The problem of White Supremacy - Spinoff from Buffalo Shooting thread

Previous Next
First Time Poster said:
There is a lot to unpack here and, being honest, some of it im just not willing to discuss. Mostly because I feel it has been discussed at length, at this point, and I shouldn't bear the burden of educating white people on these things.

You say you asked for more evidence and only received my mocking you but I would rebut why didn't you do the work to find out more? You see, when I read about the initial story and saw the video, I thought, wow that's messed up, I can believe it, and my curiosity lead me to look into the issue because I'm invested in the cause of racial inequality. It means something to me. In that, yes, there was more evidence being provided (more on this phenomenon later.)

That's what I mean about "what is your default posture?" If you are operating from the position "systemic racism exists" and "systemic racism is a problem" and "we need to fix systemic racism" then when you hear about a case of just that and see a video alleging that, if you care, if you are invested, you would go seeking information, you move into action. A privileged person waits to be provided more. To illustrate: your daughter comes home and says, "Dad, I've been assaulted by Joe the mailman." You ask what happened? I doubt your response to her recount would be, "Hmm, that doesn't sound like assault. Joe isn't that guy. Do you have more examples to provide?" No, your default response would be to believe your daughter and, from there, you move into action. That isntvto say if you found out she was mistaken or wrong you wouldn't acknowledge it. But, at first? Yeah, you are going to get to the bottom of it, operating from the stance "it happened."

Why? Because it's your daughter. You care. You are invested. Until persons like yourself are empathetic enough to have that level of concern and investment, nothing will change. It shouldn't take me to give you more. As for the other stuff, that all involves privilege and that's a topic where either you understand or you don't. If you, as a white man, don't understand your level of privilege, it's not worth my time discussing it. I, as an able-bodied black man, clearly understands the privileges I have. One, as a man. I get to walk in a way in this world women can't. Yes, Oprah, singularly, lives a way more lavish lifestyle than I could ever dream of, but that doesn't diminish the privileges I get, even over her, as a man. The same goes for being able-bodied.

You trying to draw an equivalence between our experiences of racism and discrimination to say you are versed enough to "spot" racism is, frankly, comical. You couldn't even be bothered enough to do more research on this issue which is a pretty big tell that you aren't experiencing this type of discrimination on a level where it's impactful on your life or your family's. Questioning whether I can "see it," furthermore, let's me know you just aren't "there" yet. You are more invested in protecting someone being accused of being racist than protecting those claiming to be victims of it.

In other words, Joe's reputation is more important to you than your daughter's accusation. Thanks "friend," but no thanks.

Oh, I almost forgot. My parenthetical point. Much like one rape victim coming forward provides the courage, cover, support and willingness for other victims to come forward, had you dug deeper into this story, you would have realized that once this story broke, other minority parents started providing more verbal and video credence to this matter. For some, it happened, and they were too embarrassed to make a stink over it, treated it as a one-off and moved on, perhaps didn't notice or even gave the benefit of the doubt. Which is why your default posture and believing us is important. Sure, one accusation of rape stands alone, but ten accusations is harder to dismiss. But, your posture towards #1 greatly influences what comes next. "Believe all women" doesn't mean every woman gets carte blanche to make any accusation without scrutiny and is automatically believed, the accused punished with no due process. But, our posture to initially believe a woman claiming assault is a societal acknowledgement that we recognize that type of crime is 1-prevalent, 2-disproportionate to one demographic, 3-under reported by that demographic, and 4-needs overwhelming support to combat its prevalence.

Your default position needs to change. My gut says when you become the victims, disproportionately, of it you will. All I'm asking is that you keep that same energy if you get treated like you so willingly are to allow us to be treated.
Click to expand...
As with my post, there's a lot to unpack here and I want to give it it's due respect before responding further. But I do want to say one thing. In what I read, there is an awful lot of finger wagging about me not doing my own research. I did do a lot of research, including watching both videos and the Chuck-E-Cheese video multiple times. I read several articles on both of the incidents in the Sesame Place Philadelphia park (Rosita & Telly) and none of them linked to other stories other than one to the other. I did web searches for Rosita, Telly, Sesame Park, Jodi Brown & Quinton Burns and came up with nothing but those two stories. So don't tell me that I didn't do any research. I wasn't asking for anyone to do my work for me. All I was asking was for one link or at least a bread crumb to help me find it. I can provide you with several links to show stories that talk about one incident or both, but nothing more. The only other thing that I have found was an article claiming that a Black Muslim family faced discrimination years prior to these incidents, but that article was behind a pay wall.
 
First Time Poster said:
There is a lot to unpack here and, being honest, some of it im just not willing to discuss. Mostly because I feel it has been discussed at length, at this point, and I shouldn't bear the burden of educating white people on these things.

You say you asked for more evidence and only received my mocking you but I would rebut why didn't you do the work to find out more? You see, when I read about the initial story and saw the video, I thought, wow that's messed up, I can believe it, and my curiosity lead me to look into the issue because I'm invested in the cause of racial inequality. It means something to me. In that, yes, there was more evidence being provided (more on this phenomenon later.)
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, I am invested in racial equality as well. We may not see things the same or agree on all solutions, but I believe that we both ultimately want the same thing. I care about you (minorities) & I care about the way you feel towards me (whites) or the way I make you feel and I hope that you feel the same way.

First Time Poster said:
That's what I mean about "what is your default posture?" If you are operating from the position "systemic racism exists" and "systemic racism is a problem" and "we need to fix systemic racism" then when you hear about a case of just that and see a video alleging that, if you care, if you are invested, you would go seeking information, you move into action. A privileged person waits to be provided more. To illustrate: your daughter comes home and says, "Dad, I've been assaulted by Joe the mailman." You ask what happened? I doubt your response to her recount would be, "Hmm, that doesn't sound like assault. Joe isn't that guy. Do you have more examples to provide?" No, your default response would be to believe your daughter and, from there, you move into action. That isn't to say if you found out she was mistaken or wrong you wouldn't acknowledge it. But, at first? Yeah, you are going to get to the bottom of it, operating from the stance "it happened."

Why? Because it's your daughter. You care. You are invested. Until persons like yourself are empathetic enough to have that level of concern and investment, nothing will change. It shouldn't take me to give you more.
Click to expand...
That's just my point. You looking at these situations as if that is your child making the claim puts you in a position that removes objectivity from the start. Neither the person making the claim, nor the accused is my child. I don't know them like I know my own child. I know nothing about either one and I am not invested in either one in any way. I see that as trying to be objective, but you seem to see that as bias. Not that you're accusing me of being racially biased (I don't think you are), but you are asking me to start from a point of belief of one side based solely on a world view that we shouldn't be treated as equals because we are, in fact, not equal. From my perspective, that is merely trading one injustice for another. I can't see that as ever being a bridge I am able to cross.

First Time Poster said:
As for the other stuff, that all involves privilege and that's a topic where either you understand or you don't. If you, as a white man, don't understand your level of privilege, it's not worth my time discussing it. I, as an able-bodied black man, clearly understands the privileges I have. One, as a man. I get to walk in a way in this world women can't. Yes, Oprah, singularly, lives a way more lavish lifestyle than I could ever dream of, but that doesn't diminish the privileges I get, even over her, as a man. The same goes for being able-bodied.

You trying to draw an equivalence between our experiences of racism and discrimination to say you are versed enough to "spot" racism is, frankly, comical. You couldn't even be bothered enough to do more research on this issue which is a pretty big tell that you aren't experiencing this type of discrimination on a level where it's impactful on your life or your family's. Questioning whether I can "see it," furthermore, let's me know you just aren't "there" yet. You are more invested in protecting someone being accused of being racist than protecting those claiming to be victims of it.

In other words, Joe's reputation is more important to you than your daughter's accusation. Thanks "friend," but no thanks.
Click to expand...
Just like you, I understand the privileges I have and those that I don't. Without the ability to walk in each other's shoes we can only guess and/or empathize with it's range and limitations. Likewise, our personal experiences can only be guessed and/or empathized with. I realize that it's impossible for me to make you believe that I am capable of recognizing my privilege or racism. I'd like to try, but it seems fruitless. You just want me to believe you, believe them, but you won't afford me the same. I'm seeking mutual trust & respect, but I don't know how to build mutual trust without both parties willing to "believe" the other. If what it takes is to simply acquiesce, then thanks friend, but no thanks.
First Time Poster said:
Oh, I almost forgot. My parenthetical point. Much like one rape victim coming forward provides the courage, cover, support and willingness for other victims to come forward, had you dug deeper into this story, you would have realized that once this story broke, other minority parents started providing more verbal and video credence to this matter. For some, it happened, and they were too embarrassed to make a stink over it, treated it as a one-off and moved on, perhaps didn't notice or even gave the benefit of the doubt. Which is why your default posture and believing us is important. Sure, one accusation of rape stands alone, but ten accusations is harder to dismiss. But, your posture towards #1 greatly influences what comes next. "Believe all women" doesn't mean every woman gets carte blanche to make any accusation without scrutiny and is automatically believed, the accused punished with no due process. But, our posture to initially believe a woman claiming assault is a societal acknowledgement that we recognize that type of crime is 1-prevalent, 2-disproportionate to one demographic, 3-under reported by that demographic, and 4-needs overwhelming support to combat its prevalence.

Your default position needs to change. My gut says when you become the victims, disproportionately, of it you will. All I'm asking is that you keep that same energy if you get treated like you so willingly are to allow us to be treated.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of the "believe all women" mantra either. My stance is a more "respect all women" approach, at least from a societal perspective. An accuser doesn't deserve to be looked down upon or shamed, but at the same time the accused shouldn't be treated with disdain as if they are already guilty from the onset of the accusation. Respect the accusation and give the accusation the concern, regard and attention it deserves. But at the same time, afford the accused a similar degree of belief. If it's your child, it's certainly understandable that you will first side with your child. But that is only because you know your child better than anyone and you have a level of care for your child that you will naturally have above all others. From an individual perspective, that is fine, but from a societal perspective that removes all objectivity.

Final word: Yesterday I spent about an hour (I'd spent more than an hour the day prior) that afternoon looking through articles for other videos etc. & finally found the Twitter thread below linked in one of the articles. I could still go back and link all the articles I read that didn't refer to others, but I'm not here just looking to prove myself and I think by providing this link I show that I honestly did try to find what you all were referring to.

In the videos linked in the thread, there were a few that really did bother me. The first one with Rosita, not as much, but it did appear that she looked straight at the kid. The one's that bothered me much more were the one with Bert swatting at the girl because she didn't give him 5 and the one with the purple monster knocking the kid down. Both were just plain stupid. The first was obviously intentional, but I don't know if it was racially motivated. It could have just as much been that the person doesn't know how to be a grown-up, but it was certainly malicious. The purple monster, again, I don't know if it was as much racially motivated as it was stupid. He was obviously giving the child attention, but what the fork did he think was going to happen by pushing the kid like that? He did seem to realize his mistake as soon as it happened and immediately reached for her. I would have really liked to have seen what happened after that because I feel like that would be more telling than the actual act.

The one that REALLY pissed me off, though was the Elmo one where the mother took a few swings at him. She had every right to be pissed and I probably would have done the same.

Overall, there's definitely some validity and I think that it should be addressed with the Sesame Place company. I still don't think that every instance or video clearly displays racial bias, but I agree that some training needs to be had and definitely agree that some of those character actors need to go. In that regard, I see it as a systemic problem that can be fixed with some training and possibly procedural changes. Do I think the Park is racially biased? Certainly not. But they do have some work to do to ensure these sort of incidents don't happen again.

 
Last edited:
rajncajn said:
That's just my point. You looking at these situations as if that is your child making the claim puts you in a position that removes objectivity from the start.
Click to expand...

I appreciate all that you wrote, but I’m stuck here
What do you imagine is the objective foundation to view these type of events?

I’m legit asking (not trying for a gotcha), but I will acknowledge the question is a minefield
 
guidomerkinsrules said:
I appreciate all that you wrote, but I’m stuck here
What do you imagine is the objective foundation to view these type of events?

I’m legit asking (not trying for a gotcha), but I will acknowledge the question is a minefield
Click to expand...
Very simply, to find the truth. Regardless of societal pressures, regardless of biases, regardless of desired or expected outcomes. Looking at something from the onset with a simplistic view and weighing the evidence before you before beginning to form an opinion, but also being willing to admit you are wrong if new evidence is presented. Because, to me, truth matters more than anything else, whether you as an individual perceive that truth to be totally fair or not. It's probably not completely possible for anyone to be that completely impartial, but I believe the goal should be to strive for that.
 
rajncajn said:
Very simply, to find the truth. Regardless of societal pressures, regardless of biases, regardless of desired or expected outcomes. Looking at something from the onset with a simplistic view and weighing the evidence before you before beginning to form an opinion, but also being willing to admit you are wrong if new evidence is presented because truth matters more than anything else, whether you perceive that truth to be totally fair or not. It's probably not completely possible for anyone to be that completely impartial, but I believe the goal should be to strive for that.
Click to expand...
That’s what I mean, what leads you to believe there’s any such thing as an unbiased perception?
This is all socialized/learned behavior- there’s no such thing as ‘neutral’
Or any sort of foundational vantage that all others should flow from
 
guidomerkinsrules said:
That’s what I mean, what leads you to believe there’s any such thing as an unbiased perception?
This is all socialized/learned behavior- there’s no such thing as ‘neutral’
Or any sort of foundational vantage that all others should flow from
Click to expand...
Like I said, there's probably not. But that doesn't mean that's not the goal you strive for and looking at every situation as if one side or the other is your own flesh & blood or if one side or the other deserves to be believed more than the other because of statistics or societal pressures is certainly not a productive way of doing that.
 
rajncajn said:
Like I said, there's probably not. But that doesn't mean that's not the goal you strive for and looking at every situation as if one side or the other is your own flesh & blood or if one side or the other deserves to be believed more than the other because of statistics or societal pressures is certainly not a productive way of doing that.
Click to expand...
why wouldn't the metric be one side has experienced both personal and instutional racism and the other has not?
would you feel confident you could weigh in on what is a female orgasm or what is excessive period pain?
i would hope your answer is something like "i don't have the perspective to weigh in on such things"
but here you are having never experience institutional racism (not talking hardship or someone was mean to you in middle school - real documented institutional racism) imagining that there's such a thing as an objective take on race or there is some middle ground - that's trying to get to the 'color blindness' thing that everyone knows is a canard, but exists as some rhetorical device to try to bandaid chasmic divides

believe black people

now the kneejerk reaction to this might be something like "well, that's not fair, they can cry wolf whenever they want to"
to such a person, I would REALLY ask them to check their notion of fairness and why they want to apply it in these instances and not for the millions of instances on the 'other side'
 
guidomerkinsrules said:
why wouldn't the metric be one side has experienced both personal and institutional racism and the other has not?
would you feel confident you could weigh in on what is a female orgasm or what is excessive period pain?
i would hope your answer is something like "i don't have the perspective to weigh in on such things"
but here you are having never experience institutional racism (not talking hardship or someone was mean to you in middle school - real documented institutional racism) imagining that there's such a thing as an objective take on race or there is some middle ground - that's trying to get to the 'color blindness' thing that everyone knows is a canard, but exists as some rhetorical device to try to bandaid chasmic divides

believe black people

now the kneejerk reaction to this might be something like "well, that's not fair, they can cry wolf whenever they want to"
to such a person, I would REALLY ask them to check their notion of fairness and why they want to apply it in these instances and not for the millions of instances on the 'other side'
Click to expand...
I appreciate trying to head off the knee-jerk reaction as to not try to appear to bait me, but that wasn't the reaction I had reading your post. Rather a question about you in particular popped in my head. I've always assumed you as white & I apologize if I am wrong. I thought I remember you saying you were before. So, being white, I wondered if you felt like you had a finger on the pulse of racism and if you felt like you would, in most cases, know it when you see it. You seem to, to me. But what is it about you that might make you feel that way, yet you say that I am incapable of having that perspective?

And BTW, I was not talking about someone "being mean to me in middle school." I grew up from a very poor family in one of the poorest parts of Biloxi. Most of my friends and many of my relatives, including my grandmother, lived in the projects and we had quite a large population of migrant Vietnamese and blacks intermingled with us. I didn't grow up in some fabled ivory tower where I was protected and sheltered from the ugly parts of society. So yes, I do think that I have some perspective on the subject or at least enough to know it when I see it in a lot of cases.
 
rajncajn said:
I appreciate trying to head off the knee-jerk reaction as to not try to appear to bait me, but that wasn't the reaction I had reading your post. Rather a question about you in particular popped in my head. I've always assumed you as white & I apologize if I am wrong. I thought I remember you saying you were before. So, being white, I wondered if you felt like you had a finger on the pulse of racism and if you felt like you would, in most cases, know it when you see it. You seem to, to me. But what is it about you that might make you feel that way, yet you say that I am incapable of having that perspective?

And BTW, I was not talking about someone "being mean to me in middle school." I grew up from a very poor family in one of the poorest parts of Biloxi. Most of my friends and many of my relatives, including my grandmother, lived in the projects and we had quite a large population of migrant Vietnamese and blacks intermingled with us. I didn't grow up in some fabled ivory tower where I was protected and sheltered from the ugly parts of society. So yes, I do think that I have some perspective on the subject or at least enough to know it when I see it in a lot of cases.
Click to expand...
this will be a doozy (thank you for engaging)
first, i specifically added the "hardship" part bc that's a trap that white people (esp white people who grew up poor but 'moved on up') easily fall into here - racism, esp institutional racism is not just about socio-economics - upper middle class blacks often experience more racism bc they tend to be around way more white people that working class black people
-- and the old go to is, 'being white doesn't mean you didn't experience hardship, it's just that you didn't experience it BECAUSE you are white'

but to address your first paragraph - i don't have the perspective but i do acknowledge it
so a series of annecdotes to explain
- i was dating a japanese woman and we were visting Tokyo - after walking down a not too crowded street she says "ugh, i hate that' i had no idea what she was talking about and she said the way everybody was staring at/judging her (mot me, her)
i still did not know what she was talking about - i saw no one staring or judging
what i soon realized is that i did not have the cultural antenna to see what she saw bc she grew up in it and i did not
(like strangers might not know that ol southern grandma was roasting people bc all they heard was the sweet, southern, genteel lilt and not all the subtext)

- i was sitting with my dance class letting them know that upper admin did not want them to leave the building in leotards and tights - in the course of that conversation maybe 15 of the 20 girls (ages 14-17 mind you) there related stories about being creeped on by men - 20 yr old men - 65 yr old men - uncles, uncles friends, strangers, et al. Like real gross, skin crawling stuff. of course i had heard isolated stories from friends or college students and various sexual assaults (including family, including fathers) and always knew that the bad stuff was bad - but it was in talking with my students that day that made me aware how pervasive and damaging the 'micro' stuff was as well
luckily my grad studies and even university posting had LOTS and LOTS of retraining (mostly sexism but some racism as well), so i know longer felt the urge to undermine their experiences and/or try to mansplain things

-speaking of training, for years my wife worked with the Peoples' Institute and participated and led their 'undoing racism' sessions. Quite often that work came home and i got to hear her unpack the myopia and defensiveness of 'well meaning' white people. 15 years with a outspoken Afro-Latina is its own education; but probably the thing she's said that resonates with me the most - and i think is more germane to your question -- whateven i talk about this board, especially with its 'no politics' mandate, her response is usually some colorful variation of 'must be nice'
she says she does not have the luxury of being non-political - that every day she walks out of this house she is placed in a political category by people looking at her skin and hair - that everything she does/says is filtered through that
now, i could take your approach and ask 'is that objectively waht's really happening?'
once she stopped cursing me, she would calmly explain that such a thing is impossible in part bc the people politicizing her are rarely aware that they're doing it - it's is reflexive and automatic. Some bc they are socialized to it but mostly bc they have avoided doing the work to undo it because they don't trust the only people equipped to tell them what they need to work on to be more fully human
 
Latest in the is it or is it not racism?
==========================
A water park outside Kansas city is under fire for racial discrimination after abruptly cancelling a Black teen’s birthday party as guests began to arrive.

Chris Evans, who organised the party for 17-year-old Isaiah Evans, said he had signed a $1,900 contract to reserve the Summit Waves Aquatic Facility in suburban Lee’s Summit city and host up to 250 guests at the party on Saturday. But when guests began showing up at the park, they were denied access to the facility.

Mr Evans said while he and his wife were en route to the park to join the festivities, he recieved a message from a park official saying “this event doesn’t represent Lee’s Summit Waves and that my reservation was cancelled because she was uncomfortable”.

By the time Mr Evans and his wife reached the park, police officers were on the scene to assist park officials in barring party attendees from entering the facility. Part of the confrontation between guests and security officials was captured in a video that went viral on TikTok, collecting at least 1.7 million views.

In the video, in which someone asks a park official “what are you uncomfortable with,” someone replies, “Because we’re Black. Because we’re Black.”

Mr Evans, in subsequent comments, made clear that he felt the party was cancelled because of racism from the park’s management.

“We believe that racial prejudice in our society should be identified and called out so that it might reduce the chance of repeat occurrences,” Mr Evans said in quotes published by the Kansas City Star.

Lee’s Summit city officials on Monday defended the park’s decision to cancel the party, arguing that 500 teenagers had showed up for the party after it was advertised on social media and that certain social media posts made park officials concerned about ensuring the “safety of party guests”.

But Mr Evans hit back at the assertion that there were 500 people gathered for the party, and Lee’s Summit mayor William Baird was similarly unimpressed.

He said Tuesday that the city’s Parks and Recreation department has launched an investigation into the incident and, in the meantime, called on the Parks and Recreation department — which runs the water park — to “re-evaluate their approach”.

Mr Baird also criticised comments made by staff officials at the water park defending the cancellation of the event.............


 
Optimus Prime said:
Latest in the is it or is it not racism?
==========================
A water park outside Kansas city is under fire for racial discrimination after abruptly cancelling a Black teen’s birthday party as guests began to arrive.

Chris Evans, who organised the party for 17-year-old Isaiah Evans, said he had signed a $1,900 contract to reserve the Summit Waves Aquatic Facility in suburban Lee’s Summit city and host up to 250 guests at the party on Saturday. But when guests began showing up at the park, they were denied access to the facility.

Mr Evans said while he and his wife were en route to the park to join the festivities, he recieved a message from a park official saying “this event doesn’t represent Lee’s Summit Waves and that my reservation was cancelled because she was uncomfortable”.

By the time Mr Evans and his wife reached the park, police officers were on the scene to assist park officials in barring party attendees from entering the facility. Part of the confrontation between guests and security officials was captured in a video that went viral on TikTok, collecting at least 1.7 million views.

In the video, in which someone asks a park official “what are you uncomfortable with,” someone replies, “Because we’re Black. Because we’re Black.”

Mr Evans, in subsequent comments, made clear that he felt the party was cancelled because of racism from the park’s management.

“We believe that racial prejudice in our society should be identified and called out so that it might reduce the chance of repeat occurrences,” Mr Evans said in quotes published by the Kansas City Star.

Lee’s Summit city officials on Monday defended the park’s decision to cancel the party, arguing that 500 teenagers had showed up for the party after it was advertised on social media and that certain social media posts made park officials concerned about ensuring the “safety of party guests”.

But Mr Evans hit back at the assertion that there were 500 people gathered for the party, and Lee’s Summit mayor William Baird was similarly unimpressed.

He said Tuesday that the city’s Parks and Recreation department has launched an investigation into the incident and, in the meantime, called on the Parks and Recreation department — which runs the water park — to “re-evaluate their approach”.

Mr Baird also criticised comments made by staff officials at the water park defending the cancellation of the event.............


Click to expand...
1950s called
 
Rosita isn't real. It's not the character it's the person inside the costume

What happened with that person?
=======================
Sesame Place decided to remove its character Rosita after it allegedly ignored Black children. After the incident surfaced online, a family launched a $25 million lawsuit against the park, the Daily Mail reports. The outlet confirmed that the character is being removed from the theme park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and staff noted the cancellation is due to the controversy...........

 
guess I'll put this here
===================



............But responding to Pierce’s concerns, Cooney decided that because the show had received glowing reviews since its premiere, “we can begin to inject more ‘Watts’ as the days go by.” Having secured a large enough viewership to ensure the success of the show, Cooney now worried less about alienating White audiences.

Producers attempted to fulfill this mission in a number of ways. In season three, they invited prominent Black activists and artists to visit “Sesame Street” and speak directly about race.

Nina Simone sang “To Be Young, Gifted, and Black”; folk artist Brother Kirk performed songs about the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Harriet Tubman; and the Rev. Jesse Jackson recited a rendition of the civil rights call and response poem “I Am — Somebody” with a group of children.

Perched on the brownstone stoop of “Sesame Street,” Jackson called out to the children and they responded in kind: “I am Black, brown, White, I speak a different language, but I must be respected, protected, never rejected. I am God’s child. I am somebody.”

Jackson’s appearance is now regularly featured on “Sesame Street’s” social media, particularly when the show wants to promote its legacy of diversity and commitment to racial justice. But in 1972, White parents denounced the performance.

“Appalled,” “shocked,” “disappointed” and “disgusted,” White parents wrote to the workshop to express their concern about the “appropriateness of the Black Power type incidents” in this series of “Sesame Street” episodes.

“I was horrified to see you make these children chant,” one mother wrote. “I don’t care what they shout in unison, it is totalitarian & repellent!” Parents expressed concern that the children did not know what they were repeating. “The entire technique seemed very reminiscent of a Nazi rally,” one parent objected. “What was presented was indoctrination, not education.”

Parents also objected to the content. “Perhaps some welfare recipients are ‘somebody,’ ” wrote one disgruntled parent, “and perhaps some blacks have more reason to be proud of being black than American …. [but] this type of regimented indoctrination has no place in an educational TV program.”

These parents demanded a return to the show’s “subtle technique of showing people living, working, and playing together.”

And the workshop listened. Moving forward, they chose a more colorblind approach, stepping away from explicitly talking about race and featuring Black artists who encouraged the racial pride of Black viewers. Colorblindness enabled producers to continue to represent Black viewers through the racial diversity of the cast without alienating the White audiences outraged by Jackson’s version of “I Am — Somebody.” It was the safest option to sustain the largest audience possible..........

 
MEMPHIS — It’s rare for a Black community ba notch a win against a large industrial polluter, but that’s what happened on this city’s south side.


Residents stood up to a proposal by two oil and gas industry giants to build a pipeline under their properties and forced them to back down. When the news broke last year in July, the rejoicing began.


But it didn’t last long.


Just two weeks after Valero Energy Corp. and Plains All-American abandoned their pipeline bid, the Tennessee Valley Authority announced its plan to truck millions of tons of contaminated coal ash through south Memphis for nearly 10 years and dump it in a landfill there. And there was nothing residents could do to stop it.


What happened in south Memphis is another example of how industries constantly work to fight their way into communities of color already teeming with pollution — and get their way more often than not.


By spring this year, earthmovers were crawling on a mountain of the toxic pollutant and dumping it into trucks with sealed cabins to protect the drivers against breathing it.

Every weekday, the convoy rolls toward Interstate 55, starting a 19-mile procession to dump waste laced with mercury, arsenic and other contaminants at a landfill in south Memphis and cover it with dirt.


Diesel trucks operated by a contractor, Republic Services, will make 240 trips per day to remove 3.2 million cubic yards of coal ash — about 4 million tons — through an environmental justice community that already faces heavy industrial pollution from nearby oil and gas refineries, pipelines, freeways, rail yards and trash dumps.

Residents, conservationists and local politicians who oppose the plan say that the TVA — the nation’s largest public utility — failed to consult them adequately or seriously consider less harmful alternatives……

 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Share this page

 

Twitter

Back
Top Bottom