Day 3 was a charm. My credentials arrived in the a.m. I ate breakfast, and caught the hotel shuttle to the Pepsi Center. During our ride to the Pepsi Center I struck up a conversation with a journalist from the BBC, asking whether they focused on American identity during their coverage of Michelle Obama? Without much feedback, I decided to offer my perspective, using my newly developed "message in a minute" (thanks you). Well, the reception was lukewarm, and ultimately she resumed her casual conversation with the woman sitting next to her. After arriving downtown, we decided to foot-it to the Pepsi Center, given the traffic. PERFECT! God is Good! (All the time... If you don't get this (i.e., non-black southern church goers)... keep reading my posts)...
During our trek to the Pepsi Center, I informed her that my colleague at Nebraska had written on who is perceived to be an American in the United States. Based on her research, white protestants are who make-up America (according to Americans). I then said, that's why it was so easy for the Republicans to paint the Obama's as un-Patriotic (translated into Un-American, i.e., non-White, i.e., "them" not "us"), giving the Republicans the edge in a majoritarian election system. Ultimately, her justification of why the media does not talk about this issue alot, is that the "message in a minute" tends to over simplify the dynamics and complexity of race in America, thereby serving as a disservice/exacerbating race relations.
A not-so-brief digression is needed here. From the academic front, while it is good to find a few variables that explain a lot (i.e., variance) in statistical analyses (i.e., parsimony/occam's razor)... we often leave out a lot of much needed dialogue that needs to take place, so that blacks get-it, when working-class whites complain about losing their jobs, and how they think some non-deserving black/Hispanic, received affirmative action/lower wages to displace deserving whites. Similarly, it would inform whites that affirmative action is simple. Once blacks received the vote, they elected officials who looked out for their interest, just like white officials looked out for whites. KEY POINT: For example, as it relates to affirmative action, these officials stopped awarding 100% government contracts (example: custodial services, land scapping...) to white men, based on white privlege. Rather, now, they began awarding some contracts to qualified (many blacks were able to cut lawns and hedges in the 1960s) blacks and WHITE WOMEN. To be sure, this is a zero sum game, meaning, an increase in percentage for blacks and white women, decreases the pecent of contracts given to white men. So, now, 70% of contracts are given to white men, and 30% are given to blacks and white women. Sorry, too much digression: PROCEED TO DAY 3B.
During our trek to the Pepsi Center, I informed her that my colleague at Nebraska had written on who is perceived to be an American in the United States. Based on her research, white protestants are who make-up America (according to Americans). I then said, that's why it was so easy for the Republicans to paint the Obama's as un-Patriotic (translated into Un-American, i.e., non-White, i.e., "them" not "us"), giving the Republicans the edge in a majoritarian election system. Ultimately, her justification of why the media does not talk about this issue alot, is that the "message in a minute" tends to over simplify the dynamics and complexity of race in America, thereby serving as a disservice/exacerbating race relations.
A not-so-brief digression is needed here. From the academic front, while it is good to find a few variables that explain a lot (i.e., variance) in statistical analyses (i.e., parsimony/occam's razor)... we often leave out a lot of much needed dialogue that needs to take place, so that blacks get-it, when working-class whites complain about losing their jobs, and how they think some non-deserving black/Hispanic, received affirmative action/lower wages to displace deserving whites. Similarly, it would inform whites that affirmative action is simple. Once blacks received the vote, they elected officials who looked out for their interest, just like white officials looked out for whites. KEY POINT: For example, as it relates to affirmative action, these officials stopped awarding 100% government contracts (example: custodial services, land scapping...) to white men, based on white privlege. Rather, now, they began awarding some contracts to qualified (many blacks were able to cut lawns and hedges in the 1960s) blacks and WHITE WOMEN. To be sure, this is a zero sum game, meaning, an increase in percentage for blacks and white women, decreases the pecent of contracts given to white men. So, now, 70% of contracts are given to white men, and 30% are given to blacks and white women. Sorry, too much digression: PROCEED TO DAY 3B.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment