Although prejudice has been around for time in memoriam, there are those among us who would like to take it to new heights. Sure, the KKK and Neo-nazis are disgusting parasites who prey on hate, but they are not quite as dangerous as some of your newer hate mongers. The old style bigots are an ignorant bunch of loud mouths who practically wear a sign saying HATE ME PLEASE; they go on Jerry Springer or Geraldo Rivera and start fights. They look funny, dress funny and talk funny, and the only non funny things about them is their rhetoric and the fact that they are desperately trying to procreate a new militia, all while being supported by our tax dollars. But that is not what this blog is about, since anybody with a pen could write a list of expletives to describe this herd. It is the new group of malcontents who, with their three-piece suits, Ph.D.'s in sociology or criminology, law degrees, and self righteous, pious indignation toward ANYTHING done by those of any other race, religion or creed which are the cause for concern. They are the mega-bigot.
The mega-bigot preys on the fear of those who desperately want for peace. They raise their voices in violent war cries, ignore all that is good in order to magnify all that is bad, sit anxiously by their Police Bands waiting to pounce on any situation that even hints of a possible controversy. These same so-called voices of the people do not speak of how to find peace, only of how to win war. If the true goal behind the protests and marches is to obtain peace and unity, than why do we only see these self appointed leaders at times of crisis highlighting the negative? Where are they with positive ideas and words to create unity before the crisis? Leaders set the tone for their followers. A leader's greatest accomplishment is in bringing people into the light. It is as important to promote peace, as it is to rally against injustice. A true balance requires not only a call for change, but a sincere desire to build bridges between the gaps in thought which initially caused the crisis.
If the objective is peace, than the battle is full-time, not only when there is finger pointing and media circuses. More is accomplished in the quiet moments of inflection, where true spirit and moral character resides, than is ever accomplished with your lips pursed against a bullhorn. Does this mean that no person should rally? Of course not. Protests, marches, rallies, meetings, these are all places where positive change can be born. Where would this country be if we had not fought the wars that we had fought to obtain the rights we now possess? But if the only voices you hear are shouts of rage, it is hard to empathize with the shouter. Imagine walking down the street and having someone come up to you and begin to yell, would you listen to their words or watch their action? Would you give serious contemplation to what they are shouting if you felt as though you needed to take a defensive posture? If, however, someone were to walk up to you and speak to you with respect, true conviction and concern, how differently would you view such a person? There are so many of us who want and need change, yet rather than trying to gather strength in a positive, proactive way, we wait until tragedy strikes than take to the streets to vent. What have we accomplished by striking out, even in the case where anger is justifiable? Perhaps if we were to stay after the placards were put down to discuss the issues and brainstorm on ways to remedy the problems we might make the very change that our picketing calls for.
I named this entry "The Great Race Card, Thank You Johnnie Cochran" for 2 reasons. First, the term "playing the race card has become synonymous with Johnny Cochran's representation in the O.J. Simpson trial. Second, during the O.J. Simpson trial, which you must have heard of if you were even vaguely conscience in America at the time, there was a great divide in this country, or so the defense would have had you believe. The innocence or guilt of a man was decided based on what regular people thought of the actions of white and black. There was a man on trial -- not a black man; however, since this man was black and the police officers were white than of course you had the division in theory. O.J.'s trial was a faisco starting with out traditional example of bigot, the hate filled Furman who should NEVER been allowed to hold a position of authority. Still, how many people who thought Simpson not guilty would have felt the same if the investigators on the case were not white, or did not include Mark Fuhrman? How many people who thought Simpson guilty would have felt the same if Simpson were not black? There are those who felt that because O.J. was black he needed special protection from bias, and there were those who felt that because he had so many supporters, even prior to the evidence being presented, that someone had to label him guilty. Than there was Cochran -- his mouth, much like a small bomb, exploded the issue that underlined the already strained court of public opinion, forcing to the forefront the idea that the color of the defendant and the accuser had any place in a trial which should have been, but was not, limited to facts. So much trivial showmanship by all of the O.J. Trial Circus Performers, on both sides, made this case a landmark case for the court of the mega-bigot. Do we know, beyond any doubt who killed the victims, who by the way were shown only the lowest regard by the entire menagerie? No! Will we ever really know? I don't believe so. Can this happen again? Of course, and given that it was only moderately discussed for a brief period of time, probably will in short course. So what reason did I have for the whole O.J. paragraph? To demonstrate that the race card being played, in any situation, only served to detract from the fundamental issues which are in need of addressing. With focus only on the color of Mr. Simpson's skin, what truly needed to be examined was hidden in the shadows. To become A PEOPLE, we have to stop looking at the non-issues and bring to light that which is real and substantial.
Another subject which merits focus is the voluntary segregation of people of different cultures. We do not live beside THEM; THEY do not associate with US. Each day of separation adds heat under the melting pot until one day when it will inevitably boil over. Whether it is China Town, Little Italy or Spanish Harlem, this country seems to have no problem with segregation as long as it is by choice. This is; however, a real problem. First of all, segregation does nothing to foster understanding. If we view one another as separate entities rather than a unified people, we stand little if any chance of learning tolerance and understanding It is fear and ignorance which gives life to bigotry and prejudice. Isolating ourselves from our brethren only increases this ignorance and therefore increases prejudice.
Another serious problem with segregation is the balance of power in the political arena. If a community prevalently consists of one culture, a candidate which is part of that culture will have the strongest community support. But does that mean that this is the best person for the job? Rather than examining issues brought to focus by an unbiased voting community, we see far too often politicians voted in for only giving lip service to the "so called" needs of THEM. What I would rather see is THEM become US.
A community diverse in all cultural and racial fronts becomes the ideal of what America was meant to be. By having such a community the political power is shifted from special interest groups to THE PEOPLE. No voice raised should ever hold more importance than another; however, that is not the case. Affluent communities elect to office representatives which serve their interest. The less affluent communities also choose representatives which serve their interest. These elected representatives move upward; however, they do not serve OUR interest. Therefore, when a unified, high-level office becomes available there is a problem. The affluent community, better able to pool their financial resources for backing their candidate assure their candidate the position. It is than that the needs of the affluent become the primary focus of the politician and all bills and legislation passed before them.
People of lower income stand witness time and again to their candidate losing; therefore, they have become disenchanted with the entire electoral process. The growing frustration of the voters in less affluent neighborhoods who watch the system continually abandon them leads these voters to fall away from their polling place. It is, however, these very citizens most in need of representation as they are not looking to get a BIGGER piece of the pie, they only want for the ability to sit at the table.
One last note, just a sidebar really, I would like to know why we are expected to be "colorblind". Is it really necessary to not see our differences in order to treat each other equally? I would think it much better to see, and appreciate, each other's differences and still treat each other equally, but heck that's just me.
Peace to EVERYONE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment