A reader email responded to the cartoon in this month's paper
]
Our correspondence is as follows:
READER: Regarding the comic on page A2 of the November 6, 2006 issue of the Counterweight, I want to express my personal objection to disturbingly blatant ignorance over a subject I have been brooding on for a few years now. The dichotomy of the issue, so off handedly addressed by the comic, is extremely intricate and sensitive. The manner in which the comic refers to this dichotomy is insulting and one-sided. The comic describes the inclusivity (or the exclusivity) of the minority population, without taking into consideration the inclusivity (or the exclusivity) of the majority population, which has more of a responsibility to break down those walls given their social standing.
Before I continue I should briefly preference with a bit of my background to dispel any categorizations assumed based on my last name. My political standing is irrelevant, I identify neither with Democrats nor with Republicans. More important is my ethnical background. I am biracial: 3/4 Japanese and 1/4 Irish. This mixed ethnicity caused tremendous turmoil when I was younger. I state this not for sympathy (which I reject adamantly), but to lay a foundation for other’s to understand. My biracialness forced me into a liminal space. I was rejected to some degree or completely by both whites and Asians. To the whites I was Asian, to the Asians I was white, resulting in constant subtle or blatant prejudices against me as a person. I belonged nowhere. This extraction from society gave me a painful, but honest understanding of our community. At present I hold on to the philosophy of “I am who I am.” If anyone has a problem with that I don’t care.
This all to limited explanation of my ethnic background and experience in America, of which Saint Olaf is a microcosm, is important to fully illuminate the conclusion I have come to regarding race and prejudice. First and foremost I am critical of both the majority and the minority. Now to state my position with unfortunate brevity: The majority still fosters a prejudice and systematically subjugates the minority; the minority on the other hand needs to become self empowered to resist the prejudice. I am not blaming the victim, and I have seen many instances of internal empowerment within the minority community, but the minorities are still divided amongst each other (the various ethnic groups and the other disenfranchised groups not categorized into ethnic groups: glbt, women, ect.), and I have not seen enough internal empowerment. In fact I have seen too much blaming and not enough morale boosting. What I want to see is for the minority to take responsibility for their own lives and not allow the majority to push them around. Resist and revolt. As for the majority, it is their responsibility to systematically break down the prejudice they systematically erected for so many years, and I have not seen enough of that at all. I cannot even begin to describe how disappointing this is, when America has had so many struggles against prejudice as a whole.
Regarding the comic more specifically: everyone has a comfort zone. In St. Olaf there is a dichotomy of majority and minority. Each has its comfort zone. Because I grew up rejected by both the majority and the minority I have never experienced the comfort zone so luxuriously occupied by both the majority and minority. This makes me to some extent unsympathetic for those who have this comfort zone. For the minorities, being surrounded constantly by the majority can be stressful and frightening, thus the comfort zone where they are surrounded by other minorities, where everyone understands what everyone is going through. As for the majority, their comfort zone covers the majority of campus. What I encourage is for both groups to step out of their comfort zones every once and a while. At this point I am more critical of the majority since, the minority are forced to do this every day. For the majority this means getting involved with the minority community rather than laughing at them through some ignorant comic. The comic itself only divides the campus further. I expect more from this campus, don’t disappoint me again.
BURKE: Thank you for your reply. The point of the cartoon was to say thatincreasing the representation of minorities on campus is not the way totruly foster understanding. All that happens is that groupsself-segregate, as you yourself said in your response. Even at more"diverse" schools like Carleton, the exact phenomenon occurs. We haveareas like Fireside for a reason...they are open, they are convenient, andpeople come in and out of them all of the time. It is a default meetingplace, yet I rarely see minorities in there. This is not because there isa big "Keep Out" sign for minorities...it is a self-segregation issue. It is not logical for whites to go and hang out in the MACO office or theSSS...they are small, and in fact I have been glared at in going to aStudent Org desk through the SSS. Its like they feel they have markedtheir territory, and this is really sad.
That being said, I do not buy the assertion that the majority has theresponsibility to break down walls given our social standing. It is thepeople in the majority's job to be open and to be friendly with theminority individuals, just as it is their responsibility with everyoneelse, regardless of race. We should live in a colorblind society, andafter the civil rights movement, I am appalled at how much we still focuson race. Who cares? What about students like (names ommitted) or the dozens of other multicultural oles who have integrated into the campus and are probably happier because of it? These individuals came to campus knowing that we all share a commonhumanity and that we can connect with that. No victimization, noself-segregation, no whining. Indeed, these individuals will be the onesthat get ahead in life because they are willing to give white students achance, and in turn, the white students also are here to give them achance.
We are on an equal playing ground, and I don't buy your Marxist argument of class struggles or your assertion that whites are a majority makes them responsible for breaking down boundaries. If we are ever going to be equal, it has to be a 2-way, 50/50 street. Why should I have to work harder to have a relationship with someone of another racethan they do? This is garbage, and undermines the very ideals of equality and friendship. My relationships with some of the above-mentioned individuals are of equal contribution and sacrifice. This allows honesty and true, healthy friendship to develop. I was open to being friends with them, and them with me. It is simple, and mucking up the potential forfriendship with race issues by saying that majorities have to put moreinto relationships with minorities is quite sad.
The white people on campus are not a bunch of racists. Though we may bemore comfortable with people of similar demographic characteristics (thisis human nature), it does not mean that we are shutting minority students out. Indeed, the way in which Olaf addresses these issues perpetuates theproblem. In fact, I think many whites are perhaps nervous aroundminorities because of the oversensitive characters of many of these individuals and they fear them putting the "racist" label on them. "Racist" is thrown around way too much and the overuse of it prevents potential relationships to form.
Most of the minority students come to campus together and are put in rooms together such that they are the only other people they know at first. Asocial group becomes established, and then they find a common hangout inthe MACO or SSS office. Had they been integrated with everyone else, this probably would not have been a problem (Norma and LDT for example).As for your experiences growing up, students picking on others orrejecting others for any kind of differences they can find is normal. Glasses, acne, short, fat, of a different color....all of these are madefun of in the same way. People of different races internalize these a lotmore because society tells them they should. The fat kid in elementaryschool may grow up with a little bit of a battered ego, but it seems asthough people of different races focus on this a lot more. I was rejectedfrom the cool kids and the sports kids, but I found a niche in which Ibelonged, just like everyone else does. Victimization does no good, and this probably explains a lot of the differences in success in this country between less victimizing racial groups like Asians and more victimizing groups like African Americans.
HIM: First I’d like to mention how amusing I find it when I am called a Marxist, since I haven’t touched a page of Marxist literature in my entire life (however, since this isn’t the first time I’ve been called a Marxist I plan to pick up a book to see what all the fuss is about). If you want to label me, though I reject labels, I am an existentialist. My existentialism is directly tied to my childhood experience with prejudice. The point of my description of the prejudice was clearly misunderstood. The point of that description was to show the unique position I have been placed in given my ethnic background and what my responsibilities are given that position. While everyone experiences prejudice, prejudice in the form I experienced is distinctly different. The result is an individual stuck in a limnial space between two worlds. For me it was the white world and the Asian world. This experience causes immense suffering, and if the individual can make an existential jump from self suffering to universal suffering, than the experience of the liminal space results in an individual with a hypersensitivity to cultural dichotomies. Granted this hypersensitivity can be reached in many ways, however, I wanted to show you the exact path I took because the path I took is integral to my argument. Metaphorically I have become a bridge between the majority and the minority, and since this is an uncommon position I am often misunderstood. The description was a preference to my argument: both minority and majority need to take responsibilities in establish equality, which is why I have an objection toward the cartoon. The cartoon is one-sided and does not portray the needed responsibility of the majority. The cartoon thus becomes condescending and not constructive.
The responsibilities of the majority are deconstructing the systematic prejudice established in the infrastructure of our society. This is the responsibility of the majority because the majority erected the infrastructure in the first place. If the majority does not take responsibility for this then they deny America’s historical subjugation of minorities. The trouble is that prejudice will always exist and has always persisted even after Marin Luther King Jr., the majority thus has its own responsibilities in deconstructing the prejudice.
The systematic prejudice existing today manifests as a socioeconomic divide, which is not a result of the competence of the ethnic groups placed there, but rather the barriers erected by the prejudice system of America. The steps needed in order to deconstruct these barriers is the recognition of the systematic prejudice that placed them there and the further deconstruction of those barriers.
The attempt to erase race from the equation is an idealistic response to the problem at hand. Transcending racial identity establishes an unreachable utopia and has disturbing conclusions. Cultural and ethnic differences will always exist and it is impossible to transcend them because such differences will always be obvious to us. It is possible to accept them for what they are without being prejudice. To ignore race, to want a homogeneous population, to be “colorblind” is just as racist as discriminating others for their ethnic background. If you are “colorblind” is then everyone white? “Colorblindness” is a move towards an assimilation of minorities into the majority culture so that everyone is “white.” I argue America shouldn’t be colorblind, but rather ethnically conscious, and in doing so embrace diversity. In order for that to happen the majority must do its part and continue to deconstruct the prejudice structure of America.
The responsibilities of the minority are taking steps from within their communities to better themselves. Remaining subjugated gets them nowhere and if they don’t take action then nothing will change on their part. Action and sacrifice must be taken from both sides to meet in the middle otherwise there is no equality.
I agree with you in that de facto segregation is a self-perpetuating human phenomenon. I argue, however, that the de facto segregation occurring in MACO and SSS offices is constructive. The minorities on this campus are interacting with the majority constantly simply by walking around and going to class. This is draining, they need a comfort zone. MACO and SSS provide this comfort zone. I don’t believe people should try and break that up. They already do their part by stepping out of their comfort zone every time they leave the office door. On the other hand the majority comfort zone is much larger, it’s the whole campus. I’m not saying you have to go out for your way to integrate yourself in to the MACO and SSS offices, that’s absurd (though I’d respect you more if you did). However, I don’t think you’re treating this issue with the equality you feel you are. You’re ignoring a whole other aspect, the point of view of the minority. The comic comes across as deriding and ignorant.
The reason I don’t see many minorities on campus is because there really aren’t that many. The majority is overwhelming on this campus. When I walk onto Carleton campus the diversity is stunning. There’s a reason. There are more minorities on that campus than there is on St. Olaf. Your attack on the minorities on this campus is not constructive.
I never said majorities have to put more effort into making differences and friendships. I simply state that each group has their own responsibility. The majority needs to deconstruct the existing prejudice system, the minority needs to find internal empowerment to face the prejudice system. The cartoon is not deconstructing the existing system of prejudice, its reaffirming it.
We had another correspondence wherein I answered his reply, but I forgot to copy myself onto the email. I jumped on his assertion of how difficult it is for minority students to go out of the MACO and SSS offices and how each time it causes considerable stress. The absurdity of this is almost humorous. Its like he is saying many dont want to get up in the morning because big bad whitey is waiting. This is the result of the victimization indoctrination of this college and various civil rights groups. It may be callous, but for lack of a better word, what comes to mind is "wimp" to describe this attitude. How do these individuals expect to get along in the real world?
Note also that I did not call him a Marxist...I said he was using Marxist ideas.
Within this same email I mistakenly referred to his Japanese heritage as Japanese nationality, and he accused me of being bigoted and a racist. Because I normally do not engage in talks about race, and because I was responding quickly because I wished to get back to my homework, in the midst of this long reply, I mistakenly typed nationality instead of heritage.
His response is telling for a couple of reasons:
1. Who really holds the "power" in these exchanges? I realized that in order to effectively communicate to him on these issues, it is necessary to go through each correspondence with a fine toothed comb to prevent offense. He most likely did not have to do that.
2. He was able to use the powerful R and B words to completely end the conversation. Caput. It appears that despite my status of being a "majority," I in fact do not have any kind of power in these conversations.
He is not an unintelligent individual; in fact, I was rather impressed with his writing, but I was not with his regurgitation of ARMS class rhetoric. All of these philisophical statements about class and power have little if any empirical or logical evidence to back it up. Race theory based on Marxist theories of class hierarchies hold little merit with me. Give me the evidence, not anecdotes or sob stories. If Indians, Asians, and African immigrants have higher per capita incomes than whites, how are they being oppressed? One can get so bogged down in these theories that people lose touch with reality and how the real world works. They keep telling themselves that they are oppressed, and in their minds they create this white bogeyman that oppresses them much more than the general white population.
Just for some interesting reading, is diversity in fact helpful? Does it help foster understanding or does it increase divide? The unfortunate truth is the latter, as evidenced by this Harvard study.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c4ac4a74-570f-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html
