Current Events - 2/22/06

Tonight, let's talk about the Supreme Court for a minute. They are actually spending time (and your tax dollars) debating whether or not a manager at Tyson Foods is racist and can be sued for calling black employees 'boys.' Now, I'm not going to even venture a guess as to the merits of this case because I know none of the pertinent details. I will, however, discuss two huge problems near and dear to these proceedings.
First, is the use of the term 'boys' by various ethnic groups. Amongst rappers, boys is a term used to describe the closest of associates. 'Me and my boys, etc., etc.' Between the average black male and his friends, I have often heard them refer to each other as 'my boy.' Latinos seem to enjoy the company of their 'boys and homeys'. Females of every race are often heard praising their boyfriend or husband by saying 'that's my boy!' Sometimes the term of endearment is 'my man,' but just as often, it's 'my boy.' But if a white man says this word to anyone other than his son, it's a racial epithet. Speaking of hugely offensive words, every black man I've ever met condemns the use of the "N" word found in 60% of all rap songs. If black people hate this word so much, why are they perpetuating it? It's already getting to the point where anything I say can spark off a potentially serious situation. I often work in the computer field where we have primary and secondary drive systems. If I slip up and refer to them as master and slave, I'm instantly branded as a grand dragon. Give me a break! I don't think anybody ever thought of those designations as racially descriptive of a black/white relationship. In case you didn't know it, there were slaves of all colors in this world long before Africans were brought to America. Here's a thought....If one tries hard enough to find something, he will, whether or not it actually exists.
My second problem is with the press and what I call ambush reporting. Stories about racial harmony and diversity working in a community do not sell papers. What does sell is inflammatory stories about people, generally minorities, being wronged. This particular article I referred to tonight presents the following facts; 1. A white supervisor referred to some black employees as boys. 2. These same employees were passed over for a management position for which they had applied at a plant where they worked in Alabama in favor of a white man with decades less experience. 3. One judge had already awarded the men 1.75 million each in damages for this case, but it was overturned on appeal. If this represented the bulk of the facts in the case, I would handily agree that there was some kind of evil at work and that those men were wronged! However....if I were a member of the jury or a judge in this case, I would have to know what the newspaper isn't telling us; 1. Is it indeed racism, or perhaps nepotism? 2. Did the white man with less experience at that plant come from somewhere else where he had gained the skills needed for the position? 3. Was there a missing educational requirement? 4. Would the black men have made good managers? (Now before you get in a twist, let me be perfectly clear. Some people, and by that I refer to no-one of a particular background, color, religion, etc., are just not management material. I have had several supervisors of various ethnic backgrounds over the years....some I would follow into battle, others had no business telling their own children what to do. The color of their skin had nothing to do with their ability to lead and manage people.) 5. Finally, did that manager refer to all males in the plant as boys, or just the black ones? Anyways, this is but one example. To give you another, I refer to an article that seems to make the rounds about once a year in the national press concerning credit denial amongst minority groups. A screaming headline usually tells us that skin color has everything to do with loan approvals for houses, cars, etc. Indeed, if you read the first couple of paragraphs you find that a tiny number of minorities are approved for loans against the vast number of anglos that get approved. Sounds bad, right? But it's only half of the story. If you read through to the end you'll find that once you factor in the numbers for population, loans actually applied for, etc., the percentages of approval amongst the different races is the same. This is just the type of crap reporting that sells papers but doesn't get us anywhere. Let's face it, the majority of loan applications done these days are submitted over the internet. Your computer has no idea what your ethnic background is! Neither does theirs. Maybe someone will report that black folks aren't getting approved because the bank knew they were black because they typed it like a black person. Farfetched? I don't think so! Not too long ago, a consumer advocacy group reported about widespread racial discrimination in people seeking housing after being displaced by hurricanes Katrina/Rita. Their criteria? They called various landlords on the phone and inquired about available housing while first using "language mannerisms favored by African-Americans" followed by "language mannerisms favored by caucasians." All right....enough already!! In today's society I would hesitate to guess a persons ethnic background by looking at them, much less conversing with them over the phone. The stupidity has got to end! P.S. Hey Oprah! French people don't hate black Americans...they hate ALL Americans. Trust me, I've been there enough times to know. Get over it.