
Are we really so afraid of the truth that we can’t admit that some neighborhoods are more dangerous than others? Some ethnic neighborhoods are full of crime and criminals. Let’s just admit that the minority of troublemakers from any race cause bad press for the rest of us. When thugs and gangstas are glorified and tolerated, we all lose.
POSTED JAN. 27, 1999
Nick C., white male, 46 <nickc@surfsouth.com>, Lagrange, GA
To respond
BACK TO TOP


THE QUESTION:
R573: Is there a sentiment among the majority of white people that blacks should go back to Africa or other countries where blacks are the dominant race?
POSTED JAN. 5, 1999
Marc S., 24, black male, Kingston, Jamaica

ANSWER 1:
I don’t think most white people think black people should go back to Africa. I think there is so much discrimination on both sides of the race issue that a lot of people I have read about and seen and talked with feel it would be better to separate the races. I think we have made big strides on the race issue, but that we need to continue the dialogue.

I also see black people calling “discrimination” at every little thing. I think there is discrimination, but not at simple things. For example, my mother owns an apartment building and rented to a black couple. She had to call the woman every month to get her rent. Then there were some flooding problems in the basements of the building, and my mom would call her so we could get in there to fix it. The woman gave my mom such a problem that my mom asked her to leave. The woman said my mom was discriminating against her. My mom said, “No I am not, but you are discriminating against me.” I do not know if we can ever get past all this discrimination talk.
POSTED JAN. 7, 1999
Kelly, female, OH
To respond
BACK TO TOP


THE QUESTION:
R572: To blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, gays, Jews and other members of minority groups: Do you see a trend toward being post-black, post-gay, post-whatever? By “post,” I mean feeling less emotional energy around your diversity group and having more focus on your individuality.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
B. Hale, 43, straight white Protestant male <halehart@aol.com>, Hartford, CT

ANSWER 1:
I think being “post-whatever” is unlikely to happen until that particular minority is truly accepted by dominant, mainstream society. And even after a group is accepted – if that Utopia comes to pass – it’s still proper to stay in touch with your roots.
POSTED JAN. 5, 1999
Andrew, 35, Jewish <ziptron@start.com.au>, Huntington, NY

FURTHER NOTICE:
I think you’re using “post-black” in the same sense as in “post-feminism.” In my experience, these are really different things. Being multi-ethnic is an intrinsic part of my individuality, and has always been. Feminism is a rational choice that I made for myself. I don’t necessarily focus on myself as “the multi-ethnic woman, Janon”; I focus on myself as “Janon, a woman who is multi-ethnic.” I think (although obviously I can’t speak for everyone in any of these groups) that most of the “minorities” you mentioned would feel the same way. If this is what you meant, then I don’t feel that there’s any trend one way or the other – this is how I have always felt. Do you think of yourself first as white, or do you think of yourself first as B. Hale?
POSTED JAN. 5, 1999
Janon, 38, multi-ethnic <janon_rogers@hp.com>, Lebanon, OR

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I think the question you ask is brimming with Americanness. (That’s not intended as an insult, just an observation). Many Americans, especially white ones, subscribe heavily to the American ideology of individualism, and reject the notion that individuals are affected powerfully by their cultural identities of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual identity, etc. Furthermore, many white Americans lack the awareness that categories such as white, male, heterosexual, Christian, etc. are cultural identities as well. White people are as affected by their race as are people of color; men as are as affected by their gender as are women, etc. It seems to me that people who lack an awareness of their own cultural identities often do not understand the “emotional investment” people have in their minority cultural identities. They want people to act as “individuals” who are presumably as void of cultural identity as they themselves imagine themselves to be.
POSTED JAN. 5, 1999
Rhiannon, 28, white Jewish heterosexual female <rock0048@tc.umn.edu>, Minneapolis , MN

FURTHER NOTICE 3:
I’d prefer to be “post-Asian” and focus on my individuality, but it’s tough to do when the rest of society prejudges me on the basis of my race. Because I’m Asian American, many white Americans I encounter seem to assume that my English is poor, that I am foreign and exotic, etc. – regardless of who I truly am or would like to be. These “little” annoyances (like having gas station attendants speak extra slo-o-o-wlly to you because they think you won’t understand, being constantly stared at every time you leave a major city, or being continually asked which country you are from, when you are in fact from the United States) over a lifetime begin to add up, bit by bit, until they become a major chip on the shoulder. At this point, you realize that no matter how much of an individual you are on the inside, you will never escape what you look like on the outside. Yes, I’d like to be “post-Asian,” because that for me means being able to live like any normal white person in America: As an individual.
POSTED JAN. 5, 1999
Ray, 24, Asian American <yangban@erols.com>, Washington, DC

FURTHER NOTICE 4:
On the contrary – I am experiencing a huge resurgence of ethnic (Jewish) identity, because as individuals that’s a huge part of where our values come from. And I don’t want to be a whitebread American. I do not share the values of football, money and world domination through marketing Coca Cola.
POSTED JAN. 7, 1999
E.M. <magidson@ties.k12.mn.us>, St. Paul, MN

FURTHER NOTICE 5:
I don’t see a trend toward using the term “post-something” other than as a linear time reference point (i.e. post-World War II baby boom, post-Title IX sports, etc.). Since most diversity references are more an innate attribute, rather than something to “get past,” I don’t imagine that term would be an accurate one, even for those wishing strongly to assimilate into the majority culture. Particularly in the “post-gay” example, with all the controversy and hype regarding the so-called “ex-gay” movement, the term “post-gay” would be highly suspect and unpopular. Although I was married for 18 years, I do not think of myself as “post-heterosexual.”

Most people likely see themselves first as individuals, and then as mixtures of various diversity attributes. Which attribute carries more emotional weight is likely to vary both by group, individual and even daily within one person. For example, gay white people tend to list sexual orientation first while black gay people tend to list race first when using both terms to describe themselves. While I often identify in my Y? Forum postings with the terms white, lesbian, feminist, engineer, mother or biker, depending on relevance to the question, my strongest individual identity and the one that most strongly shapes my overall view of life is that of woman. One day one attribute may carry more emotional weight than another simply because of circumstances or the day’s events. But all the attributes combined are what help to make me uniquely me.
POSTED JAN. 12, 1999
DykeOnByke, 48, woman <DykeOnByke@aol.com>, Southfield , MI
To respond
BACK TO TOP


THE QUESTION:
R571: As a naive youngster, I wonder: How did the White Man achieve his supremacy in society? Greed? Avarice? Brilliance? A likely combination of these qualities?
POSTED DEC. 30, 1998
R. Wagner, 21, Mendoza, Argentina

ANSWER 1:
Science can easily show us that white people are essentially no different from non-white people, so it must have something to do with cultural influence. If you trace history, you can see that just about every type of culture had its own empire. That empire could only grow so large before it started to fall apart. The only one to really outlive its own existence is the Roman Empire. Why? It comes out of the union between the Roman Empire and Christianity. After that union, the Christian movement became far more organized and political. The mandate of the Church required that any non-Christian peoples must be shown the truth of Christ. The method used for centuries was conversion by conquest. Education, which allowed for the advancement of weapons technology, was reserved for believers. So the predominantly white Europeans would have the benefit of more efficient weapons: Better swords and defenses, as well as the missionary system. Part of the missionary system, as evidenced in Ireland and Scotland, was to supplant the existing culture with the Romanized Christian culture. The Church provided a binding force that allowed the continually warring nations of Europe to still act as though it were an empire. The only other unified forces that could stand up to the white European power, the Chinese and Ottoman empires, were either too far away or roughly equal in power. These early methods of the Church provided an example that later became the “manifest destiny” of the European nations that spread colonialism throughout the world. This may be a more complicated answer than you were expecting, but even this is a simplification of the issue.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
John K., 25 <the-macs@geocities.com>, Cranford, NJ

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
You like to ask sweeping questions! My guess: 1) Technological accident: Whites’ invention of guns and reliable modes of water transportation placed us in an advantageous strategic position. 2) Microorganisms: For reasons I think are understood (but not by me), European germs were horrifyingly good at killing non-Europeans, but not vice-versa. North and South America, Polynesia, etc. were wiped out, not by European guns so much as the horrible plagues of measles, smallpox and other diseases imported by the conquerors, which in many lands killed upwards of 90 percent of the local people. 3) Religious and cultural intolerance (ethnocentrism): The Christian mindset led to a belief that all Others were inferior (surprisingly this is not a universal belief), and so they had to be subjugated (or “saved,” if the conqueror wanted to think kindly of himself). Similarly, European ways of knowledge and thought were elevated to an artificial superiority, making all other peoples “savages” to the European mind. Since Euros were “the only important people,” they could imagine that they were “discovering,” and thus laying claim to land that had been occupied for millennia. Put all this together, and you have a world-traveling culture that simply overruns the world, kills off the local people, takes ownership of all they survey as if they had a right to it, and cart all the wealth back to the Motherland, thereby vastly increasing their wealth and power. It only takes a couple of centuries to create an incredible mess this way!
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
Will H., Euro-American <tccwill@flash.net>, Dallas , TX

FURTHER NOTICE 3:
“White Man”‘ achieved “supremacy” because Europe was historically the most overpopulated continent in the world. This led to the colonization of other continents, and to frequent wars. Europe’s fertile soils and healthy climate led to population growth (in most of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, most areas are afflicted with diseases that prevent draft animals from surviving, so agriculture was always handicapped). China is similar to Europe in that it has fertile soils and healthy climate, but China always lacked any type of significant enemies. Because of this, China lagged behind Europe militarily. And Europe possessed good harbors and was surrounded by sea, and cut off by hostile Muslim states on land, so Europeans took to the sea in order to trade directly with the east Indies, and to set up colonies. So in military, agricultural and maritime technology, Western Europe was always ahead. Today, we see non-European countries such as Japan having economic power. But non-white nations are still handicapped by the same problems faced for centuries: Poor soil, unhealthy climatesand the fact that these countries missed out on earlier developement.
J. Carter, black male student, 18

FURTHER NOTICE 4:
As a white man, I wish I had half of the power and control over the world that some minorities would like to believe I have.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
Kevin H. 41, white male <kevin@javanet.com>, Holyoke, MA

FURTHER NOTICE 5:
The current status of white race(s) being socially and economically dominate is probably a combination of all of those mentioned in the question, plus a technology advantage. There is nothing inherently better (or worse) about the white race, however. At one time, the Chinese were the most advantaged group in the world; at another time, the Egyptians; and so forth. When viewed on a long-term basis, it is all temporary.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
Lazarus, 45, white male <lazarus99@usa.net>, Atlanta, GA

FURTHER NOTICE 6:
Exactly which society are you talking about? If you are referring to the society in America, it’s due to the fact that the majority of the population is Caucasian. Greed, avarice and brilliance would only depend on each individual, regardless of race.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
J. Williams, 43, NY , NY

FURTHER NOTICE 7:
There is no simple answer as to why white Europeans eventually achieved world domination. Certainly, it is not because white Europeans are genetically superior to other races, or because they’re inherently more intelligent. After all, at many points in history, a neutral observer would have concluded that the Chinese, the Persians, the Indians, the Arabs, perhaps even the Aztecs and Mayans were more advanced culturally and technologically than the Europeans. I think the best explanation is that by the 15th Century, white Europeans had learned to turn gunpowder into an effective weapon, and had become the best shipbuilders in the world. Thus, nations like England, France and Spain had both the mightiest weapons in the world and the ability to project their power, on ships, all over the globe.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
Astorian, 37, Irish-American male <Astorian@aol.com>, Austin, TX

FURTHER NOTICE 8:
Try a mix of geography and luck. Whites come from Europe, which constitutes the longest contingent, temperate land mass on Earth. The historical result was an interplay between a connected population that provided a synergy not possible in the other, less-geographically blessed continents of the world. With this “head start” on other peoples, whites conquered the rest of the world through their better technology and with virulent diseases (smallpox, measles, syphillis, etc.) that were also believed to be the results of their geography. Skin color does not determine brillance, avarice or anything else of note. For a more detailed answer, please refer to the excellent bookGuns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
S.F., black male <sfinley@wans.net>, Naperville, IL

FURTHER NOTICE 9:
The answer is simple and has nothing to do with qualities of race: We had the fast ships and the big guns first. White people do not have a monopoly on greed or brilliance. The histories of blacks, Asians and Native Americans are also full of war, oppression and conquest. Historically, it has nearly always been the people with the superior weapons technology who conquered, whether it was the knights who first had stirrups on their horses, the Romans who had bronze swords instead of stone weapons, or the Conquistadors who used cannons against people with spears and arrows.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
Colette, white female <inkwolf@earthlink.net>, Seymour, WI

FURTHER NOTICE 10:
I wouldnt call it supremacy; there’s nothing supreme about treating those around you like dirt because their skin is not the same color as yours. But I believe what your question strongly speaks to is learned behavior. If humans aren’t taught to treat others differently, we generally won’t do so. Look at kids on the playground. Have you ever noticed that those who play together well don’t seem to notice if their playmates are black, Chinese, Indian, etc.? It hasn’t occurred to them that “different” means “bad.” Then they learn how to be cruel from either other kids or their parents. On a good note, I believe what this also proves is that human beings are basically good. We’re not natural bigots. And what we learn, we can unlearn. That is what gives me hope.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
Alma, white lesbian <pridewks@seacove.net>, Kempner, TX

FURTHER NOTICE 11:
Europeans traded technology back and forth with a wide variety of cultures, and science took off. They developed advantages in transportation, weaponry and tools. The printing press allowed more rapid expansion of knowledge and manufactured goods. This technology edge, combined with a desire for conquest and colonialization of other races, a belief that European culture was superior and that Europeans were inherently superior in the eyes of God led to the White Man being in control of large expanses of the globe.
POSTED JAN. 4, 1999
B. Hale, white <halehart@aol.com>, Hartford, CT
To respond
BACK TO TOP

Check Also

Sexual Orientation Questions 31-40

THE QUESTION: SO40: Are there any specific reasons for the lisp many gay men have ...

Leave a Reply