That we should be judged by the content of our characters and not the color of our skin. I don't think so. The way other "black" people treat each other says no. America has still defaulted on the promisory note he spoke of in his "Dream Speech".
The racism has only changed, not gone away. Consider this video and the racial preconceptions thrown around just between African American's of different shades. This is not so much different than the issues I brought up in relation to Haiti and it's population of people whom we in the USA would regard as 100% African. But they don't see it that way. I could call it hopeful that all the women in the following video use the same word to ID themselves. However there is a divide without doubt.
That's not Dr. Kings dream.
Or Barrack Obama getting elected? Do you think that's full filled his dream. I don't think so. His dream was greater than an election. Current events have proven from Jesse Jackson saying he'd like to castrate Obama for acting too white... to Harry Reid calling him lite skinned and no negroe dialect. Obama is still not judged, even as president 100% because of his character. That's sad. That's really sad
There is always hope though. Hope that all Americans can stop discriminating because one person is light, dark, yellow, red, black, brown, or anything else. The question is do we as a nation have the fortitude to shed our own predjucices? I pray to All mighty, merciful God we do.
Comments
Short of a total body skin transplant there is no way to change skin color. People simply look at your color and make snap split second decisions without really thinking.
Though I agree with your sentiment that we will eventually get there. However I can only see that happening.... once we have all mixed together into a nice even shade of reddish brown. Basically until we can all evolve to look like the indians did. In short it will take a geologically significant amount of time for that to happen.
Hontas Farmer | 01/19/10 | 04:12 AM
Hi Hontas Farmer (Aisha),
There are many things surprised me, first I am a PhD student at University of Witwatrsrand in South Africa in theoretical physics and I working nearest to your interest.
Second, today when I was looking at white people here, I start thinking that what happen if all these people get mixed so the differences of their color will vanished, but a gain I realized that after many thousand years and according to their distributions in the different environmental weathers, they will change their colors again.
and when I came tonight I read your article about this, by accident, this what was surprise me.
I hope to be one of your friend and to discuss some topics in physics and others.
yours sincerely,
Badr Awad Mohammed
There are many things surprised me, first I am a PhD student at University of Witwatrsrand in South Africa in theoretical physics and I working nearest to your interest.
Second, today when I was looking at white people here, I start thinking that what happen if all these people get mixed so the differences of their color will vanished, but a gain I realized that after many thousand years and according to their distributions in the different environmental weathers, they will change their colors again.
and when I came tonight I read your article about this, by accident, this what was surprise me.
I hope to be one of your friend and to discuss some topics in physics and others.
yours sincerely,
Badr Awad Mohammed
Badr Awad Mohammed (not verified) | 03/12/10 | 15:57 PM
As for evolution and skin color... it stands to reason that eventually everyone there will be the same color even without mixing. Living at different latitude will do that.
Hontas Farmer | 03/12/10 | 20:30 PM
Your bring into focus two of your Norteamericano politicians, the first being Barack Obama. I briefly scan the Telegraph Blogs, but it's quite a wearing occupation, not least because many of those who post comments, as well as some of the article writers, think that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a left-wing scam designed so that big government can find more excuses for taxing the population.
Now many of those who comment seem to think that Barack Obama is some sort of Hugo Chávez clone, but his ethnicity hardly even raises an eyebrow.
As for Jesse Jackson, even his face impacts me so much like those of George Galloway and Ken Livingstone, so that even though those two are white, one could imagine that all three came out of the same mould. Our two British versions both favour militant Muslims and militant homosexuals, even though those two groups if left together would get on like sodium and water. The one thing they (including those two pollys) have in common is that they hate the traditional British culture.
We Europeans must be, I think, a different subspecies from Americans (from both sides of the Panama Canal.) I am quite interested in the history of Germany in the years immediately following the Second World War. When black soldiers from the USA found themselves in post-war Germany, it was surprising how well they were accepted by the Germans. If they had any musical ability in jazz (which was suppressed by Nazis and Soviets alike) they found themselves very much in demand.
Robert H Olley | 01/20/10 | 15:12 PM
I also have to admit that I have not felt racially discriminated against by anyone of recent European descent. The racism of the America's has to be learned. The idea that on some level everyone from England to at least the river Spree is the same race/ethnicity, white. The idea that being white makes one better than anyone who is not white. Why would anyone in today's Europe think that?
One thing you may find interesting. One of my father's uncles was a jazz musician named Art. He was famous for playing the trumpet. I never met the guy but he did end up moving to Germany or France I believe.
Hontas Farmer | 01/21/10 | 00:46 AM
In short those are the three traditional races here in the America's. I
also have to admit that I have not felt racially discriminated against
by anyone of recent European descent. The racism of the America's has
to be learned.
I think to a lesser extent you also need to include Mexican and Chinese people as part of the historical ethnic spectrum. However, it may be worth considering that in the America's there was the quasi-religious notion of "Manifest Destiny" which tended to play to the idea of European superiority in settling the entire continent. As a result, a significant part of this country's history is based on the idea that the white race had God's endorsement to do whatever it took to expand. I realize that I'm grossly over-simplifying all the history here, but it seems that this viewpoint offers some hint as to why there might be a greater difference in attitudes in the America's versus the European continent.
Gerhard Adam | 01/21/10 | 09:02 AM
The difference is that in latin america "miscegenation" was not discouraged. While there was an idea of white supremacy, perhaps it was thought that by intermarrying with the natives, and even with Africans would result in a stronger product. Spain was known for it's horse breeding. So they had to know that you can only breed related through breads together so many times before you get a bunch of horses that can't walk.
Another difference is that after slavery was abolished there, the darker people were legally equal to the lighter. There were socioeconomic barriers to advancement, but nothing like the black codes or Jim Crow laws here in america. If you ask me African American's got over slavery a while ago... what we are suffering because of is Jim Crow.
Hontas Farmer | 01/21/10 | 10:34 AM
...what we are suffering because of is Jim Crow.
No doubt that's true. Without becoming overly analytical about it (and I hope I don't screw up my history), it seems that there were several factors at work, ironically, all of European origin.
This was the era of empire, so Europeans were moving all over the globe colonizing various places, of which clearly, the America's were only one. However, many of the colonists had their own problems back in their homeland, so there were many instances of people being oppressed at home that moved to these newly established colonies. As a result, it appears that they took that same cultural attitude and pushed the oppression down the line to others that they could, in turn, dominate. This is precisely the type of thing that happened throughout Africa (our most recent experience being South Africa). It certainly occurred in India and many other places where the roots of an empire were being sunk.
What is interesting is that it appears that it is the colonies that had the most difficulty in giving up their discriminatory practices. This clearly still occurs today, especially when we see property conflicts between Native Americans and white landowners over possible treaty violations. Even within the context of Native Americans being considered a "nation within a nation" there are clear boundaries over which the Native Americans are not permitted to manage their own destiny.
In part, it seems that one of the fears is that full recognition of formerly discriminated-against people may invoke a "payback" of sorts, or at the very least, restitution. So there is strong resistance to true equality. In effect, Europe doesn't have such an issue, since those particular conquests occurred far enough back in history, so there is little recollection of tribes that would've been affected.
Gerhard Adam | 01/21/10 | 11:16 AM
Not unless the Gauls decide that they want to reconstitute themselves in France. :-)
Your right on the money. If you have seen what I wrote about Haiti we see a country where those who have money or power are willing to oppress others to keep it. Even when those people were oppressed themselves. Perhaps it's just human nature to look out for #1.
Hontas Farmer | 01/21/10 | 12:26 PM
Perhaps it's just human nature to look out for #1.
Perhaps it might be a bit more accurate to consider it "human social group nature". While there are obviously more human interpretations and considerations we can put on it, in a very simplistic sense, it is quite similar to the introduction of any invasive species into a habitat.
Gerhard Adam | 01/21/10 | 12:38 PM
Not unless the Gauls decide that they want to reconstitute themselves in France. :-)
Don't get me going about the Gauls. My family name hails from the North of France, not too far from Asterix&Co. I'm still very sore about what Julius Caesar did to Vercingetorix.
Claudius, it is reported, treated Caractacus ("Caradog" in modern Welsh) rather better.
Robert H Olley | 01/21/10 | 12:50 PM
Hontas Farmer | 01/21/10 | 15:33 PM
In short, if there's a way to single someone (or a group of people) out, we'll find a way to do it. If all else fails then we'll separate people by their ideas.
I think there can and will be improvements in various group relationships over time. Race may become a lesser issue than religion, or maybe there will be something else to distract us. It is well known that race is not a necessary ingredient to instill hate, however it is still a major means by which people separate themselves. All you have to do is examine prison populations to see that when things get stressful or difficult, our group affinities come to the surface.
Unfortunately it will never change. Even if we achieved a utopian objective of equality within the borders of this country, it is equally certain that it wouldn't be extended outside those borders. Human groups always separate themselves in some fashion. The "insiders" from the "outsiders".
I only hope that we eventually learn that there is no benefit in expending energy in opposing those "outsiders" (from whatever group they come from), and that regardless of our own bias' and personal feelings, we come to realize that all people deserve to be treated with the dignity and rights that all humans beings should possess simply by being human.