I have a single disagreement. Understanding is highly overrated. Acceptance beats it eight days a week. I do not understand transgenderism, but I accept that it is real. I do not understand most of what I accept. The highest hurdle is the one where you are muted, shut out, because you refuse to accept the power's definition of terms as a condition of being allowed to speak.
I fully support affinity groups based on experience sets, on rational goals being pursued, on common interests in games, art forms, sports and many other bases. I often advise small companies on selecting members of Boards of Advisors and of Directors. I tell the companies that they can have whomever they wish so long as the members are diverse. One man responded that he had a black person on his board of advisors. I shook my head. "They can all be purple Martian females so long as they bring different experience sets. Everyone on the Board, male, female, animal, vegetable or mineral, has a background in your industry. How can new ideas be offered up by clones?"
I’m so old-fashioned that I still ascribe near-religious importance to the portion of Martin Luther King’s historic speech in which he declared, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
It dismays me that so many people today wish to toss such wisdom down the memory hole. They evidently prefer a Borg Collective model of society in which individuals have no importance or autonomy; only the racial collective, by instruction from its leaders, may dictate its grievances and its goals.
The strident and sometimes vicious reaction a few years ago to some Democratic politicians who innocently said, “Of course Black Lives Matter. All lives matter,” highlights this belief. Their craven apologies for their statements showed how powerful the Borg had already become.
Ms. Pogue made an excellent point when she wrote, “When society as a whole promotes racial solidarity, students who do not attend may be viewed as not trusting their own people or ‘self-hating.’” Outside the school, such an attitude applies to black or gay Republicans, too.
An individual’s refusal to assimilate into the racial or sexual Borg is reason enough, it seems, to reject their basic humanity and, if possible, to deny their very right to exist. Dissent shall never be tolerated.
What nonsense. Dr. I sense you have fallen into the cult of victimhood. Cis men? really. What a lame term. Useless article and it appears FAIR may be running into the abyss od silliness.
I would like to suggest a reason why white people can't comprehend what this author says she's going through as an immigrant with a slight accent. Could it be that the persons to whom she is complaining do not see her as she claims they do? They are surprised not because they can't imagine feeling "OTHERED," but because they do not see her as "other" any more than any American sees another as an "other" since we are all from elsewhere, this is embedded in our identity, and perhaps the most common question on the playground has always been: Where are you from? I grew up in a mostly white suburb of Chicago where we asked this of each other constantly, proudly saying: I'm half Irish and half German! and so on. The self-consciousness of the immigrant is not the OTHER (WHITE PERSON'S) PROBLEM to solve. If she is so bothered by LOOKING different what are we supposed to do about it? I'm starting to get really cranky about this complaint, e.g. "I was the only black person in the room." So what are we supposed to do about that? Then we bend over backward to make that person comfortable, and they are still not comfortable because of the color of our skin! Or a different cultural affect. SO WHAT DO WE DO???? What does this author -- or any person who is not white -- expect from white people? Add to this that as a white person, that same town where I grew up among other whites now has a Mexican grocery store (that replaced Dominick's) a now dominant Mexican and Polish population that doesn't speak much English -- in other words, I can't go "home" again. I now live in a neighborhood where I am practically invisible, do not feel I "belong" and -- strangely enough -- do not expect THEM to fix it. It's my AMERICAN problem.
A good friend and parent of the same private school we're in helped me understand the importance of affinity groups. That said, I fail to see how you cannot have a mission-based rather than race-based approach to affinity groups. I think you'd have the same practical outcome without the division. It disgusts me that they look are skin pigment for membership--how light does your skin need to be before you get challeneged? Why can you not have the mission to "make the school as welcoming to Blacks as possible" and accept the occasional non-Black who really has great ideas on how to further the mission?
Race based affinity groups seems like a step backward in terms of race relations and a step toward segregation. I think an all inclusive group format not unlike marriage/family counseling would serve the goals of one human race better. Acceptance may be the more achievable lower hanging fruit but exposure to one another's perceptions goes a long way toward actual understanding which appears to be the current goal in race relations today.
Dr. Pogue's essay reminded me of when I was in elementary school and was put into two different affinity groups based on race. The first group was for Native American kids, the other was for black girls. At the time I didn't understand why the administrators put me in such groups as I didn't think about myself that way then. I remember feeling awkward and not really a part of either group. When you're mixed race and people want you to think of yourself racially, it can be hard to choose who you're supposed to belong to.
In my early twenties I remember a friend saying, "when the race war happens, you better pick a side." How could I when I both do and don't belong to a particular race? There's always a "no true Scotsman" feeling when I say I'm of a race. How do I prove I'm black or Native or white? In my younger years I thought fulfilling stereotypes would give me more racial belonging. Surely if I like hip-hop I'm "being black" or if I wear beaded earrings I'm "being indigenous." A family member joked that my love for fireworks was my "white side."
I cannot pick a side nor should I have to. Racial affinity is ultimately a trap that limits the fullness and yes, clumsiness, of human experience and expression. Each of us is a kaleidoscope of overlapping identities and ideas. When we're reduced to ideological categories, we cease to enjoy the many nuances of
"common humanity" Pogue discusses. Yes, we should "see" each other's race(s) and we should remember that what we see only tells a part of the story of a whole human being.
I have a single disagreement. Understanding is highly overrated. Acceptance beats it eight days a week. I do not understand transgenderism, but I accept that it is real. I do not understand most of what I accept. The highest hurdle is the one where you are muted, shut out, because you refuse to accept the power's definition of terms as a condition of being allowed to speak.
I fully support affinity groups based on experience sets, on rational goals being pursued, on common interests in games, art forms, sports and many other bases. I often advise small companies on selecting members of Boards of Advisors and of Directors. I tell the companies that they can have whomever they wish so long as the members are diverse. One man responded that he had a black person on his board of advisors. I shook my head. "They can all be purple Martian females so long as they bring different experience sets. Everyone on the Board, male, female, animal, vegetable or mineral, has a background in your industry. How can new ideas be offered up by clones?"
I’m so old-fashioned that I still ascribe near-religious importance to the portion of Martin Luther King’s historic speech in which he declared, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
It dismays me that so many people today wish to toss such wisdom down the memory hole. They evidently prefer a Borg Collective model of society in which individuals have no importance or autonomy; only the racial collective, by instruction from its leaders, may dictate its grievances and its goals.
The strident and sometimes vicious reaction a few years ago to some Democratic politicians who innocently said, “Of course Black Lives Matter. All lives matter,” highlights this belief. Their craven apologies for their statements showed how powerful the Borg had already become.
Ms. Pogue made an excellent point when she wrote, “When society as a whole promotes racial solidarity, students who do not attend may be viewed as not trusting their own people or ‘self-hating.’” Outside the school, such an attitude applies to black or gay Republicans, too.
An individual’s refusal to assimilate into the racial or sexual Borg is reason enough, it seems, to reject their basic humanity and, if possible, to deny their very right to exist. Dissent shall never be tolerated.
We’ll done and thank you❤️
Excellent, thoughtful article.
Brilliant article Doctor!
Nicely said. We need actions that will bring us together not drive us apart and/or isolate us.
Thanks Ye. Great perspective.
What nonsense. Dr. I sense you have fallen into the cult of victimhood. Cis men? really. What a lame term. Useless article and it appears FAIR may be running into the abyss od silliness.
I would like to suggest a reason why white people can't comprehend what this author says she's going through as an immigrant with a slight accent. Could it be that the persons to whom she is complaining do not see her as she claims they do? They are surprised not because they can't imagine feeling "OTHERED," but because they do not see her as "other" any more than any American sees another as an "other" since we are all from elsewhere, this is embedded in our identity, and perhaps the most common question on the playground has always been: Where are you from? I grew up in a mostly white suburb of Chicago where we asked this of each other constantly, proudly saying: I'm half Irish and half German! and so on. The self-consciousness of the immigrant is not the OTHER (WHITE PERSON'S) PROBLEM to solve. If she is so bothered by LOOKING different what are we supposed to do about it? I'm starting to get really cranky about this complaint, e.g. "I was the only black person in the room." So what are we supposed to do about that? Then we bend over backward to make that person comfortable, and they are still not comfortable because of the color of our skin! Or a different cultural affect. SO WHAT DO WE DO???? What does this author -- or any person who is not white -- expect from white people? Add to this that as a white person, that same town where I grew up among other whites now has a Mexican grocery store (that replaced Dominick's) a now dominant Mexican and Polish population that doesn't speak much English -- in other words, I can't go "home" again. I now live in a neighborhood where I am practically invisible, do not feel I "belong" and -- strangely enough -- do not expect THEM to fix it. It's my AMERICAN problem.
A good friend and parent of the same private school we're in helped me understand the importance of affinity groups. That said, I fail to see how you cannot have a mission-based rather than race-based approach to affinity groups. I think you'd have the same practical outcome without the division. It disgusts me that they look are skin pigment for membership--how light does your skin need to be before you get challeneged? Why can you not have the mission to "make the school as welcoming to Blacks as possible" and accept the occasional non-Black who really has great ideas on how to further the mission?
Race based affinity groups seems like a step backward in terms of race relations and a step toward segregation. I think an all inclusive group format not unlike marriage/family counseling would serve the goals of one human race better. Acceptance may be the more achievable lower hanging fruit but exposure to one another's perceptions goes a long way toward actual understanding which appears to be the current goal in race relations today.
Dr. Pogue's essay reminded me of when I was in elementary school and was put into two different affinity groups based on race. The first group was for Native American kids, the other was for black girls. At the time I didn't understand why the administrators put me in such groups as I didn't think about myself that way then. I remember feeling awkward and not really a part of either group. When you're mixed race and people want you to think of yourself racially, it can be hard to choose who you're supposed to belong to.
In my early twenties I remember a friend saying, "when the race war happens, you better pick a side." How could I when I both do and don't belong to a particular race? There's always a "no true Scotsman" feeling when I say I'm of a race. How do I prove I'm black or Native or white? In my younger years I thought fulfilling stereotypes would give me more racial belonging. Surely if I like hip-hop I'm "being black" or if I wear beaded earrings I'm "being indigenous." A family member joked that my love for fireworks was my "white side."
I cannot pick a side nor should I have to. Racial affinity is ultimately a trap that limits the fullness and yes, clumsiness, of human experience and expression. Each of us is a kaleidoscope of overlapping identities and ideas. When we're reduced to ideological categories, we cease to enjoy the many nuances of
"common humanity" Pogue discusses. Yes, we should "see" each other's race(s) and we should remember that what we see only tells a part of the story of a whole human being.