In the wake of my post about Oprah and the Emmett Till murder, I felt compelled to say something about the huge racial issues going on in the country today. The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident seems to have set race relations in this country back several decades, according to the media. And according to celebrities like Oprah, Jay Z, Spike Lee, etc. But has it really set race relations back? Or has it merely given some black people something to talk about?
There has been a lot of hostile talk since the Zimmerman verdict, and a few demonstrations, but acts of violence were rare and far less than expected. I must commend the black community for their calm in the face of what they thought was an unjust verdict. Many in the United States did not expect it. They expected another Rodney King reaction. And that didn't happen.
I can understand the angst of the black community about the Zimmerman verdict. It is based on emotion. If one truly looks at the facts from a legal standpoint, rather than emotional, it should be clear the verdict was sound and just according to the evidence. I heard a retired police chief in Florida on a radio show last week say that Neighborhood Watch volunteers are trained to either get license plate numbers or, if there is no car, follow and watch them to see where they are headed and report it to the police. That's exactly what George Zimmerman was doing. And the prosecution failed to prove otherwise.
Trayvon Martin's parents and attorney said the incident wasn't about race. The prosecutor never attempted to show Zimmerman was a racist and killed Martin because of his skin color. So that dog won't hunt. Yet the race baiters like Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and now even Oprah, continue to make it about race. Of course, they get rich doing just that.
The other day I read an article about a kid at Georgia State University who started a "White Student Union" at the school. The student union, founded by student Patrick Sharp, is intended to "provide a place for like-minded white students to come together and not only celebrate their common European/Euro-American cultures, but to discuss issues that affect white people in the world today," according to its website.
How is this different from other cultural groups other than the word "white?"
According to the article I read - the Black Student Union has condemned the white student union as racist. I have not been able to verify that. The black student union has called the white student union racist? Hmmmm Can someone explain to me why, in the year 2013, some racial/ethnic groups can have their own organizations and others (white people of European descent) can't? And can someone explain how a group that is based on race can call another group based on race "racist"? After all, according to the Census Bureau, it won't be long before "non-Hispanic whites" will make up less than half the population of children under 5 years of age and by 2043 whites will be a minority in this country." So if whites are becoming a minority is it not fitting they should have their own group(s)?
There has been no hint of racial hatred or animosity from the group. According to Patrick Sharp, the founder of the group, they discuss things like "government-enforced racial discrimination in the form of affirmative action and immigration polices" as an issue that directly affects white people today. He is correct in saying that Affirmative Action affects white people in this country. Quotas on hiring are one way. So is it not a legitimate issue, even if it won't change any time soon?
"With politicians calling for a 'national discussion' on race, why should white people be left out of it?" Sharp wrote to The Huffington Post in an email. "We're simply trying to make our collective voice heard."
"Nowhere in the union's description is there demands for white dominance, ethnic cleansing, or racial segregation," wrote student Mitchell Oliver of the GSU newspaper, The Sentinal. "If you replace the word ‘white’ with any other ethnicity you have the basic idea behind every cultural organization on campus."
So does freedom of speech and freedom of expression really apply to all? The student union in question has been operating unofficially and has yet to ask for official sanction as a part of the university. However, one can't help but wonder if the school would officially endorse it.
The Huffington Post said it best in the opening paragraph of an article I read yesterday:
"The creation of an unofficial white student union at a public university in Georgia has ignited a debate over whether the organization should be officially ratified by the school, pitting the principles of tolerance against those of free speech."
So is it tolerable for whites to form their own groups these days without being labeled racists - particularly if they're not doing anything that is harmful or derogatory to other races and ethnicities? Or will the stereotype remain for a longer period of time that whites who want to congregate or organize with people of their own ethnicities and backgrounds are haters and racists? Do the words tolerance and free speech apply to all or merely to some? I will leave it up to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment