Archive | Social Impact RSS feed for this section

Youth Talk: What Makes a “Good” Friend? (Inspired from the Kenneka Jenkins Story)

17 Sep

This article is inspired from the Kenneka Jenkins Story. 

For those of you who don’t know about this story, Kenneka Jenkins was a 19 year old young lady who was found last Sunday, September 10th, in a hotel Freezer in Rosemont, IL (Chicago Metro Area) dead. Miss Jenkins was attending a hotel party with her friend where drinks and drugs were served. The friends claimed that they were bringing Kenneka to the hotel lobby when Kenneka asked for her items (phone and keys). As all of the friends went back to the room to retrieve her items, she wandered off by herself.

Prior to the release of surveillance footage, many people suspected foul play. Due to the heavy weight of the freezer door, many people suspected (and continue to suspect) she was locked in it on purpose and that her friends may have had some involvement in her death. It was suspicious that the friends didn’t call the police when they first discovered she was missing (possibly they didn’t want to get busted for having illegal drugs and alcohol in their system, and in the hotel at that). It was also suspicious that none of her friends stayed with her when she was drunk, which allowed her to wander away (though the friends claimed they were drunk too and possibly didn’t realize that they left her).

Some people on social media who claimed to be her friends claimed that she was “set up” for $200 to be sexually abused. Other friends have been making other accusations.

Teresa Martin, the mother of Miss Jenkins, said that Kenneka’s friends lied to her and told her that they were taking her daughter “to the show and then bowling”. She also said their stories changed up every time after this incident happened.

But most of her friends, especially Monifah Shelton, just seem to be overcome with grief and guilt, according to their Facebook posts.

With new evidence (and more to come), it appears that Kenneka staggered down the hallway, onto an elevator, and to an empty kitchen (said to be under renovation by the hotel) by herself.

But even with this evidence, some people still suspect she was murdered. Some people claim to see shadows of two people following her. Others aren’t convinced she locked herself in the freezer because there hasn’t been any video footage actually directly showing that she locked herself in. Some people believe that the videos were tampered with because minutes are skipped (though this is common with sensory cameras that only pick up movement; they do this to save on memory space).

A lot of people are suspicious of the hotel and hotel staff. One of the most appalling things about the case is the fact that hotel staff refused to search for the girl until a missing persons report was filed with the police. Even though the policy says video footage has to be released to police, no one ever said they couldn’t at least search for her or at least call the police themselves. Some people suspect that hotel staff had a hand in her death.

People are also suspicious of the police involved in the investigation. When the mother of Kenneka, called the police at the hotel to file a missing persons report, she was told to wait a few hours to see if her daughter showed up. This allowed too much time to lapse, time someone could’ve been searching for Miss Jenkins. The police and hotel staff searched for her but were unable to find her the first time and gave up. The family resorted to knocking on guests’ doors to find her. The hotel then finally decided to call the police back because “their guests were disturbed”. A police officer decided to go ahead and look at the footage again. A search party went out until she was discovered in the freezer.

Many people suspect the police of not looking for her because “she was a girl of color”.

But overall, so far, we know that she staggered down a hallway towards the freezer. She was under the influence of alcohol (and possibly drugs). More information will be revealed after the rest of the footage and the toxicology report is released throughout the weeks.

This incident has raised many questions about how much we can trust social media, how far people will go with their theories, how competent hotel staff are, how much we can trust police officers to find missing persons, and how much young people can be trusted with their friends.

Kenneka Jenkins Update

Five Facts about Kenneka Jenkins’ case

 

While everyone was playing Sherlock Holmes with this case, I decided to take a step back and look at the whole picture. Kenneka may have been set up. Someone may have locked her in a freezer. Perhaps she was in there, and a hotel staff member shut the door and turned the freezer on, not knowing she was in there. Perhaps the hotel staff are trying to cover things up to save the hotel’s reputation and everyone’s jobs. The police may have been racially motivated to ignore her. All of these factors should be considered, and if there’s evidence to support it, those people should be held accountable.

But let’s fast forward everything. Arguably, we can all say that Kenneka herself made some poor choices before she met her demise. The poorest choices she made was choosing some of these girls at the hotel party as friends. The real thing that killed Kenneka was her choices in friends.

I’m not saying her friends were not real friends to her. They probably really loved her and supported her. I’m sure they didn’t intend for anything bad to happen to her (well, I’m hoping). Still, there is a difference between a real friend and a good friend.

What makes a real friend? A real friend is someone who loves and supports you. A real friend understands you and is always there when you need them. A real friend seeks to make their friend happy. A real friend may always support you, but this doesn’t mean they won’t lead you in bad situations.

What makes a good friend? A good friend could be a real friend, but also is someone who brings out the best in you. They seek to lift you up, not tear you down. They don’t bring drama and dangerous situations to their friends. They try to steer their friend in the right direction because they want nothing but the best for them.

Young people who have heard this story should learn from this. It is sad that we can’t save Kenneka, but we can save our young people from meeting the same consequences (or similar) by encouraging our youth to make the right decisions for themselves regarding their own lives and who they choose to associate with.

There’s even a difference between a fake friend and a bad friend.

What makes a fake friend? A fake friend is someone who isn’t supportive, who allows you to feel isolated and humiliated, and who puts you down constantly in front of others or behind your back. It is difficult to communicate your concerns with them without you feeling they won’t be your friend anymore.

What makes a bad friend? A bad friend may also be a fake friend, but they also may put you in dangerous situations. They may be toxic, constantly bringing problems to you, and may hold you back from achieving your goals. These people may seem to care about you sometimes, but they care about themselves more.

So much of American media promotes young people partying and making poor choices. Movies and music promote living a wild lifestyle. America’s youth are impressionable. Some of them aren’t mature enough to make the right choices for themselves and some don’t know how to regulate just how much “fun” they should be having. Top this off with peer pressure, and something as light as a party could lead to severe consequences.

Now is the time for young teens and adults to examine whether their friends are real friends, good friends, or no friends at all.

Parents can also help discover more about their child’s friends by asking questions. But let’s be honest, as a child grows older, they will have more freedom and meet more people. Have you, as a parent, prepared your child to make the best decisions for themselves, even when you are not around to monitor them?

I have created a questionnaire/quiz that can help teens, their parents, and young adults analyze their lives/their child’s lives and reflect on who they associate with. Reflect on these questions, answer them honestly, and really think about whether these kind of friends are really the type of friends you’d want to be around or you’d want to be around your child.

At the end of the questionnaire/quiz are “answers” that help you better reflect on your answers so you can better understand the adjustments you might need to make.

 

1) Your friend is about to attend a “lit” party and invites you to come with them. You attend the party and notice that liquor and several types of illegal drugs are being served there. You’re underage (10 years of age to 20 years of age in the USA). You confront your friend about it, who didn’t tell you beforehand. What would your friend say/do?

a. My friend would say, “I knew they would serve it. Come on. This party is lit! You need to loosen up. I’m here to help you have fun” and would proceed to pass me a drink and a blunt.

b. My friend would say, “I knew it was going to be here, but I thought we could have fun without doing it. We can still have fun at this party, we just won’t drink and smoke” and they would lead me to the center of the room to dance.

c. My friend would say, “I didn’t know alcohol and drugs were going to be served, but I just don’t think it’s a big deal anyway. If it makes you feel uncomfortable, we can leave.” They would wait for my decision, but would return to the party no matter what.

d. My friend would say, “I didn’t know liquor and drugs were being served here. Let’s get out of here and do something else fun”. We would do something else.

 

2) You are not feeling well after a party-gone-wrong. You either ate or drank something that just didn’t sit right with you. You feel like you want to go home, but you came with your friend in their car. What would your friend do?

a. My friend would laugh at me, tell me that’s part of partying, would insist that they want to stay longer, and would tell me to wait awhile or hitch a ride with someone.

b. My friend would call me an Uber or taxi and tell me to go outside and wait for it.

c. My friend would ask me if I could call someone to pick me up and would wait with me until they arrived.

d. My friend would drive me home immediately.

 

3) Your friends want to invite you to a college party at someone’s house across town, a college where you know wild things happen. But you are still living with your parents, using their car, and you know your parents won’t allow you to go. What would your friend suggest?

a. My friend would tell me to go anyway. They would tell me that I’m old enough to make my own decisions. They would offer to help me sneak out.

b. My friend would help me come up with an excuse to leave the house or would help me come up with a lie.

c. My friend would help me come up with more ways to convince my parents to let me go. They would offer to speak to my parents for or with me.

d. My friend would just let it go and would think of something else we could do.

 

4) Your friend drove you to a party that served drinks and she drank a little bit. But she was the one who drove you to the party. You need to get home by midnight. What would your friend suggest?

a. My friend would insist that they aren’t drunk and can hold their liquor. They would insist that I hop in the car.

b. My friend would suggest we stay at the location until they get the liquor out of their system.

c. My friend would suggest that I drive us back home in the car.

d. My friend would suggest we call a trusted relative or friend to pick us up. My friend would come back for the car later. If not, my friend would call a taxi to get us home.

 

5) You decided to leave a party because people were acting wild and crazy. Some other party-goers begin making fun of you as you leave and they start talking trash about you. What would your friend do?

a. My friend would laugh with them and agree that I’m lame and embarrassing.

b. My friend would tell the others to leave me alone, but would agree that I need to loosen up.

c. My friend would stand up for me and tell them that I can do what I want to do. My friend would see me to the door, but they would stay for the party.

d. My friend would leave the party with me.

 

Did you get your answers together?

If you chose mostly “a”, your friend probably seems like a lot of fun. Sometimes, they seem to have your best interest at heart because they often worry about you not having enough fun in your life. They are attractive people to be around because everyday is always an adventure. But ask yourself this: Do they really care what happens to you when they drag you out on their “adventures”? If something were to happen to you, would they really be there for you? Do they respect, not just you, but your family and other friends? Does your safety come before their need for “fun”? Do they consider what you’re comfortable with without judging you or thinking less of you?

If you chose mostly “b”, your friend is considerate and does care what happens to you, but they won’t let anyone stop them from having a good time. They seem like good friends because though they are fun, they let you be you. But ask yourself: If they get in trouble, will you be dragged along with them? Do their choices in life affect you negatively? Do they care enough about you to consult with you about dangerous situations before you enter them? Do they have enough sense to recognize a dangerous situation? Do they listen to your fears and support your decisions? Would your friend protect you if your safety was threatened?

If you chose mostly “c”, your friend actually really seems to care about you and wants you to be able to hang out with them with few problems. They may always seem to find a way to get you to have a little daring fun while still making sure you’re okay. But ask yourself this: Do they really make the right decisions? Will you be stuck cleaning their mess up after every event? Do they place you in uncomfortable or awkward situations all the time without apologizing or realizing their error? Do they cause you to worry or question their decisions when with you? Do they always seem to get you in trouble? Are they responsible when dealing with other people? Do you feel safe around them?

If you chose mostly “d”, your friend always seems to have your back. When you don’t like a situation, they don’t like it either. They seem to consider your feelings, they respect your parents and household, and they want you to both have a good time without feeling uncomfortable. Ask yourself this: When they respect your parents, does it mean they don’t want you to have fun? Are they less attractive as friends because they don’t want to do anything too dangerous that will hurt you?

Now, I’m not here to tell anybody what to do. I’m nobody’s mother. I’m not here to tell you to drop your friends. I’m not here to act like I’m an expert on friendship. The purpose of this questionnaire is simply for reflection.

But I do have experience with these types of situations. As a young woman in her 20s, I understand how hard it is to fight peer pressure. However, part of being an adult is sifting through life and discovering the things and people who are and aren’t good for us. Part of growing up is learning to bring into your life the things and people that improve the quality of it. If you know, in your spirit of spirits, that someone is not good for you, YOU have the power to change that. You can’t change another person. You can only change the choices you make.

Parents should always be aware of who their child is socializing with and should do their best to steer their children in the right direction, but we all know they can’t control everything that goes on at school or at parties with friends. It’s very important to teach children ways to be safe when out with others because we just never know in this world.

If you’ve reviewed the following questions above, and YOU feel you might be a toxic friend, maybe this is a step towards self-evaluation. In what ways can you become a better friend? No one wants to be left with the mess they made after making poor decisions, and no one wants to live with the guilt for the rest of their lives.

I believe that as a community we need to work harder to protect our youth and improve our young people’s morals so that situations like this won’t happen. When I see what happened to Kenneka, I often think to myself:

1. Why would her friends allow her to get that drunk? Why would anyone at that party serve her a drink when she is underage? No one seems to want to address this point because so many people are okay with underage drinking and make excuses for it. It’s even considered acceptable now. But how much damage can underage drinking do to an impressionable teen or young adult? That’s what we should be thinking about.

2. Why would they lie to her mother about where they were going, jeopardizing her safety? By lying to her mother, they have hurt their relationship with Kenneka’s family. Did they think they would get away with it? Even if she were alive, she’d be stumbling in at home drunk.

3. What if Kenneka had managed to get her keys and drive. Would she have died in a car accident? Did her friends even suggest that she get another ride home, or were they too drunk to make the proper decisions too? They did not show that they were responsible.

All of these questions, and yet what’s done is done. I often feel powerless in this situation because all I can do is try to help protect other teens and young adults from meeting the same fate. Let’s all hope for healing for everybody and let’s hope that something like this never happens again.

Leave me a comment and let me know what you think about this situation.

Advertisements

Ask the USA: “Why Do Americans Make A Big Deal About Race and Ethnicity?”

14 Apr

Hello readers!

Early in February, I introduced a new series to my blog called “Ask the USA”. In that introduction, I explained the purpose of this series, what inspired this series, and why I feel qualified to answer these questions (to the best of my ability, of course).

With that being said, one of the questions I’ve been receiving from foreigners all over the internet is:

“Why Do Americans Make a Big Deal About Race and Ethnicity?”

Let’s just get one thing straight here. The USA is full of diverse people with diverse opinions. When it comes to race and ethnicity, people handle it differently here. Obviously, there are many people who don’t make a big deal about it. There are people who are actually prejudiced and don’t care about it. There are people who make a big deal about race and ethnicity and see them as serious issues. There are people who use these issues to “progress” in life and use it as an excuse to do whatever it is they want.

But those who understand “prejudice” will act against it, right? That group may not include those of a minority racial group. It may include those of alternative sexual orientations, minority religions, feminists who feel oppressed, and ethnic groups who live alternative lifestyles. With all of these people acting against prejudices of all kinds, they will obviously loudly act or speak against racism.

However, there are people in the above category (including those from a minority race) who really don’t care about racism either way.

Yet, we still have to acknowledge that people do make a big deal about these things.

So, let’s begin with a little history lesson…

How Did All of these Race Issues Begin?

America is still a young country in comparison to most other countries. It is exactly 238 years old (if we’re not counting when the settlers first arrived on the land and the thousands of years the Native Americans have lived on the land).

With that being said, many of the early issues that affected the USA still sort of affect us because they really didn’t happen that long ago (if you consider the fact our history is more recent than the histories of other nations).

This nation has a majority white population. But it wasn’t always that way. The Europeans did a lot to make sure it became that way. Their actions left a lot of bitter and resentful people. Unlike other countries, the USA began as a melting pot, with a majority Native American ethnic group, and ended with white people as the majority. It was never homogeneous. Let’s start with the original people.

Native Americans

The ancestry of these people trace back to Asia, so they weren’t always on the land, but they discovered it first, thousands of years before Europeans arrived.

Before the Europeans arrived on the land, it was owned by the various indigenous tribes within. They divided the land up their own way, just to keep the peace among them.

They learned to work on the land, they hunted and/or grew crops, fished, and developed their own cultures.

The first Europeans to arrive were from Spain. Most were explorers. They were helped by the Native Americans. The Spanish traded with them, which was how horses were introduced into the different western tribes.

Eventually, though, they fought with the many Native tribes on the west coast, some of the southeast coast of America, and in present-day Mexico and took over the land. Most of those settlers were greedy for land. “Hollywood” now resides in one of those lands.

However, even though Spain fought many tribes, they also befriended many tribes, including the Pueblo. Eventually, some of the Spanish mixed with many indigenous tribes and formed the ethnic group of Mexicans (Mestizos) we are most familiar with today. They learned from the other indigenous tribes and lived peacefully for years.

Mexico eventually fought and won independence from Spain in 1821 (after years of revolt against Napoleon’s occupation of Spain). Mexico won all of the west coast from Spain and continued to live peacefully soon after.

The French came as well, but they were overtaken by the English. They had issues in their own nations, a feud with Great Britain, and Canada to manage as well.

When the Europeans from England arrived, they were escaping religious “persecution” in Europe, sent over to the land to chart it out, or sent there as a punishment for crime (since it was considered the “wilderness”, fairly with large forests and mountains and unfamiliar wild animals).  This means that most were looking to spread their own religious values, were sent to conquer the land, or were criminals.

Many of the criminals were trapped as indentured servants. Orphans and other lost people were sent to the land as well.

When the Europeans arrived, they didn’t literally have a thing. During the Starving Times, some people ate their own shoes.  The Native Americans helped out their foreign invaders, even though the Europeans had no business on their land “illegally”.

The Europeans were so brainwashed by their religious leaders, they truly believed “God sent them” to the New Land. With that being said, they also believed the Native Americans were heathens that needed to be “civilized”, like they felt they were. This attitude led to Europeans setting up missionaries and trying to baptize the indigenous tribes. Most tribes didn’t have a problem with this…until the missionaries started whipping people, even adults, for “breaking God’s law”.

Many of the Europeans also just didn’t understand other cultures. They weren’t exposed to anything different, but they had knowledge from books and affinity with writing. Most of the information was full of prejudice. They abused many Native people for not converting to their religions and yet consumed the resources of the land. The Europeans began to over hunt and over plow, overstepping the cultural rituals regarding hunting and agriculture. They were like guests who overstayed their welcome.  They were also not clean (hygiene especially) and were full of disease. That wiped out many indigenous tribes.

As more and more white people arrived, and shortly after the American Revolution (the colonists’ break from Great Britain), it was harder to divide the land. Europeans began complaining about the Native Americans. The Europeans eventually fought with the tribes on the East. They depleted their population and drove the natives out. They indigenous people were forced to the land west of the Mississippi.

Later, around the 19th century, the new Americans felt they deserved ALL of the land, even the land to the west of the Mississippi. They were greedy, experiencing several economic issues, and trying to fit all of these immigrants in the land. They made treaties with the Natives to the west, but broke ALL of their promises. Eventually, wars broke out. Some tribes were just killed off without even being involved in wars. The Native people surrendered, tired and looking for peace. The United States set aside land for these people called “reservations”. They were not considered citizens, they were just allowed on the land.

But when Americans found gold on the reservations, they kept making the lands smaller and smaller, just to get hold of the resources. They tricked, cheated, and harmed many tribes up until the 20th Century (1900s)!

They put most of all the Native children in boarding schools, forcing them to dress like Europeans, talk like Europeans, and prevented them from seeing or living with their families and friends. The children were brutally punished if they showed any connection to their culture. This is why the languages are hardly spoken to this day and why many cultural practices are lost.

To add insult to injury, the Native Americans were never granted citizenship until 1924.

Why does this matter to Native Americans today?

1.The reservations still exist to this day. The US government has yet to be apologetic about the land they stole, the promises they broke, the people they cheated, and the people they’ve murdered. The terror that they caused to these people has been tremendous. Sadly, many of the reservations are impoverished, crime-ridden, and full of drugs (like most low-income areas in the US, where minority groups often reside, thanks to years of prejudice and oppression). The reservations were stripped of resources, so many of the people couldn’t thrive. Their hunting practices were lost because they were often put out of their original hunting grounds. Unapologetic Americans, quick to release themselves from guilt, often retort “Just leave the reservation, then you’ll live prosperous”. Many Native Americans stay on the reservations as their last stubborn fight for justice. Unfortunately, it feels more like a losing battle at times.

The land the First Nations people were allowed to live on were stripped of resources, and if resources were found on any of the lands after the reservations were drawn up, the government would make them smaller just to access the resources.

The U.S. and state governments are still trying to take the little land they have away, just to get more resources and to build more homes over their lands. They are still breaking promises and still disrespecting the people by trying to take their lands away from them. They don’t care. They are getting rich, fat, and comfortable off the land they stole.

http://nativenewsonline.net/currents/new-north-dakota-wants-congress-modify-indian-reservation-system-turn-power-states/

This isn’t a historical problem, this is a MODERN-DAY problem.

2. Many grandparents and great-grandparents experienced the boarding schools, are living on the reservations, still are scarred by those times in history, and pass their stories down to their children as warnings, as teaching tools, and as truth. Those children carry those burdens with them. It eventually turns into anger, sadness, and bitterness that continues on with loved ones for generations. Who wants to hear that grandpa and grandma were harshly beaten in boarding schools just for speaking their own language? That’s frightening and fear leads to anger.

3. They are no longer the face of their own land. Thanks to most of the media, most of Hollywood, other countries, especially in far east Asia, consider America to be a land full of “blonde hair and blue eyes” or black people. And they aren’t wrong. Most of the Native people were wiped out by Europeans.

Therefore, the Native people get little respect and little representation. Without that representation, their struggles are forgotten, their history rewritten or unwritten, and their culture disrespected time and time again. From the late 19th century to the 1950s, some Native Americans, along with Africans, were kept in zoos!

To them, when they watch people across the world explain what an American is to them, it is likely to make them roll their eyes because they constantly hear descriptions of white people instead of them.

4. History books teach a distorted view of Native Americans, if at all. Thanksgiving is even taught all wrong to children. Many children even believe Native Americans (often called “Indians”) are fairy tale characters…

Arguably, before the Europeans arrived, the Native Americans didn’t get along with one another, and one tribe may have just as easily conquered the others much the same way the Europeans did.

But I don’t think the issue is so much that they were conquered. I believe it was the way they were conquered. It wasn’t through a fair fight. There were lies and cheating involved, which was not the way many Natives fought. And the fight continued even through to the modern century, which made this more of a modern history issue that affects Native Americans today.

African Americans

Many African Americans are descended from various western tribes in Africa. The African and Arab slave trade was practiced for centuries before Europeans arrived on the continent of Africa. During wars, many of the losers would be taken as slaves. Around the 15th century, slaves were being sold outside of Africa.

There are many different kinds of slavery. The kind of slavery the Europeans introduced was different than much of the slavery practiced in Africa (though Northern Africans practiced a similar form at times). In many African nations, people would be enslaved as punishment for a crime or to pay off a debt. They would have certain rights and it was more like indentured servitude. Slave families could buy their freedom and become a part of the master’s family. Many dressed nicely and were fed well. Many were sent to work gold mines, to tend the land, or work in the master’s homes.

At first, enslavement was just on a small scale. But the demand for slaves in Europe and many Arab nations increased. Wars increased and slavery increased.

Many of the African Americans living in America today are descendants of the slaves bought by Europeans from Africa.

Europeans practiced a kind of slavery called “chattel slavery” where a slave had no rights and was treated like property or like an animal. America had the longest history of slavery in the world, practicing it up into the 19th century (1800s).

African Americans helped build the USA with their labor and brains, but they got little recognition or respect for it and often times white people took all the credit for things they did, which made black people appear as if they weren’t contributing much to American society. Many families were separated and unacknowledged. Their heritage was stripped from them, they were beaten for speaking their language and practicing their culture, and so the cultures were lost. Many African Americans don’t even know where their ancestors came from in Africa and are completely removed from their nations’ cultures.

There were some African Americans who came to America as immigrants but most came as slaves.

The American Civil War is what changed things for African Americans.

The Civil War was mostly about the division of territory, but slaves were swept up into the debate. Certain states were slave states. The South mostly relied on slaves. They were more agricultural. The North relied on factories and immigrants to thrive. They wanted to move America into the future with machines and technology. They felt the South was holding them back. They felt the way to force the South forward was to get rid of the slave trade, which would cut into the southern economy. The South felt that the North had no right to tell them what to do. As Americans expanded west, they began to debate over which states would be slave states and which would be free states. It moved from a debate into a war.

Eventually, the North won the war. African Americans were freed, but they still were not treated equally. They were given the right to vote, but hard tests were put in place to discourage African Americans, who couldn’t read, from voting and holding public office. Many places were segregated or didn’t allow black people inside, so many black people had nothing to call their own. They were forced to move into run-down neighborhoods with immigrant families.

The South made living there difficult when they put Jim Crow Laws in place, which were designed to prevent African Americans from progressing.

Many white people murdered black people from the end of the Civil War to the 1970’s, and no justice was served. Some cases didn’t reopen until the 1990’s, like in the case of the Birmingham Church bombing that killed four little girls, and by that time many of the criminals had passed on, living most of their lives comfortably and guilt-free. Many cases still aren’t resolved and have gone cold.

The people who lived during that period lived in the 1960’s, 1970’s, and are still living as parents and grandparents today, and were greatly affected by the period mentally, emotionally, physically, and financially.

A lot of people feel these issues have ended years ago and don’t realize how the past can affect the future. If a war between North and South Korea still exists, and the feelings are still holding true, what makes the feelings from those harsh racist times in America any different? The past affects the future.

How does this affect African Americans today?

The slave trade has had an affect on all of African Americans except the ones who migrated to America on their own. African immigrants wouldn’t relate to the actual history.

The history has affected the culture in various ways:

1.It influenced the way African Americans speak. African Americans grew up in the South. Much of the South was owned by France and Spain. African Americans developed a “cajun” accent. Even when the English took over, the accent remained. They weren’t taught to read and write, so many learned English simply by ear. Many spoke broken English as a result.

Once slavery ended, many slaves still didn’t have access to schools, as white people still kept schools segregated and made no efforts to build schools for the newly freed black people. Many had to migrate north for schooling, but many didn’t have the money or health to make it that far. So, the manner of speaking stuck. It traveled all the way to the present day.

Nowadays, African Americans receive an education and are taught the proper way to speak English. However, if their grandparents spoke that way, their parents did, too, and so the manner of speaking carried on into many African American households. Many black people return to the manner of speaking to relate to other people within their race.

2. It influenced African American music culture, American music, and their place in the music industry. Blues, rock and roll, pop music, and much of the modern music we listen to came out of the African American community. Black Americans didn’t have much to call their own, but they were able to make music. They used music to express their feelings in ways they were not free to express.

Unfortunately, many white people hijacked the genres and denied African Americans airplay on the radio, causing people to acknowledge white contributions over black contributions. For instance, Elvis Presley is considered the King of Rock and Roll though he did nothing to truly contribute to the genre other than moving his hips on stage. He stole the songs of many African Americans and brought them to the “mainstream” which was really just the “white audience”. Many African American rock and roll artists didn’t get respect until the 1990s and many still aren’t respected in the rock community. The Beatles get more attention and they aren’t even American.

That’s why African Americans today get so butthurt when white people get famous from things they’ve invented. They don’t feel appreciated or respected. They feel treated as inferior. This is why they are the first to pull the cultural appropriation card. They are afraid of their contributions being wiped under the rug like it once was before.

Even in movies, white people would often portray African Americans, and sometimes they would play up racist interpretations. This is where the “black face” stemmed from. Many of these interpretations put African Americans in inferior positions to white people. They put African Americans in a negative light and made fun of African Americans’ station in life, their culture, the way they spoke, etc.

When there were roles that honored a historical figure of color (like an African Queen), a white person would portray the person. This caused most of the world to believe that all the major royals of the world were white and that black people were always inferior. Movies were segregated and black people were not invited to play roles in major movie productions or in major playhouses. This whitewashing happened up until the 1970’s. Many of the executives and/or the families that approved of the whitewashing are still in control today.

This is why white-washing is so looked down upon by black people. This is why so much of a stink is made when white people are put in roles that could potentially go to other races of people. Many people of different backgrounds already feel undermined.

And then racism really does still exist. When the role is reversed, white people don’t like it either.

3. Like in Native American communities, parents and grandparents are still around to remind the younger generation of harsher times in history. They remind their children to be watchful of racism because they were victims of it. Of course hearing these stories are enough to make the newer generation more defiant of a system they felt betrayed them. It’s enough to make them angry and bitter.

4. It is the reason so many still live in low-income, crime-ridden neighborhoods. Many businesses that are major in the USA today began as early as the 1700s. African Americans were enslaved during these periods, putting them behind everyone else in the job and business market. Laws interfered with their education and racism had a major impact on families. Even with the inventions created by black people, many had to go through white people to get it sold or to get it off the ground. They had jobs, but were underpaid and were paid less than white people up until the 1970s.

Angry about the injustice, many black people turned to a life of crime to take what they felt they deserved. They learned about gang life from the Irish and Italians who lived in the inner cities (before they learned how to integrate into wealthy and middle-class American society). Anger groups sprung up to fight white supremacy.

The “gang” mentality influenced the black community and eventually influenced the culture in both large and small ways.

As mentioned before, racism in the 1960s and 1970s had an affect on the grandparents and parents that are still alive today. Even when the Civil Rights Movement ended, some people were still bitter towards black people and found ways to keep them away from the working world. Most black people grew up in homes with parents who had low-income jobs as a result.

The children of these people grew up with little, which set them back. Many of them found success in the 1980’s and 1990’s, but if there were any other problems in the domestic structure, many continued to struggle. Poverty often leads to poverty, and it’s the very reason many African Americans are still in poor situations.

This made a lot of African Americans bitter towards white people.

5. Certain standards in a Eurocentric society come out of systemic racism. The European standard of modesty, beauty, manner of speaking, and even living washes over the nation and around the world. Anyone who doesn’t fit in with that standard is “odd” or “eccentric” or inferior. Black people get called “ghetto” or “uncivilized” if they deviate from the norm.

Black people deviate the most from these standards, simply because their culture is different and their appearances are different. This stands in the way of getting good jobs or getting elite positions in society, especially in an industry where presentation is important.

Black hair is considered unprofessional.

6. It is the reason so many African Americans struggle in school to this day and have a hard time achieving in society.

Before slavery ended, they weren’t allowed to read and write. Slave owners did this so slaves wouldn’t learn how to buy their own freedom and so they wouldn’t run away to free places.

Some black people taught themselves secretly, stealing books or overhearing conversations or listening outside of school yards. Some of the house slaves (slaves that worked in the master’s house and not in the fields) passed notes from house to cabin.

But most black people resigned to the fact that they would never learn how to read and write the language they were forced to speak. To cope with this fact, many developed pride in their ignorance, using it as humor and resisting White education altogether. After all, they felt, “Why should we have to learn English? Why should we learn at a white man’s designed school? Let’s resist them by resisting their education.”

Unfortunately, this established a rebellious attitude in the culture and made it difficult for them to assimilate into American society once freed.

Even after they were free, the Southern part of the USA, the part of the USA that mostly practiced slavery before losing the war, refused to establish schools for black children and some schools for blacks were burned down. Teachers and students were killed for helping, white and black. This scared black people off from an education.

Even after school became mandatory at the turn of the 20th century (early 1900’s), many schools for African Americans had little money to provide books for each student. Poor kids still had to work, so many black students worked while attending school. Many kids had to drop out to help their parents make ends meet. They couldn’t fund raise in the black community because most didn’t even have adequate jobs. White people were unsympathetic and felt freeing them was enough, so must didn’t put money behind black schools. And schools were segregated, or separated, between blacks and whites.

All-black schools continued to suffer up until the 1970’s, after the Civil Rights movement. But even then, progress was slow. The government began funding the money after schools were desegregated and everyone got their legal rights, but they were still way behind schools with a majority white population. And still some people were against the integration of black kids and didn’t want to help black people, just like some don’t want to today. They felt it was up to black people to fix themselves. But the problem was it was difficult to start at the bottom in a society with white people at the top. Progress would have to be slow if black people were to fix themselves.

And The Civil Rights Act didn’t end actual racism. Racism is an ideology that produces feelings, something the law can’t change. Racist feelings continued. The people who were mostly at the top found ways to implement that racism without being caught by the law. Many were successful at segregating black people from communities and businesses, using other means of discrimination.

Many black kids just gave up on trying to receive an education and gave up trying to assimilate into American society. That’s why we ended up with a culture heavily on welfare, strongly against authority, and uninterested in education as a whole. In many ways, it’s a courageous stand, but foolish, and it sets many black people back. The attitudes and behaviors that came from slavery give white people a reason to ignore black people and establish racist rules.

Racism still exists as a result. Because of racism, segregation still exists. Black people still end up with the short end of the stick. This is why black people are some of the most defensive minorities in the country. Many of them don’t trust white people, and it doesn’t seem many white people care to earn that trust and would rather ignore the issues.

Segregated Proms Just Ended in 2014 in Georgia

My Experience

I am a very open-minded person, and I have friends of many different backgrounds. From reading my various articles, most people know I’m not the first to pull the race card or jump on the “black power” bandwagon. But I know from experience racism, especially systemic racism, exists and/or has existed in the 21st century.

I graduated from high school about 9 years ago, but I still remember this incident.

All my life, I lived in an all-black community and attended all-black schools. Yes, my school was the stereotypical violent school. The school performed poorly academically (only 50% of my class graduated) and the behavior was off the charts horrible. I personally had good grades, but everyone around me didn’t really appreciate school and didn’t really respect the teachers or administration in place. Gang life was common. I was in a school full of people who glamorized thug life and would start a fight with each other if they were stared at the wrong way.

Of course, not everybody was like this. Some people were peaceful and involved in school. But they were considered lame or stuck-up to the other kids in the school. My clique was called the “Lames”. We liked rock music, anime, video games, and tried to have fun with school and such.

One year, I was taken out of that school and placed in a relatively mixed school, with the majority of students being white (though that majority wasn’t that large). Almost all of the teachers were white. In fact, I only remember there being one black teacher in the whole school and no black administrators at the District office.

I was really excited to go to this school. The school’s academic stats were high, they had fun activities that I was eager to get involved in, and I wouldn’t have to worry about people picking fights with me, threatening me, or any other nonsense like that. In my mind, I assumed that being at a black school was the problem. I used to be one of those people who acted like a coon, bad-mouthing black people and feeling resentful because I was bullied for being different. So, I was excited to be around people who might actually appreciate rock music or anime like I do.

After attending the school, it wasn’t exactly what I thought it would be. I did make friends of all races, don’t get me wrong. But everybody was so divided into cliques, it was hard to mingle. And then by the time I moved there, I was a Junior in high school, so everyone had already made their friends. Still, mostly it was peaceful.

However, I ran into this one group of girls (all white clique) who seriously looked down on people. They were racist, but they also looked down on poor white people, too. I remember one time, one of the girls bit off her cookie during lunch, came over to me and my friends’ table, and said, “Here you need this” to one of my poorer white friends, handing her the bitten-off cookie. This girl and her friends also used to make fun of a Middle Eastern boy at the school. I remember they would pronounce his name wrong on purpose and tell him he smells. He got so fed up one time, he almost dumped his tray on their heads.

And those girls were just laughing.

They would talk about my black friend, saying she tried to act white, talking about how ugly she looked, etc.

They didn’t bother me because at the end of the day, they weren’t in charge of my grades. And then they weren’t a bowl of cherries. They all had this ugly orange fake tan they got at a cheap booth, so there was a lot to discuss regarding them. 😛

But then, second semester, I ran into a racist teacher. That’s when it got tricky.

Because I was so excited to go to this school, and because I’d never been around too many white people, I assumed everybody was going to be normal or nice. Even if I knew some teachers might be mean or strict, I never expected them to be racist. Not in the 21st century, oh no.

Initially, a lot of black students warned me about her, but I didn’t listen to them because at my old school, kids would say teachers were racist all the time. And all of the teachers they said were racist would turn out to be nice to me. So, whether they were racist or not, this didn’t affect my grades. What racist teacher would want to work at an all-black school, under all-black administration, anyway? And some of those students were just awful bad and used the race card to avoid taking responsibility.

I didn’t personally have this teacher, but my sibling did. My sibling and I are the same age and we felt the same way about the school. At first, she didn’t listen to anyone around her who told her about this teacher. I didn’t either and just brushed it under the rug.

But when my sibling walked into this class, right away she felt something wasn’t right. My sister would say good morning to the teacher, like she did all her other teachers, but the teacher would never say anything back. But when the white students came in and greeted her, she would get into long conversations with them. My sister didn’t think anything of it at first, assuming maybe she didn’t say it loud enough or assuming she rubbed the teacher the wrong way. I assumed that, too.

The class didn’t have assigned seats, but the majority of the students of “color” or of a different ethnic group (black, Asian, Hispanic, Afro Latino, Muslim, etc) sat at the front of the room, while the white kids sat all over the classroom, with the majority sitting in the back. One time, my sister wasn’t feeling good and decided to sit at the back of the room. The teacher told her to sit at the front. My sister asked her why, and the teacher said she’s used to her sitting there and wanted to keep track of everyone in the room for attendance purposes. So, my sister didn’t make a big deal about it. But the next day, a few of the white students, who normally sat in the front, moved to the back, and the teacher didn’t say anything to them. In fact, the white students switched seats all the time.

Still, my sister just listened to what she said and didn’t really think she was racist. She thought the teacher didn’t like her for some reason, but she didn’t think she was racist.

The teacher would focus on the black and Mexicans kids, but some of them were bad.

But there were far more black students that cared about their education in this school. One of the black girls in the class was in the top 10 of her graduating class.

The first sign that the teacher was racist came with this student.

The white students in the class were talking in the back of the classroom. Whenever the other students of color talked, the teacher would issue consequences, but she never did that with the white students. In fact, she would laugh and joke along with them!

One day, they were talking during a lesson. She pointed out a black student, who had the highest grade in the class, and told her to stop talking. This student was very quiet and was writing her notes. She looked up surprised and said she wasn’t talking. The teacher told her not to talk back to her and she wrote the student up! The student was trying to explain that the students in the back were talking, but the teacher said she didn’t want to hear excuses.

Fortunately, the principal and administration weren’t racist. The student was able to talk to them and get the referral thrown out.

But it didn’t stop there.

The second incident came when a Mexican student in the class received a D as a grade in the classroom, even though he turned in all his work and said he’d gotten good grades on his work. He asked to look at his work and review it. The teacher refused. He stormed out of the classroom, yelling, “Racist bit**!” The teacher shrugged and said “whatever”.

The third incident came when the teacher kept telling one of the other black students to be quiet and the student refused. Of course, the student was being disobedient, which was bad. But the white students in the back talked throughout the whole lesson. The black student brought this to the teacher’s attention, stating “Why don’t you talk to them in the back? I can’t wait to move back to the city.” And the teacher said “Me too. I can’t wait until all of you go back.” My sister was thinking, “all of you”? What does she mean by that?

The final incident, the final straw, was when a final project was due and my sister almost failed the class because the teacher lost her assignment.

My sister and I have always been conscientious about our work. There was a big assignment that determined the final grade in the class. This assignment was to write a letter to Red Lobster. If the letter got to Red Lobster, they would send a letter back. So, there were supposed to be two copies: one for the teacher and one for Red Lobster.

My sister turned her letter in a week before the due date. Red Lobster sent a letter back to her; that’s how she knew she turned it in.

The teacher comes up to her and says she didn’t receive the letter. My sister reminded the teacher that Red Lobster responded, but the teacher said that if she didn’t receive a teacher copy, my sister would fail the class! My sister kept a couple of copies in her locker, and asked the teacher if she could go and get it out of her locker. The teacher said no, and said that that was that. My sister asked if the teacher could look on her desk again and check around. The teacher refused and told her to sit down. My sister was panicking, afraid, worried, crying.

Then a white girl comes up to the teacher and asks the teacher if she can get a pass to go the library to DO THE PROJECT. Girl didn’t even do it and it was passed the due date. And guess what the teacher said? “Oh sure, I’ll write you a pass.” SAY WHAT? It was then my sister realized the teacher was racist. She immediately told an adult, my family.

After that, you know fam jumped on the phone with the school board and the principal, explaining the situation.

They asked the teacher to search her stuff again. Guess what? She found it. Interesting… She told my sister it was somewhere on her desk…

After that, my sister realized she had come face to face with her first racist experience.

It’s not a big deal when it’s some person who can’t affect your life in any way, like that clique of girls I mentioned in the beginning of this story, but when it’s someone in authority, someone who can potentially stifle your growth, like a teacher, or put you in jail, like a police officer, that’s when racism is scary. That’s where it should be stopped. That’s when it gets serious.

After that, I never questioned whether racism existed. I don’t see racism in every incident, but I know it exists. Even though things may have changed since 9 years ago, I’m still watchful, still prepared to be disliked simply because I’m black. It taught me to pay attention to my surroundings and not to assume things have changed just because we’re in the “modern era”.

In that classroom, none of the white people realized how racist the teacher was. She treated them nicely. Of course, they thought we were all just pulling the race card. They assumed that because she treated them nicely. Some of them turned a blind eye to what was going on, just happy they were getting special privileges.

I think they had a hard time believing it because one half Mexican half white boy got away with sitting with the white kids. He dyed his hair, was pale, and didn’t have a “Spanish” accent. He blended in well, so the teacher treated him nice. He concealed his ethnicity the whole time and she never found out he was Mexican. I think that’s why my sister questioned herself.

But eventually it became clear.

People of a minority group are taught early on to recognize signs of racism as a result of the stories they’ve been told by their parents and the experiences of other people of color. Some miss the mark, paranoid of being treated unfairly, but others are very aware and on point.

Watch the movie Get Out. It’s really good about pointing out how deep racism can be seeped into the hearts of individuals and shows how black people are taught to recognize the signs.

Mexican Americans

At one time, the whole west coast of present-day USA was owned by Mexico. The Spanish settlers were the first to settle in the land. Many mixed with the indigenous people forming the Mexican ethnic group we know today. After they won independence from Spain in the 1800’s, they opened trade with the USA. This turned out to be a big mistake.

I already mentioned that white Americans felt they should own all of the land west of the Mississippi River. Eventually, Americans went to war with Mexico and managed to take much of their land. They didn’t take all of their territory, which is why Mexico is still standing today, but they down-sized it tremendously.

When cowboys and other outlaws entered into these territories, they tricked many Mexicans out of their land and stole their resources. Many Mexicans had been living on their lands for years and lost the papers to prove their ownership. Most didn’t speak English and were tricked into signing contracts that relinquished their control of their land. Mexicans lost their rights and were considered foreigners in their own land. They didn’t get citizenship until 1910, several decades after many of the states they lived in became a part of the US!

There are still signs that Mexico once owned the west coast. The states once owned by Mexico have Spanish names. California, Florida, and Texas were just three of the territories owned by Mexico. Many of the buildings and cultures within these states originated with Spain and Mexico, and there are visible signs of that cultural influence.

Nowadays, Mexicans are associated with illegal immigration. This deviation from their original station on this land has caused many Mexicans to resent full-blooded white people. Many Mexicans feel that the land should still be theirs and they may resent the takeover of Americans.

Many Mexicans work hard to assimilate into American culture, but are still treated as inferior in many ways. Mexican Americans aren’t honored or respected in the USA like they should be. Their language is now considered foreign. Their culture isn’t considered “American”. Their businesses and riches were stripped from them during the war and many of them had to start from scratch, amid prejudice. Some turned to a life of crime to make ends meet. This is why crime also seeped into their culture.

Asian Americans

Asian Americans haven’t had it as bad as other races and ethnic groups. Many came to America as immigrants, hoping to assimilate into society. But they brought their rich culture and language with them, mingled with westerners, and still had a nation to call home in case things didn’t work out in the USA (unlike many other races and ethnic groups).

Still, within the nation, America made it hard for Asian Americans to enter the land and grow. When Japanese people first started coming into the USA, most came illegally. Many were brought over by contractors who needed someone to work the land in Hawaii. The Chinese came to strike it rich during the Gold Rush and send the money back to their families. They were trying to escape harsh conditions after China lost the Opium war to the British, which allowed the British to take over different cities/provinces in China, placing many Chinese people in poverty. But even in America, they were placed in subservient roles and prejudice stopped many of them from getting the riches they wanted.

Still, Asians played a large role in the building up of America.

The Chinese especially gave their strongest efforts in America. Many helped with the Transcontinental Railroad project. When they first arrived to find gold, they were well-received. But when competition got stronger, many Americans began to dislike any immigrants coming into the country–including Chinese and other Asian immigrants.

The Chinese helped California’s economy tremendously, but they were still driven out of many cities. Eventually a ban was put in place.

After the Chinese Exclusion Act, many Chinese weren’t allowed into the USA. This affected other Asians, who were often confused for Chinese or pit in the same category. Later, another Act banned all Asians from entering the country. This is partially why Asian Americans are still the smallest minority ethnic and racial groups in America.

As such, they are largely underrepresented and unacknowledged. Without proper representation, ignorant stereotyping persists.

Most people today just consider them as foreign. Eastern culture is widely different from western culture, and some Americans (black, white, Hispanic, etc) are ignorant towards them because they don’t understand them. Many Americans associate the “look” of Asia with foreign or alien, even if the person was born in America. This greatly alienates Asian Americans, making them feel odd and out-of-place.

Today, middle easterners and west Asians are catching a lot of fire because of recent radical attacks in the USA. Even the people that aren’t Muslim are being scrutinized simply because they came from or their families came from a middle eastern or west eastern country. All Muslim people are categorized in the same place as one another, which causes frustration for the ones who are truly peace-loving.

People from the middle east and western Asia came to America between the late 1800’s to the 1920’s, escaping war and economic hardship. Because of the Johnson-Reed act, all Asians were prohibited from entering the USA. Again, this is why, of all the races and ethnicities, Asians are the smallest minority. They weren’t as welcome in the USA because they provided competition for White Americans.

Middle Easterners and West Easterners were normally darker-skinned and confused for being black. Many people treated them the same way they treated black people.

The act was repealed in the 1960s, which brought over many more Asian Americans. Still, by then, they were the smallest minority, which makes their ideas and interests largely underrepresented in politics and media.

White People

The modern white people have had to shoulder a lot of what their ancestors did. Because many of their ancestors from the 1950’s and 1960’s are still alive, some of them have carried on the same attitudes.

While there are now more sympathetic and open-minded white people today than there have been, many either ignore racism, have deep-seated racist attitudes, or just avoid getting involved with minorities and any issues regarding them for fear of offending them.

There are several reasons why this racism, indifference, and segregation continues:

1.Some white people have deep-seated prejudices. Even though nowadays most white people won’t treat another person of color mean or won’t openly discriminate against black people (though some do), many have in their minds that a Eurocentric way of thinking is the superior way to think. Many white people feel this is “their country”, the one they conquered, and they can’t understand a culture that’s different from there’s.

For instance, in black culture, it is customary to shout out loud when excited or congratulating someone during celebrations (like graduations, weddings, etc). White people might shout when excited too, but they tend to be more toned down. When black people are shouting or cheering, white people may think they are being “rude” or being “ignorant”. The cultures have differences, but white people may have been taught that their way of expressing happiness or excitement is the “proper” way. This often makes black people look bad when they might just be misunderstood. That’s just an example of a culture clash. But because the majority rules, the scales tip in favor of one over the other.

Some may also look down on tribal living, finding a progressive way of living, with Eurocentric laws, manner of dress, and manner of speaking to be the best way of living, while looking down on people who don’t live that way. And don’t get me wrong. Many people enjoy living in the land we call home with the freedoms we have, with the Europe-inspired laws and everything. But then again, most of us minorities were raised here and never experienced anything different.

2. Some white people are fed up with trying to be nice to minority groups, especially black people. There are some white people who feel that it doesn’t matter what they try to do for other communities, they will always come out looking racist or not doing enough. Many are still not aware of which phrases or words are racist and which words aren’t. They may know the obvious words like “ni****” and other such words. But they may not realize that generalizing all black people in certain categories could come off as racist, even if white people feel the generalizations or stereotypes are true in their perception.

And that fact makes them feel uncomfortable around other ethnic and racial groups, especially when they feel they have a real concern regarding these people. This gives them a reason to exclude other races and ethnic groups from certain events, schools, or businesses. Some don’t want the “damage control” issues that could follow.

Some white people do want “white only” spaces, spaces where they can talk comfortably with people who are similar and share the same culture or music. They may not necessarily hate other races or ethnic groups, they just want to spend time with people like themselves. Unfortunately, this increases segregation and causes controversy.

Admittedly, some minority groups do get angry over every little comment towards them or another person like them. Even a judgment of character is often referred back to racial issues at times. Some minorities do try to profit off of racism and “racist” situations and try to bring attention to themselves. Some minorities just find it easier to blame racism for some of the issues in the community instead of doing more to build up their communities.

This makes it frustrating for the white people that may not have initially had prejudices per se, but may have formed them based on reactions from minority groups. For instance, Mackelmore, a pop artist in the USA, marched in Seattle for the issues going on in Ferguson. Many black people criticized him, asking why he was there and stating that he just wanted attention. They were mad at him for taking home the best Hip Hop artist award at an awards’ show when he is 1) not considered a Hip-hop artist by most Hip-hop experts and 2) not considered the best Hip-hop artist to many in the Hip-hop community (who are mostly black and Latino). Most black people felt the award should’ve gone to Kendrick Lamar, but felt that Macklemore won because he is white. They felt he didn’t speak up then. So they felt he was only marching for the show.

This made a lot of white people angry, who felt that black people would find a way to criticize them no matter what. This disconnects them further from minorities and makes them just want to ignore issues. Some feel it’s better to ignore than to address it to avoid having their words and actions criticized.

3) There are white people who have been victims of prejudice, even crime, at the hands of those of a minority group, and so have a fear of them, which leads to hatred.

Remember I told you I attended a all-black school? Well, it’d be unfair to say no white people attended. It was a majority black school with two white people and one Asian girl. There was one white girl and one white boy who went to the school.

The girl was raised around black people. But the students, teachers, and administration made it hard for her in school. They were racist towards her, oh yes, racist.

The other black students would talk about the way the white student spoke, saying she was trying to “sound black”. She couldn’t help it because she grew up around black people and so she picked up their vernacular. But they wouldn’t let up.

Some black students would pick fights with her, intimidate her, and exclude her from things. And whenever she would tell the administration, they did nothing about it and asked her whether she “provoked” the situations. I literally saw one incident where a girl pushed her down for no reason.

This is what happened when she became the minority. Many white people are afraid of being a minority in this country because they are afraid of being treated this way by bitter people, but it would be on a larger scale. They are afraid of their rights being ignored. Then, they would have to face and carry the burdens of their ancestors.

How do you think this white girl fared? I’m sure that if she had became angry enough at her situation, she would’ve turned into a severe racist person.

The good thing about it is she did manage to make a few black friends. That made her realize not all black people were evil and pressed. I was one of those friends. Still, I don’t know what feelings she carried throughout her adult life.

And the ones whose family members were victims of crime by minorities will also resent them. They may attack everything about the criminal, including the race of the individual. This may cause them to be scared of minorities, and fear leads to hatred.

Are All White People To Blame?

No. The newer generation didn’t create the mess. It’s messed up that they are getting dumped on because of things their ancestors did or allowed. Many white people today treat others fairly. There are still ignorant people everywhere, but there are also nice white people out there, too. Everyone in America is diverse.

I think the issues started with minorities’ anger towards the government, a system that failed to issue liberty, freedom, and justice to minorities, but preached about liberty, freedom, and justice. I think most are bitter towards the system. However, mostly white people are in that system, and that is creating a modern-day race problem.

However, there are some white people that support that system and refuse to listen to any rhetoric that makes them feel guilty. And racism still exists. There are still people in power (very few though) like teachers, police officers, and mayors that are racist and use their power to execute discriminatory acts. But it’s important for those of a minority group to sift through foolishness and find the real racism, otherwise they risk losing any support to their causes.

Some minority groups get pretty triggered over little jokes or comments that may not even be racist and may just be “racial”. Some minorities may assume that any person like them getting arrested by a white police officer was “racially targeted”, which isn’t always the case.

Some people can’t handle history lessons and have formed prejudiced views of modern-day white people based on what they’ve learned about the past. Of course, this annoys many white people.

I think all ignorance would be diminished if people learned to walk in other people’s shoes. But maybe that’s way too idealistic.

I think in many cases it seems to some people that everyone else can learn to walk in a white person’s shoes, but it doesn’t seem white people are capable of walking in another culture’s shoes without judging or comparing it to their own culture.

For instance, other cultures and races around the world can watch a movie with a white lead and with European culture (like Game of Thrones) and relate to the humor and story of it, along with movies with lead characters of their own races. But white people can’t relate well to movies with black themes and leads, Asian themes and leads, or Native American themes and leads. To many people, they seem to be the only group of people who don’t know how to assimilate or adapt.

Even in Asia, Asians often speak of running into white tourists who are often confused as to why certain signs aren’t in English and why the people just don’t speak to them in in English. Some ethnicities have had bad experiences.

In South Africa, many white people protested against black girls wearing braids and Afros to school. IN AFRICA.

But there are many white people that do connect with other cultures and races. There are some that can switch between Harry Potter and Diary of a Mad Black Woman. It’s senseless to put everyone in the same category. But sometimes these white people might feel rejected by the group of people they try to connect to. They get labeled “appropriators” or attention-seekers.

Some people use the race or ethnic card when convenient but have no real intentions on making changes. That’s when it becomes less effective and irritating. That really hurts the actual organizations out here fighting for true equality.

Why Would Something From Over 100 Years Ago Affect People?

Does Thomas Edison’s inventions affect us? Yes. Do we realize it all the time? No.

Without him we wouldn’t have light bulbs, movies, or sound recordings. We forget about his importance because other people have upgraded it, but he invented it and it still affects us today because we use these things.

Does the Korean war still affect South Koreans? Yes. In the same manner? No. The war happened back in the 1950s. However, because only a ceasefire was issued, the threat still exists.

History has an affect on us as humans, especially history that is 100 years old or less. As long as grandparents and great-grandparents live, history has an affect on everyone’s social, emotional, mental, and even economic health. It affects their children and grandchildren. Events in history just don’t happen, laws get put in place, and then it’s over. There is always an aftereffect. The aftermath can last for centuries, depending on the actions of all involved.e

So, Should They Be Mad At Each Other Forever?

Of course not.

However, some people have to overcome their pain and start the process towards healing. When people are suffering, it’s easy to try to find someone to blame for their problems. Many of these people need to find the courage to let go of the past, pick up where they left off, and make a new start.

The biggest reason these issues still exist is because there are no real solutions floating around. If people came together to actually discuss solutions, things might actually improve.

I hope I was able to answer all questions about this topic! Leave me a comment and let me know what you think or what you could add to the discussion!

Ask the USA: “How Did Donald Trump Win the Presidency?”

2 Mar

united-globe

Hello readers!

Early in February, I introduced a new series to my blog called “Ask the USA”. In that introduction, I explained the purpose of this series, what inspired this series, and why I feel qualified to answer these questions (to the best of my ability, of course).

With that being said, the first question I’ve been receiving from foreigners all over the internet is:

‘How did Trump Win the Presidency?’

Since Trump has been running for office, he has been a topic all around the world. The news media hasn’t died down yet about him. This question was bound to come up sooner or later.

If you’re an American conservative, the answer is simple; if you’re an American liberal, this question may even baffle you.

However, I’m pretty independent. I try to remain objective and see both sides of this coin.

Here’s the deal.

Much of the media has painted the picture that the majority of America hated Donald Trump, America’s newest president. Many newspapers would reveal the polls back in October and November showing Hillary Clinton in the lead with the popular vote. And there are many Americans that do dislike Trump, including the news media.

But let me inform you about American politics:  during a political campaign, especially very close to election, it is normal to see “political propaganda”, propaganda that’s usually meant to discredit one candidate in favor of another. Hillary’s team was very effective in painting a negative picture of Trump by pulling out his dirt. She didn’t have to try. It was no secret that Trump “distrusted” most news sources, so of course most of them would help Hillary. Trump dug his own name in the ground with his careless statements. Trump gave the media many reasons to discredit him and he left a bad history of carelessness that allowed the media to take advantage of it.

So Trump ended up looking like the villain. After observing the things he’s said, most foreigners can’t understand how he could have any fans. Don’t get it twisted. Trump has insulted and offended many people across the board, and it was once considered a joke to even consider him the president of the USA.

But let’s also remember that what we see in the media isn’t always going to reflect the opinions of all the people in the nation. Despite his rhetoric, there are many people who actually agree with his ideas. Most people are just quiet about it.

trump-as-president

I don’t think most of us took him seriously like we should have. People felt there was no way this guy could be a president. He’s not diplomatic, he’s not well-spoken, he’s a rich guy who cares nothing about the “little man”. He was underestimated. This allowed him to make an impact on politics and maneuver things in his favor. There are many ways he managed to take the presidency from his last opponent, Hillary, despite what was fed to the media.

For the past decade, despite the positive reception Obama and his family have received, the average American did not reap many benefits from Obama’s presidency. He seemed more like a celebrity than a president; a positive figure rather than a man of action. He was famous for being the “first president of color”. He was diplomatic with many nations, giving the USA a good name to even our enemies.

However, he didn’t do anything impactful for his own nation (as far as we could see). He didn’t make any strong changes to the economy, he didn’t make many efforts to improve our overall security, and he seemed to sleep on many other matters that many Americans felt required urgency. Of course, none of us can pretend to know what it takes to do the job of president. Even the current president Trump is starting to see the challenges that come with it.

Still, Trump has things very few other candidates before him had.

Trump, the Business Man, Not the Politician

Trump may be blunt, rude, ignorant, and bigoted. But guess what? In a country that has honored and upheld the “freedom of speech” portion of the Bill of Rights (the rights in the USA that make up the first ten amendments to the constitution, the nation or state’s fundamental set of laws), in a country that has come to distrust government, Trump seemed to be the Honest John some Americans were looking for. He didn’t sugarcoat or take back his opinions. In fact, he is the first president to be truly active on social media, connecting with a wide range of people. With social media becoming a major form of communication, Trump is better able to get his ideas across on many different platforms.

When did America become so leery of their government, enough to trust a man who has spoken badly of so many people, people he’s supposed to help and protect? I would say since the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, people have been looking for an honest man in office. Watergate refers to the incident where someone broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters, which was at the Watergate office complex. Richard Nixon, who was actually voted into office, tried to cover it up. An investigation exposed this and it lead to Nixon’s impeachment. Since then, most Americans have questioned their leaders, how their leaders are getting into office, and it even lead to people being more critical of the Republican party (the party Nixon was a part of).

But scandal from the Democratic president Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and little action during the Obama administration, has lead to a complete turnaround for the Republican party.

Trump has been super different from the “lying” politicians we’ve had before. Everyone doesn’t like what he has to say, but he says it anyway. I guess people figure if he was this honest about people as a candidate, what does he have to lie about as president?

Trump also became the hero or spokesperson for the “white, middle class, aged man” who has come under fire thanks to the “politically correct”. The politically correct far left have taken over media, politics in the last decade, and daily life. People have been slinging the word “privileged” around, which often refers to the white, middle class men in the USA, the people most assume never had to face prejudice and oppression, and the people who are assumed to actually have been and continue to be the oppressors. Our country has had a history of severe oppression, despite our “free” laws. This has been the reason many people are speaking out. I will go into more detail about America’s race and gender relations in future articles…

But people have been speaking out so fiercely in the last decade, white, middle class men have been fed up with being blamed for everything. They were tired for having to be apologetic to every sensitivity. Trump seemed to be the answer.

Before people began to really take Trump seriously, he was mostly funny, a celebrity, and a rich business man. His personality was definitely strong. But as propaganda began to reveal his derogatory statements, the media and the far left fought hard to keep him out of the white house.

It obviously didn’t work.

Trump is just too good of a salesman. Maybe it came from being a businessman for all of these years. Maybe he paid his way into the seat. Regardless, he was very clever throughout it all.

Speaking of businessman, because he was already a very rich man, he didn’t really need the charity of anyone to boost his campaign. Maybe that’s one of the reasons he had no reason to be so nice. He could pay off anyone he wanted, he could pay to run his own ads, and his name alone was promotion. He has had a book published, he’s spoken on several shows about the things he believes in, and he’s been a familiar figure in the entertainment world (and entertainment in the USA is a major industry). Really, there was nothing stopping him from being successful in this.

Hillary, on the other hand, was Clinton’s wife, and most people were done with the Clinton administration in the 1990s. Clinton seemed to be the same oily politician we’ve been seeing for years, the ones who lie and say nice things just to get the vote, just to let us all down by doing nothing remotely different. The only difference is she was trying to make history by being the first female president. But we learned that “different” doesn’t always make it better. Obama was a president that made history, but it didn’t make him a great president. He wasn’t bad, just not good enough. I think after Obama, we learned to pay closer attention to the campaigns. And frankly, Hillary’s campaign was weak.

Bernie Sanders, one of the original candidates during the early race, probably had a stronger chance with his campaign, but he doesn’t have a big name like Clinton or Trump. Most of the votes went to familiar names.

A Strong Campaign

That’s another thing. Trump had a really strong campaign. No, his ideas weren’t popular across the board. This is possibly why he didn’t quite take home the popular vote (though some argue he did, but if he had, it was definitely by a landslide). But he actually had ideas of his own. He wasn’t just mimicking politicians before him, like his opponent. He had real beliefs that he stood for, real solutions to these issues (even if they proved more difficult to implement than he planned), and the will to get there and make those changes.

In one interview, he said if he lost, all of this would’ve been a “waste of time”. You could say that he had a bad attitude about running for president, or you can say that shows how bad he really wanted it.  But it’s this will to win that has gotten him to the top every time.

He played into the sympathies of people. He reached out to those who felt victimized by terrorism. Since 9/11, many families of the victims’ of major attacks in the USA haven’t felt safe. They didn’t feel that true justice was served, not with the Bush or Obama administration. Media did have a hand in sensitizing these events, causing a “scare”. But the victims’ families, friends, and associates obviously didn’t need the media to feel angry, grief, or fear. And Trump offered strong solutions to this problem. It was a sure-fire way to gain the vote from those who would’ve otherwise voted for Hillary.

On the other hand, despite a need for stronger national security from terrorism, many of these people didn’t want their gun rights taken from them. I think I explained how loyal most Americans are to their Bill of Rights, correct? After the recent mass shootings in the USA, many in the far left wing of politics offered a solution: stricter gun laws. This was a threat to gun owners. Those same people who wanted to better screen immigrants did not want to better screen guns. Most were fearing a ban. Trump seems like a free-spirited man. He doesn’t seem likely to ban guns. Hillary, on the other hand, openly promoted stricter gun control, which wasn’t really popular among moderate liberals or conservatives. Trump hasn’t really addressed the gun culture in America…

However, he has offered to send martial law in Chicago and other cities to rid it of gangs, guns, drugs, and violence in general. Possibly, this is his solution to America’s “violent” culture?

Last, Trump offered to bring and keep jobs in America, something many politicians have been promising but haven’t yet pulled through. Since the recession in the early 21st century, people have been concerned about the shortage of lucrative jobs. Trump seemed like the man to fix the problem. He is a businessman, after all. He seemed to many Americans to be the most qualified to handle the economy.

Despite Trump’s unpopular ideas, and his spontaneous actions, he actually has beliefs and stands by them. Though most people dislike the way he goes about his plans, he actually does go about them. And if there’s nothing left to respect about him, people can respect the fact that he has taken action the moment he was ushered in.

Clinton, on the other hand, has changed and rearranged her ideas, ping-ponging when it came to gay marriage, national security, and many other issues. This made her seem weaker and more motivated by the public pulse. She seemed to side with whoever would give her the vote, and she didn’t seem trustworthy. Most people knew what they were in for with Trump. With Hillary, it was difficult to know. She changed her mind too often, and that left some Americans insecure.

There are many other ideas Trump gave, many other ways his campaign was strong, but those were the most popular ideas. Though most people were skeptical about how these ideas would be tackled, many people were ready to take risks and give new, more direct, more assertive suggestions a try. The passive-aggressive manner of tackling issues haven’t worked in years. People wanted someone who could make America “strong” and “sure”. Trump seemed to represent a stronger and bolder American identity.

Some democratic supporters that voted for Bernie Sanders didn’t vote for Hillary, and that left a divide on the democratic side. This brought strength to Trump’s campaign.

Electoral College

The final thing I want the world to know about American politics is the system.

I already kind of touched on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution (I will go further into it in the future).

But our voting system can be a little confusing.

Americans pride themselves on their right to vote. It’s one of the most important forms of “freedom of speech”. But our election isn’t completely influenced by our individual votes.

In fact, the popular vote (the votes cast by the people) only makes up 1/3 of the overall “vote”. The other votes are based on Congress (our body of people who govern the land) and the Electoral College. Of the three, the Electoral College tends to have the most influence.

The Electoral College was designed to be a buffer between the people and Congress. They are supposed to be unbiased people who hardly meet with one another enough to influence each other. The Electoral College also gives power to the smaller states.

usa-map

America is divided by 50 states. Each state has its own governors, laws, representatives in Congress. If the popular vote had that much power over the vote, the smaller states’ views wouldn’t really matter. Bigger states, like California, obviously have a larger population. Their votes would make the biggest difference in the popular vote method (unless the people were divided). In this case, most of our laws would be influenced by California, California’s laws, and California’s culture. This wouldn’t be fair to the rest of the United States, especially to the smaller states whose opinions would matter the least. The popular vote is influenced by the population.

History Central explains that “the founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.”

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.

The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.

While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. One way of modifying the system s to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the electoral college is not mandated by the constitution but is decided by the states. Two states do not use the winner take all system, Maine and Nebraska. It would be difficult but not impossible to get other states to change their systems, unfortunately the party that has the advantage in the state is unlikely to agree to a unilateral change.

Trump has openly spoken against the Electoral College until it ruled in his favor. Despite him reaping the benefits of it, it has become pretty clear that the system isn’t perfect.

Even though Hillary may have gotten the popular vote, she couldn’t win over the “buffer” votes. Those votes added to the overall vote. So, for example, if Hillary was winning the popular vote because most of California and the rest of the west coast voted for her, a smaller state with the majority of Trump supporters wouldn’t stand a chance unless the Electoral College stepped in to supply them enough votes. These votes put all states, despite the population, on equal footing.

After the votes of the Electoral College, Trump won the vote. But this means he had to have been pretty popular to begin with as well in order for him to gain a complete win.

Should this system change? 3/4 of the states have to agree with the change and the amendment has to be ratified. Would Americans be so willing to change that?

I think at this point, times have changed since the days of our founding fathers. Because of all of these changes, it has become difficult for Americans to know which amendments should be analyzed, which amendments actually need amendments, and which should be left alone. Some people feel our constitution is outdated. Some people feel that the constitution was built to stand the test of time.

Throughout the decade, throughout the election race, and Trump’s new presidency, people have been paying close attention to the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of religion, freedom of the press (1st Amendment), the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment), and even questioning whether cruel or unusual punishments should be inflicted, especially regarding those who commit horrible felonies (8th Amendment). People have also been observing the constitution in general, our laws.

With the temporary immigration ban set up according to religion, it has brought up serious questions regarding our 1st Amendment. Is the ban against that Amendment? Or is this just one of the loopholes?

Trump has attacked the news press time and again. Many Trump supporters feel there needs to be restrictions regarding what comes out of media. This calls the 1st Amendment to question as well.

Since people have been victims of mass shootings in the last couple of years, the right to bear arms has come under fire.

And since we have some of those mass shooters and terrorists in custody, avoiding cruel punishments for these crimes is definitely coming under scrutiny (since it could conflict with the 8th Amendment).

People are also really skeptical about the Electoral College.

In our country, the minimum amount of years they can stay in office is four years per term. A president can get up to only two terms. We don’t know what kind of president Trump will be within the next four years (or up to eight years should he be reelected). We only know how his campaign went. So far, we see that he is assertive, but very rash. Hopefully, though, something good comes out of his presidency for everyone in unexpected ways.

If not, there’s always impeachment.

Leave me a comment and let me know if this answered any questions for you! Americans, if you have more to add, please feel free to add!

I hope it was answered as simply and as down-to-earth as possible.

“Ask the USA”

11 Feb

united-globe

Hello readers, this is Gen Next talking to you straight.

I want to start a new series on this blog called ‘Ask the USA‘. This series will tackle questions about the USA asked by people from outside of the USA, questions coming from Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, and on this blog.

What inspired this series? Much of American entertainment and news are available around the world thanks to the internet. The news media and internet have turned American issues into global ones. American topics are beginning to affect people around the globe. Because of that, many foreigners are watching and wondering about some of the things going on in the USA. American issues also affect the responses people of the world get from Americans on social media websites, chat rooms, news websites, and other places that provide an opportunity for comments.

As a result, I’ve heard so many different questions about the USA. I’ve heard some of the same questions about the USA so often, I feel compelled to respond.

It’s natural for people to be curious about other nations, especially if people plan to travel one day. I’m naturally curious about issues going on in other countries as well. With that being said, I think a lot of people around the world would benefit from reading the articles in this series.

People from the USA may find these articles interesting as well. Other Americans may even want to add to these articles in the “comment” section.

I felt the need to write these articles because I’ve been in discussions with people from different countries and they’ve come to me about many things they’ve heard or experienced in the country and online with the citizens.

As a natural-born citizen, an African American woman, an adult working citizen (I pay my taxes), I think I am fully qualified to answer some of the questions people around the world have. I also think I’ve improved on my writing well enough for most people to understand. Hopefully, my humor has improved as well. Forgive me if it hasn’t. XD I’m working on shortening my articles as well.

I planned on starting this series in January, but so much has been going on in my life and in the world, I just couldn’t start this series that soon. Hopefully, I can start the series sometime this month or next month.

If you’re from outside of the USA, and you have questions, you can leave me a comment with your question and I will try to answer it in this series. Of course, the priority questions will be the questions that more than one person asks. Please be patient for all other questions. I will try to get to everyone’s questions.

So far, the topics that have been of interest include:

  • Donald Trump’s presidency
  • Racism and Race relations in the USA
  • Native Americans
  • The Constitution and the Bill of Rights
  • American English versus British English
  • Americans’ Views on Women and Sexualization

These topics are just a starting point.

I am really excited about this series and I hope that I can answer everyone’s questions. Don’t be afraid to ask!

~From Generation Next

 

7 Types of Feminists That Make Me Cringe

5 Feb

 

635981490582110738922929354_feminism

There are several definitions of feminism out here:

  1. The advocacy of women’s rights based on the equality of the sexes (Google.com)
  2. A range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women. (Wikipedia.org)
  3. The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
  4. Refers to any ideology that seeks total equality in rights for women and people who self-identify as women, usually through improving the status of females. (RationalWiki.org)
  5. The doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. (Dictionary.com)

With the above definitions in clear view, we can conclude that overall the feminist movement is calling for equal rights for women, for anyone who identifies as women to be seen as equals to men, and for women’s “roles” in society to be respected. Some feminists even define feminism as something that helps both sexes achieve equal rights.

I feel that all women can and have benefited from feminism in their own ways. We can’t deny that. Feminism has been a movement that has existed since the 1800s (when the first suffragists rounded up and organized their movement to push for the right to vote). And these movements have shaped the “feminine” identity to this very day.

All women who work, go to school, have sexual relations freely, chose their partners, wear short skirts, pants, and shorts, speak their minds on the internet, and vote should thank the efforts of both peaceful and radical feminists. Women today can’t help but be feminists. As Oprah Winfrey put it, “I don’t think you can really be a woman in this world and not be.” I completely agree with this statement.

I myself, as an African American woman, continue to benefit from the movement. I work, I’ve graduated from college, I have assumed a leadership role, I write this blog to speak my mind publicly, I’m single and love it, I adore androgynous clothing, and I have interests not assumed by most women (such as loving to play video games).

However, I believe it is possible to benefit from feminism, to support equal rights, without agreeing with what every feminist says or thinks. Not all feminists have the same intentions regarding feminism, and it is safe to say that “Third-wave” feminism (modern feminism), the feminism that exists today, has taken a completely different turn.

Julienne Davis, a feminist writer, spoke out about the “third-wave” of feminists in her article “How Did Feminism Get Hijacked By Man-Haters”. Her article inspired me to write this one.

Many feminists are very effective when it comes to pushing women towards a more “inclusive” future. This article is not for those women who really and truly want to help all women.

I want to assume that most feminists have good intentions, but based on some articles and comments I’ve read on the internet, in books, and in essays written by those who were associated or identified as feminists, I can definitely see why some people are no longer taking the feminist movement as seriously and why some women don’t even want to be associated with the movement.

After searching around, I’ve discovered 7 Types of feminists that not only irritate me, and others, but make us all literally sick. In no particular order, I will discuss what is so irritating about them.

The Slut Shamers

The Body Shamers

Ms. Double Standards

Lady Feminine and Lady Masculine

The User and Abuser

Feminazi

Transfeminist Dictators

1. The “Slut-Shamers” (SWERFS)

slut-shaming

I felt this was important to talk about first because it has increasingly been affecting movies, music, music videos, video games, and even TOYS.

There are two reasons why the “slut-shamers” make me sick:

  1. They fail to understand the historical sexual restriction placed on women and how that continues to impact women.
  2. Their nit-picking to producers has been effective in limiting female artistic expression and creative female representation in media and other entertainment avenues.

Many feminists are against the exploitation, objectification, and over-sexualization of women, particularly when done by men. I can understand this well. Obviously, women don’t want to be looked at as “objects”, as tools of men, and want to be respected beyond their appearances. Mutual consent is an important topic as well as how sexuality in media influences young girls, who normally aren’t ready to handle the consequences that come with a sexual identity and sexual experience. Of course, mothers don’t want to encourage their daughters to sexually exploit themselves and they want to get a hold of teen pregnancies (which is said to claim over 700,000 teen girls a year). Teen pregnancy affects a female’s body and socioeconomic conditions severely. I get this.

But I can see why the “Feminist Sex Wars” ensued. There has to be some sort of balance, where women are both in control of their sexuality as well as free to express it.

These Feminists Set Us Back to the 19th Century

For centuries before the 1920s, sexuality was considered strictly for men. In fact, doctors in the 19th century believed that women felt “little or no sexual desire, and that only abnormal or ‘pathological’ women felt strong sexual desire” (“Women in Literature”, Kimberly M. Radek-Hall, 2001).

However, once women began to openly speak about their own sexualities, their right to choose their own sexual partners, and their right to express their sexuality “creatively” or in entertainment, men apparently seemed too “on-board” with this transition, to the point women became looked at as sexual objects by some men. That’s when the new wave of feminists began to debate whether women should be “sex-positive” or “anti-pornographic”.

I personally feel that the feminist movement should support all women. With that being said, I believe that women should have the right to express themselves in any way they like IF they are at a responsible age to handle the consequences. Each woman should be in charge of her “image” towards men or anyone else. If she wants to be looked at as an “object” by men or admired for her body, who are we to tell her she can’t? Or if she just wants to wear less clothing because she lives in a warm climate or because she wants to show off the latest fashion artistically, who are we to tell her she’s wrong? If we are at a point where we believe women should be on the same social plane as men, we should extend those rights we give to men that we give to women.

In fact, I feel we slut-shame women more than we do men, when statistics show that there are more teen dads out here than teen moms, and with more than one child! So much more so, in fact, that they can’t even keep a consistent count! And men are not shamed or protected by their families. I feel it would be more useful to try to get control of these young men because apparently they have the issue here! But if we are not going to say or do anything about our sons, why even try with our daughters? We can’t limit one side of the spectrum without limiting the other.

I especially find it to be super judgmental and contradictory to try to control what a female wears by shaming her into fitting another woman’s standards of beauty and decency. For many slut-shaming feminists, acting sexually isn’t the worst part. Dressing “sexually” is condemned by these feminists as well.

I can understand if someone wants to restrict a child from wearing revealing, see-through clothing and walking around as if she wants male attention. Obviously, a child is not mature enough to advertise herself in that manner. But a grown woman, with her own job, house, and car is old enough to do what she wants with herself. She’s fully prepared to handle the consequences, and no one should stop her from doing what she wants.

And some of these feminists define “sexualized fashion” as a tank top and shorts. These are the feminists that won’t let up on females even if it was 100 degrees outside!

They fail to understand that what one person finds “modest” and “beautiful” is not going to be the same for another person. They fail to understand that climate and weather impacts the way a woman dresses. And they fail to understand that styles always change. Before the 1920s, a one-piece bathing suit was considered indecent. Now, these slut-shaming feminists have suddenly become accepting of it. Why? Women show more skin in a bathing suit than they do in shorts and a tank top! But a mini skirt is worse than a one-piece bathing suit?

There are women in warm climates around the world who live and work in villages and move about their day-to-day life topless. And only western feminists will garble about how these women are “objectifying us all”.

Then, there’s the issue with their “attack” on makeup. I can understand that in our culture, women have too many expectations on them to look beautiful. I understand that feminists should push for women to be more natural. And for those women who want to be all-natural, I think it’s a great stand.

However, we shouldn’t condemn a woman who likes to wear makeup, and we especially shouldn’t assume they want male attention and that they are “sluts”.

Makeup has been worn by people (not just women) for centuries, even in the Egyptian empire. Men and women in Korea wear makeup. It is an art form. Makeup can express many different feelings at one time. People who enjoy art enjoy makeup. But slut-shaming feminists often lack an appreciation for art. Makeup is just associated with “sexualization” and “the search for male attention”.

It’s worse when these women are guilty of the same things they condemn other women for.

Instead of focusing on how women are dressing or how much makeup they’re wearing, maybe we should be focusing on the men who only see these women as sex objects and work on getting them some mental help instead.

Next, I want to talk about pole dancing, prostitution, and erotic dancing.. I do understand that coerced or forced prostitution (prostitution for money as a result of poverty, rape, pimp rings, etc) and sex trafficking are both dangerous and horrible ways for women to live. These issues should be addressed. But if a woman decides she wants to become a prostitute, and use her tricks to create a business, why shouldn’t she? I don’t think this should be illegal and I don’t think we should judge these women or men. They aren’t harming anyone, they’re just trying to make money using the only resource they can at the moment (even if that “resource” is their body). I mean, it’s their body and no one else’s.

The SWERFS believe that prostitution came from an “oppressive patriarchal” society. They believe it emerged at a time when women couldn’t make enough money to feed themselves and so resulted to giving up their bodies and being sex objects to get paid. But if we really think about it, just about everything a modern woman does and wants to do came out of a “patriarchal” society. Jobs like being a secretary, homemaker (stay-at-home moms), and maids came out of an oppressive patriarchal society, and yet we don’t suddenly condemn them or exclude them, even though those jobs put women in submissive roles. So why condemn porn stars or prostitutes just because they have jobs that came out of an oppressive patriarchal society? And if the women enjoy doing it, why comment at all?

Slut-Shaming Feminists Have Destroyed Artistic Expression

Though both sides are in the war, the “anti-pornographic” feminists have mostly dominated in the 21st century, influencing movies, tv shows (like the Powerpuff Girls), music videos (like Ariana Grande, Nicki Minaj), video games (like Tomb Raider), and even toys (like Bratz, Barbie, Betty Spaghetty, and even Monster High).

In most cases, too, these kinds of feminists take their criticisms too far. As a major toy and animation fan, I have personally witnessed how slut-shaming feminists have destroyed amazing, creative, and empowering doll lines, fun video games with iconic characters, and lovable cartoons with their nit-picking.

While I admit that Tomb Raider‘s Lara Croft gives an above-average body portrayal (more on this later), she’s also pretty daring and edgy, really showing that women are capable of anything. It’s no different from the body portrayals of Captain America, Superman, or Thor (which women ironically support and “eat” up). Yet, the feminists picked at Tomb Raider video game so long and so hard, the producers had to alter this iconic character. Many people claim that it had nothing to do with feminists, but we all know feminists have been complaining about that game (and many others) for years now. I don’t understand. What’s wrong with a woman who has a big chest? Some women have it, some don’t. So what? She’s not meant to look real, just like Superman and Thor.

Next…

While the Bratz dolls have been known to wear some of the most outrageous fashions and makeup, they have broken many fashion molds for a doll line. While most girls are expected to look “cute” and “modest”, the Bratz dolls have proven that a passion for fashion and breaking molds can be just as empowering. They were targeted for a tween to teen audience, and didn’t mind dressing like rock stars, jungle queens, Tokyo tourists, you name it. Makeup was used as an art form on the dolls. The Bratz never cared about the social rules. They never let these restrictive “standards” define them. Until the slut-shaming feminists got a hold of them.

Ironically, Bratz dolls have been one of few that have been respected by a male audience. While most of the males did focus on the “fashion” that the Bratz wore, most never looked at them as “sex icons”. They had big heads and big feet; they looked too much like cartoon characters to have been taken as the same sexual models we see in Playboy or Sports Illustrated magazines. Many males have stated that they liked the Bratz dolls because “they [were] unique and appealing”, “unique, cute, adorable, and wonderful”, “the look, the fashion, and the movies and episodes”, and the “high-quality clothes”. To most males, the Bratz are “unique”, well-dressed, with good movies and shows, not overtly “feminine” and “girl-centered” like other doll lines. None of the guys think these dolls are “hot” or “sexy”, but rather bold and original. So, the only ones seeing the “sexualization” of these dolls are feminists. The rest of us are seeing the sass, the boldness, and their girl power.

facebook-comments-about-bratz

From what angle do these feminists draw their conclusion? I grew up with Bratz. Am I a prostitute? No. Was I a teen mom? No. And my vision of the Bratz as a tween was that they were strong, bold, and passionate young teens, ready to take the world by storm (similar to how I saw the Spice Girls). It would’ve been different if they were designed as sexy, attractive girlfriends for a line of male dolls. But the Bratz never portrayed themselves nor never have been portrayed as sex icons, not by males, not by fans, not by anybody. I see more sexual innuendos out there for My Little Pony than I do the Bratz. And what is wrong with having a passion for fashion? Didn’t anyone get the memo that the fashion industry is dominated by male designers? We need to encourage our ladies to think outside of the box, to be the inventors, the designers, the inspiration behind everything. We should be encouraging girls to push the envelope, to explore their passions.

Even young ladies today (the ladies who haven’t been brainwashed by these feminists’ propaganda) can clearly understand that the Bratz are an example of “self-expression” through fashion, and these dolls boldly announce that women can show skin (artistically) without necessarily trying to be attractive to a MAN. I have yet to speak with any tweens or teens that referred to the Bratz as “sexy”. You can see this from some of the comments on Youtube and other SNS websites dedicated to the Bratz. The only people who don’t seem to understand that are the slut-shaming feminists. They want to believe there’s some deep-seated misogynistic feelings these young ladies are “inheriting”… I hardly call the Bratz a form of “male hate” or “male supremacy”, but imagine whatever unicorns you want, my dear.

Moving along…

I want to talk about the new re-vamped Powerpuff Girls cartoon and the controversy regarding Ms. Bellum. I understand that Ms. Bellum’s design was just a body in a sexy suit without a face. But she actually had more of a role than these feminists think. She was the power behind the mayor’s incompetence, she was a confidante for the kindergarten superheroes and a female figure in these girls’ lives, and she was a single, hard-working lady, strong, sexy, and beautiful. Her role had many other messages and undertones. Without her in the series, something is missing.

But apparently, slut-shaming feminists don’t want to leave room for a diverse range of female representations. They would rather all women be the same dry, covered up, stiff women they’ve been since the 1800’s.

I don’t hear these feminists attacking Twilight for having an above-average, full-figured teen male in the story (Jacob Black). I don’t hear the feminists come with the pitchforks against Shoujo anime with these “cardboard box”, super tall, crazy athletic males. Whenever a woman objectifies a male in a written story or movie production, I don’t hear a peep from the slut-shamers.

This extends beyond the realm of toys and cartoons, and even affects famous movie stars and music artists. While many artists want to be respected as artists regardless of what they wear or how sexual they are, many have found a way to balance both an appealing look with a powerful message (like Beyonce).

But the slut-shaming feminists have fired at artists like Ariana Grande, Nicki Minaj, Beyonce, Rihanna, Britney Spears, Salt N’ Pepa, you name it. If they aren’t covered up like old grannies, like Adele, they are a “bad influence”.

Ironically, these same feminists don’t go after male artists like Nick Jonas, Jason Derulo, and others who actually DO the objectifying and talk more about sex than any other artists.

I seldom find young women who get interested in sex because their favorite female artists are into it, and I’ve been working with kids and teens for five years now. Honestly, how many teens can say they did it because Nicki Minaj said it was okay? But when teen girls’ favorite MALE artists are into it, teen girls seem more influenced to explore sex and sexuality. Or better yet, when some guy at their high school tells them how special they are, they are more than likely to do it no matter who is on a movie or music video screen.

I doubt Nicki Minaj got girls more interested in sex than One Direction did or Justin Bieber or Nick Jonas. So, should we shut down all the “heartthrobs” that come onto the music scene just because they express their sexuality and turn teen girls on? We are so quick to attack a female, we hardly think to look at the male stars that influence young girls way more than female stars, who have actually done the opposite!

If you don’t want your kids to be exposed to certain things, fine. As a parent, you have that right. But I don’t agree with taking someone else’s right to expression as the solution to raising individual children. Censor what you expose your kids to in your own homes, and give the rest of us a choice to enjoy what we enjoy.

This is not to say that I feel women should always be about their bodies and their appearances. I’m not that into mine. I do feel that it’s best for me to be natural and I would like my kind to be seen as beautiful, too. But to me, it’s perfectly fine if other women feel that their expression and confidence comes from a different avenue than mine. I feel that is what makes us all amazing; our diversity is what make us great.

Therefore, I can’t hang with the slut-shaming feminists. They make me sick.

slut-shaming-2

Back to top

2. The Body-shamers

body-shaming-4

These types of feminists make me feel sicker than the first one I mentioned.

Feminists all around have been advocating the #loveyourself campaign. Feminists have been speaking out about the media and how it pressures women into thinking they have to fit a “mold” to be beautiful, to feel feminine, or to be looked at as a “real” woman. This goes hand-in-hand with the women’s “strike” against makeup and plastic surgery.

Even music artists like Alessia Cara have been singing out about the entertainment industry and how women have been trying to fit this ideal to feel worth.

Of course, the world-wide standard has always been “the skinnier, the better”, which has caused millions of girls to basically starve themselves or get plastic surgery in order to reach this ideal. So, feminists have mostly been encouraging women to enjoy having a little “weight”. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I’m on-board with this. My whole life I was sized up by people based on my physical appearance. In the African American community I grew up in, looks mattered a lot as regards to femininity and womanhood, so I understand this campaign as a whole.

However, I feel that some feminists have transferred the shame from those who are thicker to those who are thin, and that isn’t right either.

Again, feminists should support all women, thick or thin, and it isn’t right to go against a thin female just because she is thin. As a thin female myself, this always triggered me.

Growing up, being skinny hasn’t been a good experience for me. In the black community, being thicker is prized. A woman like Nicki Minaj is more than likely to be considered “sexy” than a woman with a tiny butt, tiny waist, and small breasts. Constantly, I was told I looked sick and that I was ugly. Aside from the fact that I enjoyed baggy t-shirts and jeans, which probably made me look “ugly” to certain people, I never really cared about my weight that much either. I stayed as active as I always have been. Still, the comments hurt at times, especially when I was a teenager.

body-shaming-5

As a young woman, I once looked to the feminist movement for support. I wanted to love my body and the way I am, just like all the other ladies. But I often ran into feminists like “Ms. Body-Shame”.

I have spoken out on my blog about being skinny and how other people considered me unattractive. And what did I get as a comment? “Backhanded compliments are not attractive, dear.” Like my experience, my life, isn’t worth fighting for or worth acknowledging because I fit a perceived “standard”. This was the beginning of my disconnection with the modern woman and the feminists that shame bodies like mine.

I read the comments (from men and women) on Ariana Grande’s and Miley Cyrus’s videos about their bodies being skinny and ugly, about how they look like 10 year olds, and how only thick women can look sexy twerking. While some “anti-porno” feminists may feel that is an insult to thicker women, because it may sound as if men are objectifying thicker women, it’s an insult to the skinny girls as well, the girls who aren’t truly considered sexy without some “Hollywood” magic.

I had one person tell me that my physique was considered attractive in the 1920s, but is no longer what men are looking for. I was fine with the comment, because I am not looking for a mate. Still, this just proves my point. Feminists need to understand that body-shaming takes a broader form in today’s society. You can’t support one group of women but ignore other women, and then call yourself a feminist.

If most body-shaming feminists actually stopped and researched what men actually wanted from women, they would come to find that the ideal is NOT skinny or thick. Men want that “girl in the middle” with fat in “all the right places”. And the media ideal is dependent on the male’s opinion (if sex does indeed sell). Check these out:

Men Prefer Curves, Not Skinny

Perceptions Of Perfection: What The ‘Ideal’ Female Body Looks Like Across 18 Countries

What the Ideal Woman’s Body Looks Like in 18 Countries

three-body-types-and-the-real-male-ideal

Maybe I fit the women’s ideal, but men most definitely wouldn’t find me to be the ideal. So why hate on me for being skinny?

body-shamers

body-shamers-2

“Feminist” comedian Julie Klausner is one of the “feminists” that make me doubly sick. If I wasn’t skinny before, she’s gonna make my skinnier because reading her comments make me vomit. That’s how I know her acts towards “feminism” are not helping and she is definitely harmful to my very nature. Her biggest attack was on Disney Channel star Zendaya. She made some nasty comments, those same bullying comments that made me want to literally hurt somebody at one time, and then she gets called a “feminist”?

Comments like, “And thinspo model for your impressionable tweens”, “Zendaya’s ultimate retort to Giuliana Rancic is starving herself down to the size of one of her elbowz”, “You don’t have to have an eating disorder to attend the Kids’ Choice Awards….but it helps!”, did more than just irk me.

Ironically, where was her behind when Adele was winning Grammy’s? An unhealthy body weight can exist in both extremes, and if you don’t think a skinny girl can be a good “role model”, I don’t understand how staying silent about obese musicians/actors and discouraging exercising does the job any better.

It’s as if she feels all skinny girls are skinny because they starved themselves…She doesn’t realize that some of us eat only three meals a day, have a fast metabolism, and EXERCISE.

If we’re trying to get women to be seen differently in an “image-conscious” world, shouldn’t the woman’s merits matter more than her appearance, thick or thin, to women? If “body-shaming” feminists are so concerned with a woman’s image, they aren’t any better than society as a whole. In fact, they are a part of the problem and will produce an opposite extreme.

Pharrell Williams is a skinny man. But nobody makes a peep about him when he wins awards. That just shows the double standards (which I will discuss more about later). These feminists make it more and more difficult for women to be seen as equal to men. You might as well not call them feminists.

body-shaming-3

I also want to talk about Lynn Cloud and her petition to remove Eugenia Cooney from Youtube. Clearly, the body-shaming feminists have gotten to this young lady, too. I understand that Eugenia looks sick (she’s skinnier than normal), but I have seen several men on Youtube that look just as sick. So why are we so focused on Eugenia’s image? Because she’s a girl? This never happens with men.

If you are sick, or have a sickness like Cancer or Sickle-cell Anemia, and you happen to be skinny, are you not allowed to make Youtube videos? Last I heard, anybody is allowed to post videos, no matter their appearance. She could be a spokesperson for all the other people who are sick and can’t gain weight. Is that a crime? We don’t know her personal circumstances or why she’s skinny. But who are we to silence her? Is she supposed to stay miserable her whole life and never try to adorn her body? She might have a disease that eats away at her flesh. So, she can’t post a video about herself? You people must think teen girls are so stupidly impressionable that they can’t obviously recognize that she’s sick. If anything, I’m sure her fans feel sorry for her.

Instead of trying to get this girl removed from Youtube, maybe she should be helped by people. The petition should say, “Petition to Help Eugenia Cooney”. Women should be trying to get to the root of her body weight issues and should try to get this girl some help. But banning her from Youtube will just result in her starving herself more and making her feel unwanted. The outcome could be even worse. It also limits this individual’s right to free speech. This petition will definitely create adverse effects.

And why hasn’t Ms.Cloud attacked the number of obese people on Youtube? They may not influence girls to starve themselves to look like them, but they do discourage girls who are already obese from getting active, exercising, and staying fit. Both images are damaging, but these body-shaming feminists are obviously walking contradictions.

And what about the skinny girls who have to watch a curvy woman with big boobs get all the attention from the males in the comments’ section on Youtube or everywhere else on the internet?

https://mediaoutrage.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/guess-who-13/#more-33592

I don’t see a petition to ban these women. You don’t think curvy women are influencing these girls to eat more and more fatty foods and get plastic surgery? No one gets plastic surgery on their breasts and butt to be skinny, do they?  As a teenager, watching other teens with curves get all the attention made me want to stuff my face with all kinds of foods, get plastic surgery, and wear pads to make myself look thicker. I can imagine it has the same effect on other skinny girls. But if no one is out there to make them feel beautiful, if we have body-shaming feminists influencing the average feminist, who is supporting them?

And I’m not hating on a curvy, bodacious woman. That’s her body. The point is we should love all body types and stop the concealed jealousy.

That’s why I don’t have time; there is no room in my life for the body-shaming feminists. Good thing I learned to love myself without the help of these feminists.

Back to top

3. Ms. Double Standards

double-standards-2

If you thought the first two were bad, just wait until you hear about Ms. Double Standards.

There is nothing that irks me more than a woman who calls herself a feminist or benefits from feminism but places “masculine” standards on men. Nothing irks me more than a woman who believes she’s free to do whatever she wants but a man is not allowed those same freedoms. I don’t like when men have double standards either, but feminists with double standards irk me more because they put on the “face” of equality when really their own self-interests are a priority.

I could go so far as to call these women “misandrists”, but not all of them hate men. Some of them just want the perks of living and working in a “man’s” world while maintaining certain traditional boundaries. I’m here to tell you ladies, that’s almost impossible in this world.

There are several double standards that have come up and out of women’s mouths, from both feminists and those benefitting from feminism, that irk me:

His Role is Provider?

There are many women who consider a father without a job a “bum”. In my personal life, most women never consider a stay-at-home father as a hard-working man or the one “taking care of his family”. He is simply referred to as the “bum” by most women, including some so-called feminists.

Did it ever occur to some of these women that he may be the one cooking and cleaning for his family while his wife works? But oh no, that makes him a moocher. That means he’s not fulfilling his role as a “man”.

But who are women to decide what a man’s role is? You are not a man! And women would be up in arms if a man decided her role in life!

Why do these feminists believe that a man should be the one to work, but they have the option to work and/or stay-at-home? If a man is a bum for being a stay-at-home dad, guess what that makes a stay-at-home mom? A BUM. And don’t come and tell me that all stay-at-home moms always have a 24 hour job cooking and cleaning. Some of these “homemakers” are reading a book and watching daytime television all day…And dinner is from a fast-food restaurant.

I can’t stand a woman who gets upset when someone attacks her contribution to society, but has all of these expectations of men. If you’re going to question a man’s role in life, you’d best be contributing something too, instead of waiting on someone else to take care of you. Especially if you call yourself a feminist, the one who is supposed to be fighting for the same “social rights” as men.

And don’t come to me with the “men are supposed to take the lead” crap. If you’re the boss of your own company, ladies, you aren’t letting the man take the lead, now are you? If you are running for president, ladies, you aren’t letting the man take the lead, are you? If you are the superintendent of your schools, manager of your store, General in your army, you aren’t letting the man take the lead, are you? If women feel they can do all that, without a man’s leadership, women shouldn’t be whining and complaining about who takes the lead in their own households.

How about this…You and your spouse both be the adults and WORK TOGETHER. There’s no sense in preaching that women should have equal rights if you aren’t a practicer of what you preach.

Who Proposes to Who?

I can’t stand a woman who calls herself a feminist, but waits around for a man to make the first move in her relationship.

Readers, I listen to a lot of early morning radio shows before I go to work. Most of the people calling in are women. One particular woman called herself a strong, empowering feminist who intimidated men. She claimed her biggest dilemma was getting her boyfriend, who she had been dating for 10 years, to marry her. She believed he felt intimidated by her because she made a lot of money and had a leadership position in life.

And all of the radio djs were just like, “Ugh, what’s taking him so long? Tell him how you feel and get him to propose!” No, woman. You propose! Maybe he’s not proposing because you can’t make up your mind as to whether you’re a strong, empowering woman or a wannabe timid mouse.

Yes, I believe that if YOU, the female, are the one who is ready to get married, YOU, the female, should be the one doing the proposing. You’re a grown woman, right? You call yourself a feminist, right? Well, if you want the same equal rights, to speak your mind, to choose your own partners, speak up! YOU go out and buy a ring. You plan the date and pay for the dinner. Why have we settled with the submissive role when it comes to relationships, when we women feel we can march on Washington for equal rights, become the bosses of our own companies, and fight hard to be president of the USA? But you’re not “equal” enough to actually do the proposing? Why not? That would be the perfect way to get the answer out of him; you’d finally figure out whether he’s ready or not, instead of twiddling your thumbs while you wait for him to make a move. Passively-aggressively whining and complaining isn’t going to get the results you want. It never works.

Some of these women cry “equal rights” when it benefits them. But when they actually have to take on a “leadership role”, they suddenly succumb to the submissive role. I’ll talk more about this later.

I also have heard on the radio about some so-called feminists who have asked a man out to dinner, but then expected him to pay the bill. That tradition has phased out. It worked back in the past, when women didn’t ask men out and didn’t really have decent jobs. In this modern world, women are making a pretty penny. In this modern world, women are taking more of the initiative. And if YOU are the one asking him out, don’t choose the most expensive place and expect HIM to pay. YOU asked HIM! You should be trying to impress him in that instance. He didn’t even have to say “yes” to you. That’s like asking your parents out to dinner, but then leaving them to pay the bill. That’s like asking your colleagues out to dinner, but then leaving them to pay the bill. It’s shady.

A woman who is like that is showing she is self-entitled. And when the feminist title is placed behind her, it just makes her seem more about “herself”.

A Boy’s Not Allowed to Like…

It sickens me how some women, who claim to be feminists, attack a man for liking something directed to “girls”. I ran into such a feminist on Youtube. She attacked a teen male for liking My Little Pony the tv series.

And yet, she praised a teen woman for being interested in Spiderman, Power Rangers, Clarence, and Naruto… So, again, why is it okay for a woman to like Power Rangers, but not for a man to like My Little Pony? In this “patriarchal” world, it’s alright for a woman to be interested in male-directed tv shows/cartoons/anime, but men are not allowed to enjoy or respect female-directed tv shows/cartoons/anime? He will be called a pedo, but she…is empowering? He has “Peter Pan syndrome” and is a “loser”, but she’s…empowering?…. He’s gay, but she’s…empowering?

It sickens me when women, who claim to be feminists or benefit from feminism, allow their daughters to buy video games, trucks, and footballs, but won’t buy their sons a doll…

I Like My Men Masculine/I Believe A Man Should Be a Man (or Masculine)

double-standards-4

As I said before, I listen to public radio early in the morning before work, and I hear a lot of crap from these wannabe feminists. There is one popular segment of most radio shows that allows someone to try to reach another person after a date that supposedly went “well”, but fell off. The radio dj will try to reach out to the partner that went “silent” and try to reunite the two, hopefully paying for a second date.

What normally happens is that we, the djs and the listeners, discover that the date was awful from the other person’s perspective.

Keeping that in mind, one guy was trying to reach a woman he’d been on a date with. He said he had a blast with her. When the djs reach her, she says she cut him off because his side job was “embarrassing”. His side job was to be an elf for Christmas and hand out presents to little children. I thought this was the sweetest thing.

But so many women called in, women who said they were lawyers, mechanics, CEOs, saying they would be embarrassed by him and said it just wasn’t a “masculine” job. Fine, you are welcome to expect all of this masculinity from him, because women should have the right to their standards, right? But don’t get angry when a man becomes “intimidated” by you and doesn’t want to marry you because you’re in a “not-so-feminine” role.

What made this segment so sickening was that the female radio dj host was the MAIN ONE saying his job wasn’t masculine enough. Honey, you’re in a male-dominated field! And this dj has preached, and preached, and preached about how she is the only one in her field and how males don’t respect her in the industry. She is often the main one saying that a woman can be a radio dj and still be feminine. She is often THE MAIN ONE saying that a man can’t define her femininity. But suddenly, he’s not man enough because he defies the gender stereotype?

So I ask you, ladies, who are you to define a man’s masculinity? Who are you to judge a man who is trying to spread happiness and cheer during the holidays? Women preach that they want a nice, sensitive man who cares about the family and children. But then reject that man. I can’t stand it.

I can’t stand when a woman goes around saying, “I believe a man should be a man”, but she works a 9-to-5 job, is speaking her mind on the internet or radio, and votes. Don’t these ignorant women realize that at one time, these things were considered masculine? If you aren’t willing to fit your feminine role in society, why can’t we start to see masculinity and manhood differently? It’s as if these women want the best of both worlds, and see men as a threat in BOTH roles. It’s only fair to let men define their own masculinity just as you expect to define yours.

And if you’re going to have these double standards, don’t go around calling yourself a “strong empowering” feminist. Really, you’re not one.

Want to Read a Really Ridiculous article written by a “wannabe” feminist? 10 Things Women (Still) Expect Men to Know How to Do

I can’t wait to see how triggered she’ll be when the “female” equivalent of this article comes out…

Men Shouldn’t Care About A Woman’s Appearance or Occupation

This is the subject feminists preach high and low. I understand why feminists believe we should be beyond appearances, especially when it comes to the workforce. Not everyone was born beautiful, but good people can always do good things. I do believe people should let their merits shine.

Still, in relationships, people have the right to decide what they like, both man and woman.

Feminists are not so lenient when it comes to men in this regard. As soon as a man expresses his desire for a bombshell woman who is a stay-at-home mom, these feminists are on the prowl. I can understand…unless this feminist gives the pass to a woman who expects a bombshell man with a well-paying job.

So often, I’ve heard women complaining about the kind of “job” their boyfriends/spouses have, or what their man wears or what they don’t like men wearing (the man bun, socks with sandals, etc). And that’s fine if you have standards. But he’s entitled to standards as well. If you don’t want him judging the way you look or your occupation, why are you doing it?

This is made worse when it’s coming out of the mouth of a so-called feminist or a “perceived” feminist.

These feminists get angry when men are talking about how hot a female celebrity is, but have no qualms with talking about how hot a male celebrity is. Really?

This is especially common in the Kpop industry. There are many articles about the objectification of women in the industry, which is noticeably true, but the industry’s fans are dominated by females…making the male idols ten times more popular. And it’s not because these guys are the most talented guys in the world. It’s mostly because they look good. Thus, the male “idols” are ten times more objectified than their female counterparts. They are literally just pretty “ideals” to most of these teen girls and young women (2030 crowd). It’s gotten to the point the Kpop male stars wear makeup and get plastic surgery just to appeal to these fans!

And yet, all anyone wants to talk about are the females wearing makeup and getting plastic surgery…

If we’re going to stop objectification, we need to stop it everywhere. But if you still want some hot guys to look at in the entertainment industry, why not let men have the same pleasure?

double-standards-5

Men Can’t Hit a Girl, But a Woman Can hit a boy

I’ve run across many feminists who abhor physical abuse, and I don’t blame them.

However, it’s oddly silent when women are doing the abusing. Most feminists assume that women have good “reasons” for being physically aggressive to their spouses/boyfriends.

In my honest opinion, physical aggression and violence is physical aggression and violence, and it’s never right.

Consider the Chris Brown and Rihanna issue. We don’t know who started that fight, but we know Rihanna was left with bruises and had to be hospitalized. Chris Brown went down for that, and rightfully so.

Solange attacks Jay-Z in an elevator, got caught on camera, with Jay-Z not hitting back, but she gets cheers from feminists…not criticism.

Anna from Frozen punched Hans in the face, when he never touched her once throughout the film, and yet this movie is for feminists? Let’s reverse those roles and see how fast the feminists come marching in front of the cinemas…

anna-punches-hans

So many times while I’m working with my children, the girls will hit, push, and shove the boys, and get away with it, causing the young men to get angry and cry about the injustice. And remember, when boys and girls are children and adolescents, the girls are usually taller and stronger than the boys. Why do we condone physical abuse from women, but pull out the pitchforks exclusively for men?

We need to stop physical aggression across the board. It’s never right.

double-standards

Back to top

4. Lady Feminine and Lady Masculine

elsa-vs-mulan

Next, I want to talk about Lady Feminine and Lady Masculine. I will start with Lady Feminine.

This is the kind of feminist that believes a “real” feminist is a woman who honors femininity and doesn’t “act like a boy”. She never truly knows how to define what she means by “boy”, she just knows a girl shouldn’t act like one. Yes, I know, surprising, right? There are self-proclaimed “feminists” out in the world who use these kinds of derogatory statements, statements often used by male chauvinists.

But she calls herself a feminist…

This is the feminist that took on the title because it gives her status in the female community. She never really researched the term, it just makes her look good to call herself that.

I ran into such a feminist once. We were on the subject of Frozen Versus Mulan. I spoke about how Mulan was just as empowering as Anna and Elsa, if not more so, how Mulan saved all of China basically by herself, how she saved her own love interest, how her dreams consisted of bringing her family honor, and how she took initiative in her relationship. I felt that Anna and Elsa did nothing by themselves, I spoke about how Elsa ran away from her responsibilities, how Elsa acted like a victim, how Anna received help to get up a mountain (but Hans and his men found it only having been in the land a short while), how Anna’s dream consisted of dancing at a ball and meeting a prince, and how neither saved the day in any way (without destroying it in the first place). You know, similar to a topic I’ve written on this blog. And you know what she said? “Well, at least they didn’t have to dress like a man to prove how strong they were.”

Dress like a man? I asked her, “What do you define as dressing like a man? Last time I watched, Mulan was wearing armor and her hair up in a bun. Who said that a woman can’t dress like that and still be considered ‘dressing like a woman’?” No reply. Maybe she felt I was trying to strawman her, but the statement still stands. Clearly, she felt that to be a truly empowering, strong, “feminist”, you had to look like a “woman” (i.e. wear a dress) and represent everything girly.

This poster had several supporters, those who felt that womanhood should be honored and that women should stop trying to be more and more like men, and should try convincing men to be more like “women”. And I’m assuming their definition of woman was “wearing skirts and dresses and dreaming of romance”.

I understand their point, but again, how do we define this “womanhood”? Because my “female” experience never consists of dresses, hardly consists of makeup, and is hardly domestic. I truly enjoy being able to speak my mind on the internet, hold leadership positions, and I enjoy being single, without man or children.

And if these women wanted to step away from being more and more like men, maybe we should revert this society and take it all the way back to the 19th century. Perhaps these women should leave the internet and stop speaking their minds. That was once a male role. Maybe they should quit their well-paying jobs and stay at home, waiting for their fathers to take care of them or a good (or bad) husband. Maybe these women should stop wearing pants, shorts, t-shirts, and sneakers…

Oh, but they won’t. Somehow, now these things have become a part of being feminine.

If feminine qualities have evolved and changed over the last century, there is no way femininity is that limited.

Feminism is advocating that women receive the same “social and political rights” as men. I’m sorry, but these women are doing the opposite by claiming that a “woman” can’t wear armor without being labeled as “looking like a man”.

Despite that some cases like the one above exist, however, there are actually far more feminists against the traditional “feminine” values. I don’t think it’s any more progressive to be Ms. Masculine and assume that a woman that upholds traditional feminine values can’t equally want other social and political rights equal to men. These women tend to just want a balance for everybody, and there’s nothing wrong with that. There are things she likes about the patriarchy and things she doesn’t.

If feminism is supposed to allow women to have more choices in the world, why are we trying to limit any woman’s self-expression? And if we want a woman to wear armor and still be labeled as “looking like a woman”, we equally shouldn’t consider “dresses” a “woman” thing, but a human thing, right? We should just look at these things as clothing styles, tastes, and interests. The sooner we start accepting that clothing varies by culture and taste, the sooner we realize that clothing doesn’t define gender or sex, the sooner we all can move along happier in our lives.

The sad part is, though, men aren’t lucky enough to have the same “social rights” as women regarding femininity in today’s society. So I guess that would give women more rights than the ones men have. And thanks to Ms. Double Standards, it enables men to continue to see these roles as separate (since they are stigmatized by these women from entering into the feminine world). Since all they have is what is deemed “masculine”, men will hold onto it, even barring women from it, just as they have been “barred” from what is deemed “femininity”. This means we really need to get pass the gender stereotyping.

Back to top

5. The User and Abuser

user-and-abuser

The title refers to women who use the feminist title just for gain, perks, to get back at people, or to get out of sticky situations, but have no real interest in issues that affect women. Thus, she ends up abusing the title of “feminist”. This title could also refer to a woman who uses feminism as a title when convenient, but drops it when she has to do physical or laborious work, work actually considered “for men”.

She’s different from Ms. Double Standards in the fact that she may not actually have double standards. However, she recognizes that feminism gives her a certain power that it doesn’t give men, and she’s willing to fall back on it when she makes a “mistake”. She also knows when to play the “feminism” card and when to play the “traditional” card, making her a walking contradiction.

If you’re not following me, let me start giving examples. I knew of one young lady in college who liked the attention and company of many men. She slept around with most of the guys on her campus. In high school, her parents allowed her to get plastic surgery on her chest and butt. She definitely took advantage of the male attention.

Of course, she ended up pregnant. The moment she ended up pregnant, she claimed the man who impregnated her actually “raped” her and she filed a claim to get him kicked out of college. When the school refused to do this, she gathered some feminists from her school, rallied against the board, claiming they ignored serious issues that affect women.

Now, sure, she may have been raped. We don’t know what happened behind closed doors. But there was no real way of knowing whether she was lying or telling the truth, either. There was no physical evidence that she was raped. And the feminists that supported her only supported her because she was a woman who used the magic words.

The real problem is the fact that the young woman may have felt she had to lie. Our society has made it so a woman feels like a slut when she makes a “consensual” mistake. It is easier to catch a woman who made a mistake than a man (women get pregnant), so she often gets called the “stupid” one. And the physical consequences are more severe for a woman than a man (though a man may experience social/financial consequences), so women often try to find any support they can.

But lying and tearing someone down because of a mistake you made? That’s not only irresponsible, that is anti-feminist. It makes women seem like manipulative and fickle creatures who aren’t capable of making their own responsible decisions. It should not be supported by other feminists. I think more investigations should go into these “rape” outcries.

Anyway…

There are other incidents of the “users and abusers” I’ve encountered when working with children. Yes, it starts as early as five years old. I think I’ve mentioned how girls will often hit and shove the boys without consequence, right? Well, often times, I run across girls who are vicious bullies, but as soon as their parents are called, they turn on the tears and blame the male for “provoking them”. The manipulation works, with the male often being blamed as the bully, even when facts prove otherwise. I don’t blame the girls, who are just children. However, I blame society for enabling this manipulation, the feminists who support this destructive behavior or choose to ignore it, and the parents who just don’t have a clue.

Another example of this kind of feminist is one who has failed at a sport, job, debate, or anything else, provided that the “rules” were just and fair, but complains that she was discriminated against because she “is a woman”. Feminism does promote women receiving the same equal opportunities as men to go for the same jobs, play the same sports, and enter the same mental competitions. However, there is a difference between opportunity and success. Sometimes, some women just can’t do the job. Sometimes, a woman may lose a debate or a chess match. It’s not always the system setting up the women to fail (though it can happen and has happened at times). Many times, some women just can’t do the job as well as another person, and that is okay. We can’t blame the system when it is convenient and march our way into all the colleges we don’t get accepted to or into all the sports teams we’ve been rejected from. Sometimes, we have to be objective and analyze whether we were denied based on gender/sex or based on our actual skills (or lack thereof).

There is another type under this User and Abuser label. She’s the woman who is always strong, powerful, and in control until she really has to do a “man’s” job. What do I mean by that? I mean the one that has to serve in the military.

Luckily, in the USA, many women don’t have to experience being drafted into military service. But in many other countries, the draft is a very real part of life. Often times, women are exempt from military service because they are deemed too “weak” to do the rigorous training the men do.

Most feminists have been offended by this, but I recently ran across a self-proclaimed feminist who said she did feel women were “too weak” to be drafted in the military. In one conversation, she mentioned how women should be allowed in male-dominated fields, how women were strong, and how they were capable of having children and then going back to work. But when the topic of military service came up, she mentioned how her “menstrual” would hold her back and how she wouldn’t be able to take having to exert herself physically because of cramps.

Well, no one said military service was easy. Even men struggle through it. But there are many ways women could serve in the military, offering their intellect, their agility, hands or anything else. I presented this idea to the “feminist”, and her response was “That’s just not for women”. This was coming from a woman who claimed women were “strong” and capable of handling male-dominated fields. But as soon as the idea of mandatory military service came up, she was suddenly the docile mouse. This showed me that she was ready to use feminism when she wanted to use it, but not ready to assume the responsibilities that came with feminism. If we advocate that women be treated equally to men, we should expect the same things of women that we do men. They should have the same responsibilities. They should take responsibility for what they’re advocating.

Apparently, some women just aren’t ready for true feminism-the kind that doesn’t make their life more cushy, that is.

These kinds of feminists confuse the heck out of everybody, which sets the feminist movement back. What do you want? Do you want equal rights or not?

All of these gray/grey areas leave room for anti-feminists to poke holes.

Did I mention that some of these women get paid off of feminist propaganda? It’s more of a business for them, nothing personal.

Back to top

6. Feminazi

feminazi

Yes, I used it. I used one of the worst insults to describe a feminist. I don’t always like to throw this word around, but if you’re acting like one, you are. Many people throw this word around unjustly, but there are a group of “feminists” that this word applies to.

Before I lay it thick on them, I do want to admit that I respect the feminazis more than all of the above feminists. No great movement is good without radicals, right? A radical movement can be an effective movement. For starters, at least most of them know what they stand for and aren’t full of the major contradictions other feminists are known for (unless they also fall into the other above categories). These women have gone beyond just fighting for equal rights; they are ready to destroy any “male-dominated” society. These are the women that are strictly focusing on the “patriarchy” and nothing else.

While I applaud them for getting down to the gritty business, sometimes these women seem to be trying to create their own little strict feminist regime. They are “puritanical” in a way, insisting that everything caters to women, the female sex, and her issues and needs, whether it be in a movie, music video, song, or book (like Nazi Germany). In fact, she may insist that there not be a male present AT ALL when the story is directed to a female audience. Romance is misogynistic to most of these women.

This is the woman that gets angry if she goes into a movie and sees one or less lead female characters. This is the woman that can analyze and find all the misogynistic undertones of everything, intentional or not. She can see the misogyny of video game characters wearing pink, the misogyny of a female character crying, the misogyny of women talking about their relationships, the misogyny of reality show fights… I have to admit she does her homework.

Despite her “intelligence”, she can be very annoying. I can’t understand how these women can enjoy anything when they are constantly worrying about how men are perceiving them or representing them all the time. If these feminists were really so tired of the misogynistic undertones, wouldn’t they have made their own little collection of cult films, books, and music exclusively for women, by women, with female leads by now? That would work better than trying to boycott or protest every little bit of entertainment because of some “misogynistic undertones” they’ve discovered. And it’s easy for them to find, too. They can read misogyny in the different ways we perceive the color of the sky. That’s how obsessed they are.

These women are also very particular about who should benefit from the movement and who should be supporting the movement. Oh yeah, some of them want to control who supports the movement. I’m sure most of us are aware that men can be feminists, right? Not the feminazi.

These are the women that aren’t just looking at feminism as a movement for equal rights. They include all the issues women face in the world, no matter how crazy or petty, like fights with their families and friends and women-on-women crime, among others.

You will certainly find some man-haters among them somewhere, too. They aren’t too friendly with men. In relationships, they are very particular about the men they like, if they like men at all. But these women are often so sensitive, even lesbian women have a hard time dealing with them (since they like to point out how we are all so conditioned by the patriarchy every 5 minutes).

All cynicism and sarcasm aside, I understand their need to bring “light” on issues that truly affect women. I appreciate the points they bring out regarding the social restrictions, expectations, and labels that have been placed on women. However, the feminazis need to step back and look at the forest sometimes. They are too caught up in these ridiculous, petty, and really unimportant details. After reading their propaganda, it’s hard to enjoy anything anymore.

Most of the feminazis are so caught up in getting rid of the “patriarchy”, which is riddled with some things that limit women and which do encourage women to be more “like men”, they forget that there are also good things that have come out of patriarchy that we can and have benefitted from. GASP. I don’t think the feminazis can handle that sentence. But it’s true. We all enjoy male inventions, like Apple, internet, cars, and much more. Sure, they were created in eras where women were limited, and yes the efforts of women to bring those inventions out there have been ignored, but they are still good inventions. If you don’t want a patriarchal society, move out to a remotely isolated place and create your own town full of women. That’s what a few Kenyan women did. See? Women of action, not talk.

And there are privileges, especially in western societies, that women have enjoyed as a result of this “oppression”. Women have never had to be drafted, they’ve been able to mostly stay at home instead of slaving in the outside world, and men have been expected to show chivalry towards women (even if some didn’t) by opening doors, pulling out chairs, and giving jackets to women when they’re cold.

Some of the women from the good ole’ days would hardly agree that they were actually oppressed. Many agreed with their set “roles”. Of course, some women didn’t, because we’re all individual. But neither did some men. We have had very defined separate roles in society, and much of the “rules” were written by both men and women. These “roles” were always decided by the lifestyle lived by both the men and women. If a woman lived an agricultural life, she wasn’t expected to work in the home. If a woman lived in an urban area, she was expected to do housework. And some women took pride in being homemakers. I hardly call that oppression, considering the term refers to prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control. There may have been more boundaries, but that was for both men and women. Some women in the west were not treated cruelly, unjustly, or controlled at all. Many women decided the roles they wanted and lived comfortable lives.

As long as men exist, patriarchal thinking will exist, and as long as women exist, matriarchal thinking will exist. Each gender thinks about their own self-interests, first and foremost. We can’t get rid of one to uphold another. The only way to live peacefully with one another is to work out our ideas together, to remove the ideas from both systems that just don’t work or don’t lead to a comfortable life, and keep the things that enhance the quality of all of our lives. As an African American, even though White Supremacy exists, it’s not realistic to try to remove white people from positions of power. It’s best to rise in that system and then implement our ideas, causing a blend. I feel the same way about Male Supremacy.

While most women want to be seen as strong and independent heroes, we are also very individual and don’t mind seeing romance here and there. There is nothing wrong with marriage or relationships. It’s how we continue our human race. There’s also nothing wrong with a man saving a woman, as long as we know that the feeling is mutual. Women can’t always do the saving. That’s just not realistic. While we do want to focus on shedding stereotypes, it’s not always bad to enjoy or even fall into some of them every once in a while.

There are women out here who really do need to fight their patriarchal systems. They are in countries that truly oppress women. We should observe how their patriarchy is destroying them, especially if there is nothing good coming out of it. But some of us are actually living in a society where it’s really not fair for either side, men or women.

The feminazis have to ease up a little. That’s all I’m saying.

The following videos are not by a feminist, however, I think she makes some interesting points:

Food for thought…

Back to top

7.  Transfeminist Dictators

banner-wordpress-size-spiral-2xwoman

For those who are unaware, Trans people are people who are labeled a certain sex at birth, but identify as the opposite gender.  There are many transmen and transwomen who also identify as feminists, and often times stand with other kinds of women against rape, sexism, and misogyny.

Despite this, however, there are some trans feminists who criticize other feminists in an effort to protect their identity.  This is what makes some of them the most cringeworthy feminists of all.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a trans feminist, especially if you are a transwoman.  After all, feminism is for them as well, supposedly, right? However, I do have a problem with trans people trying to “censor” certain topics, and I do have a problem with trans people dictating the way other women in the movement address their own anatomy biologically.

I get that trans women want to feel included in the movement, and certainly there are certain aspects of the movement that apply to trans women.  However, not everything in the movement has to apply to trans women and women should not be forced to censor themselves when talking about issues that affect their everyday life. What they fail to understand is that many feminists experience oppression based on their biology and not just because of social gender representation. Trans women must respect this.

Examples of topics that trans people have tried to censor include:  pregnancy, abortion, menstruation, breast cancer, vaginal disrespect, and/or Uterine diseases or conditions, along with other biologically “female” issues.  Many trans women are sensitive about these topics because most of these topics do not concern them and their own biological make up.  As a result some trans women have even said that women should not talk about these issues at all in order to avoid “excluding” trans women.  One example of this involved the latest Women’s March On Washington, when women dressed as vaginas in order to make a political statement.  Transwomen criticized the movement, and it was not because the costumes were ridiculous, not because women were representing genitals in front of thousands of children, but because they felt the march was “transphobic” and “cissexist” and exclusive.  Yes.  They did not like the idea of women wearing what they referred to as “pussy” hats or vagina costumes, making the trans women feel somehow like they are less than women.

Apparently, the trans women did not get why the women were marching with vagina hats and costumes in the first place.  This was a political statement, a statement to a man they felt offended the vagina or “pussy”, a genital that the majority of women have in the world.  So why should they not wear vagina hats and costumes? I understand that some trans women have different genitalia, but that does not mean the feminists should not speak up when they feel vaginal disrespect.  Just because you’re the kind of woman that doesn’t go through this, doesn’t mean majority of other women don’t.  Feminists should be able to address all issues that affect all kinds of women without feeling guilt. A woman should be allowed to talk about her body and her own anatomy. After all, that was one major issue throughout history. The vaginal anatomy has been the root reason why women have always been considered sexually inferior, considered unclean, and receptive, not assertive. Their genitals affect them as women, so these women should be able to speak on it. Walking around with “vagina” hats wasn’t the best way to get the idea across, it was a little extreme, and it doesn’t actually define a woman totally, but regardless of my personal opinions about the costume, they should be allowed to try to get their points across without being labeled “cissexist” or “transphobic”. It is not “cissexist” or “transphobic” if they talk about their biological bodies, especially if it has something to do with the way they are treated in society.

Historical “science” used to distort all kinds of “facts” about women based on the “uterine” genitals. Therefore, it is not right to repress their voices just because it makes you, as a trans woman, feel “uncomfortable”.

There are issues trans women go through that other women do not experience, and that is okay. Would it be right for other women to try to censor a trans woman’s voice because other women do not experience the same things? No, it would not, because those issues are serious and need to be resolved for the mental, emotional, social, and physical health of society. It is the same thing when it comes down to women with vaginas.

These kinds of trans feminists also try to “censor” other feminist causes, too.  They even try to censor the feminists’ use of words.  They insist that feminists not refer to their own anatomy as “female”, despite the fact that scientifically the definition of female involves a certain kind of anatomy and function.

The hypocritical part about these trans feminists is that they will be the first to tell you that you cannot define them; they insist they can only define themselves. So why is it their job to dictate what another feminist defines as female?

Oh, and by the way, not all feminists like the word cis either, though most trans women insist that women who are not trans refer to themselves as such. A cis woman is a woman that identifies as the gender aligned with her sex. What about the feminists that don’t honestly believe in gender?  This is what I mean; trans women cannot tell other women how and in what manner they should identify themselves and their anatomy.  It would be best if these types of trans women stopped insisting that every issue in the movement be about them. I get the feeling that some of the feminist trans women are just too sensitive to be in any movement.  They are apparently sensitive to almost everything in every movement.

And this is not all transfeminist, mind you. I have run into some very supportive trans feminists, women who talk about their own issues as well as the issues others face. Those women are helping us all move forward. But those women that get whiny over every little thing in the movement? Just have several seats.

Back to top

feminism-definition

At this point, I want to wrap this up by re-emphasising my appreciation for most feminists and their efforts to try and push us toward a more inclusive and progressive society. However, I just had to bring this issue out. There are certain feminists that have been evolving out of the movement and I think it’s time someone warned others about them. They are mostly holding women back.

Leave me a comment and let me know what you think about my list. Do you agree with my list, that these feminists are cringe-worthy? Are there any others

you would like to add? I’m open to discussion.

Frozen 2’s Elsa: Gay, Traditional, or Remaining Single? I’m For Single!

13 May

ElsaFrozen

Fans of Disney’s Frozen have been petitioning online for Elsa, the deuteragonist of the film, to finally find love in the sequel-only not with a man. Those among the LGBT community and beyond have been pushing for films to be more “inclusive” and have been pushing for homosexual romances to be seen as “equal” to heterosexual ones. They especially feel children’s shows should embrace the message. By allowing children’s programs and movies to openly represent homosexual relationships, the target generation may start to see it as beautiful and pure rather than taboo.

Many have zeroed in on Elsa. Elsa has come to represent alternative lifestyles. She seems to be a role model for those who don’t fit the “norm”. She steps out of society’s rules in several ways. For one, she’s one of the few Disney heroines without a love interest. Elsa also represents ‘freedom and tolerance’. When Elsa “let it go” in the film, it seemed to send the message that told kids, “It’s okay to be yourself. Don’t conceal what’s inside”. This especially relates to the LGBT because most of them often feel they have to “conceal” or hide who they are to feel more “normal”. So for them, if anyone is to represent LGBT, it should be her. There is plenty of art online that expresses this. 

There are many who are for the push and many who are against it. The conservative, religious folk just feel it isn’t right for their kids. There are also those fans that already shipped her with Jack Frost.

Where do I stand?

I’ll be clear. I’m against it.

I’m not against it because I hate homosexuality. I’m not a homophobe. In fact, a homosexual character in a Disney movie in the near future would be fantastically progressive and is sure to send a statement worldwide.

However, I don’t think Elsa should be that character.

First, I’m sick of Frozen. Disney milks that movie a little too much. It was a “plot-hole” of a story and never really deserved the praise it received. I have more to say on this at the Frozen Review and Frozen-A Feminist movie or a Sexist One? And if I’m sick of the movie, I’m sure others are. It wouldn’t do a homosexual relationship justice. It would be stuck to a sequel, second base to most heterosexual relationships.

Second, Disney’s sequels aren’t usually too good. Do I have to remind you of Tarzan 2? Have you seen the Little Mermaid 2? Nah, Disney should stick to originals. Why place a homosexual relationship in a movie that may not even have a well-developed story? It’s cheap to stick it in a sequel. It makes it feel insignificant and takes away the message that homosexual relationships should be treated equally to heterosexual ones. And if the movie flops, that will kill the cause.

Third, what’s wrong with a character being single? It’s bad enough for women to be damsels in distress, but let’s not forget that women are also often stereotypically clumped with the romance genre. It was refreshing to see a female character that showed no interest in romance and had no issues with betrothal or anything marriage-related (like Merida). Just a refreshing story about a woman who wanted to break free and show her strengths. Anna’s relationship was so distracting and pointless, I almost wish SHE had also been single!

I side with those who want Elsa to remain single.

Some excellent arguments were best summed up by commenter Raygirl from the comments section of the article ‘Why it Doesn’t Matter if Elsa or Any Movie Character is Gay’:

If she becomes gay, the movie will only sell in America…but the movie will be banned in other religious countries. So how is this going to be another billion dollar movie? If we’re thinking from a business perspective making Elsa gay can break the movie’s reputation and interfere with revenue. And its not because of what I believe [is] right and wrong. But rather most of the world is not as progressive or tolerant of gay people like Americans. Elsa would do better being single, for the sake of making worldwide success. If they make her gay, this movie will be a financial flop worldwide and will be filled with criticism.

Why must Elsa find love? Part of her appeal was being a single independent woman. She had different interests other than romance and proves that love does not always have to be romantic. The first movie proved that. By giving her a romantic love interest it will deviate from that message: that love does not always have to be romantic to save the day. The bond between sisters saved the day. I think they should focus on that.

…Why must we change [her from being single and independent to suddenly being a romantic] to fit an agenda? Why don’t they ask for a brand new character that is gay? Elsa was inspirational because she was single… By saying she should be gay or straight, people are insinuating that a person should never be without a romantic partner and that being single is somehow “sad”. Why is her being alone such a bad thing? Why is being single not good enough for people? It’s like the world suspects if you’re not straight, you’re gay and there is no room to be single or even in-between! I’m tired of people assuming a single woman or a man who refuses to marry or date is classified as “gay”. This just reinforces such stereotypes and doesn’t leave room for the imagination nor does it leave room for people to be okay living a single life regardless of their sexual orientation.
She was a loner and wanted to do her own thing. If this were to change, people like me would no longer relate to what made her character so great in the first place. She wasn’t focused on love, she focused on the powers inside of her.

In response to those who feel Merida, Disney’s and Pixar’s Brave heroine, already represents the single ladies and gents:

Why should I have to choose between Merida and Elsa? I like that both of them are single independent women with different personalities. It gives us single people variety to have two different types of women portrayed as single in Disney movies. We’re not all tomboys like Merida, y’know. Some women like wearing sparkly dresses and love our sisters. Are more feminine women like Elsa destined to just be in a relationship? Or can’t any of these women choose to be single? My question for you is why don’t you and many others ask Disney to make a brand NEW Disney princess who is lesbian? Does it have to be one that was already established as a single independent woman in their original form?

Now that she has come to terms with her powers I don’t feel it is necessary to make her a romantic necessarily. In fact, there is so much we have not learned about her powers! I want to see that part of her evolve rather than some offsetting romance. It was bad enough with Anna’s romance. Anna’s romance, in my opinion, interfered with the developing sister relationship in the first Frozen. I don’t want the same thing to happen to my favorite character Elsa.

…I have never had a romantic relationship. And I’m in my 20s. And I plan to keep it that way. My best friend is Asexual and my other best friend is handicapped. They also have never had relationships. My handicapped friend used to cry because she knew she could never date and get married. When she saw Frozen‘s Elsa she was so happy to see a story like Elsa’s and was relieved that Elsa was single. If Elsa had a romantic partner, this would make people like my friend feel bad. So you see, there are people that relate to Elsa in more ways than you realize, that are hoping romance won’t be shoved in their faces. To me relationships don’t mean “Happily Ever After”. My “Happily Ever After” and many others come from being with my friends and family more than some romantic partner. Friends and family will be in your corner no matter how you look or no matter your “sex appeal”. This is why I have chosen to be single. And many others feel the way I do.

In response to someone who related “sexuality” to skin color and gender:

…In Disney movies, the romances technically do advance or interfere with story plots. In fact, most times in Disney’s case the romance tends to be one of the focuses of the story. In the original Frozen, I would have never thought it was a sister story because they focused more on Kristoff and Anna’s growing love life.

A black person is only black by skin. But being black does not reflect a way of life nor a person’s behavior. A woman is only a woman by body, but this also does not reflect her behavior or way of life.
When it comes to homosexuality, it is very different. This reflects not only a feeling and a behavior, but it also reflects a way of life. Therefore, it will alter the story in more ways than being a woman or being black. Including a subtle sexual/romantic theme is the same as including a religion. If people asked for more Jews in Disney movies, this would change the behavior and feeling of the character.

Ari Moore from that same website’s comments section made this interesting note as to why she thinks Elsa should be single:

Loving [oneself] is different from loving someone else for me because my love for myself is unconditional. The love for people however is very conditional.

…The princesses don’t find love, they kind of just meet some random person and do a lot to have that man. Recently it has not been that way but it was like that for a time. To be honest, I do not believe in love and I think stories where there is a love interest is silly and [it is] why women are so ridiculous when it comes to love. To be even more honest, women don’t love, they love the idea of love and men just lust. You can really like someone but I do not think it is love. I think stories about love are setting people up for failure in that aspect because no one really knows what love is. Yes, love stories sell but they should not. It is like false advertisement for the real world because the world is much colder than these fairy tales that disney recreates.

I really just had to put some shine on these words. They really put something on my mind and shaped my view of the whole situation.

While many people may argue that romance and romantic relationships are universal and relate easily to others, nothing is more universal than being single. We are ALL born single; we have all been single at one time. Everyone will not experience relationships or romance. We are only in control of ourselves and the love we have for ourselves. It is the most powerful message for both heterosexuals, homosexuals, bi-sexuals, and asexuals. Heterosexual people don’t often relate to homosexual people and homosexuals don’t often relate to heterosexual lifestyles. But they BOTH can relate to being single. Single people come from all backgrounds.

I think an even better idea would be to give Elsa another female friend in the film but leave their relationship ambiguous. This will allow viewers to see what they want to see and it will satisfy everybody.

So readers, what do you think? Do you think Elsa should remain single or get a female love interest? Or perhaps you’re more conservative and would like Elsa to suddenly follow a traditional route?

It all depends on how you feel the character should evolve. At the end of the day, Disney is going to go with what sales anyhow.

It’s interesting how a children’s film can spark so much debate… Why not let the kids decide? Throughout all of this, no one asked what the kids wanted. These movies are for children who haven’t yet developed an interest in romance.

If you believe that Elsa should stay single, too, sign this petition: #SingleForElsa

Another great article on this topic: Why I’m All for Disney Keeping Elsa Single in Frozen 2 

Leave me a comment and let me know what you think.

Black History Month For Children: Learning Black History Through the American Girl Beforever Collection

1 Feb

Martin Luther King’s birthday has passed, and black history month is here, and so the focus may be on “black pride”.

Many children today really don’t understand their history, or rather don’t care about it, whether they are African American, Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian, Native American, Jewish,  etc. It’s a shame that I even had to witness African American children fall asleep during Dr. King movies. I’ve witnessed this recently at a school. They really take for granted the privileges they have obtained thanks to him. MLK would roll over in his grave if he could see how some of our young African American children are today.

The American Girl dolls and books to me are a great way to educate children about their history in a way that relates to them. Through the eyes of three nine to ten year old girls, children can learn to value their history, to be proud of themselves, and to work hard to achieve great things. I’m proud to announce that American Girl has added three African American characters to their Beforever line: Cecile, Addy, and Melody.

I’m not telling you to go out and purchase an expensive doll for black history month. But maybe you could read a story with your child, or get them one of the books from the library. Some parents don’t realize how important it is for children to know their history, but knowing what others have gone through helps them to develop admirable and likable qualities, such as compassion, empathy, understanding, and intelligence. They realize that everything isn’t going to be handed to them, and that it is up to them to make a future for themselves, no matter how challenging life gets. Children who understand history learn to appreciate what they have and to be content. Every privilege we have today-modern technology and political/social freedoms-we have because someone from the past worked so that we could. We also look to the past to learn for the future.

All of the characters in the American Girls series have something to teach kids. This month, we’ll be focusing on the African American characters.

Meet Cecile

Cecile‘s stories take place in 1853, centering around New Orleans, Louisiana during the worst outbreak of Yellow Fever in the city. While the story is fiction, many of the events in the stories really happened, such as the Yellow Fever epidemic and the city-wide Day of Prayer. Cecile is a wealthy French girl of color living in the French Quarter. Cecile shows a new side to African American history. While most children know of slavery and the Civil Rights Movement, many do not know that there were rich black girls living prosperous lifestyles in the South. They are often not taught about the rich black culture that has existed in the USA prior to the Civil War. Cecile’s story focuses on the struggles she faces trying to help her family and her city find healing during a traumatic epidemic that hushes the lively spirit of New Orleans.

Though Cecile’s stories are shared with Marie-Grace, a poor white girl, Cecile still has a significant role in each story.

There may be several things that may concern readers when observing reviews of the stories. I always say consider what you can take from the series rather than focus on the negative. Perhaps I can give some suggestions that may make the introduction to these American Girl books easier.

“I don’t think this is good for black history month. Her stories are shared with a white girl.”

Cecile’s stories teach several things about black culture, even though her stories are shared with a white girl. While most of the world thinks most black people were either poor slaves or oppressed individuals who could only find poor housing and poor education, Cecile’s stories introduce a whole new side to black culture. Denise Lewis Patrick herself said that while researching, she found it surprising how freely people of color interacted with other races and how some black people lived in lavish circumstances.

Having a white girl share her story further teaches girls how different things were for black people in New Orleans before “Americans” entered the city. Though places were still segregated, people often mingled together at public events. And black people often had no strong desire to mingle with white people because it truly was “separate but equal”. Schools, ballrooms, stores, and other places were just as amazing for black people as they were for white people!

Slavery still existed, and of course slaves felt inferior. But wealthy black people owned large plantations in New Orleans full of slaves as well.

Through Cecile’s friendship with Marie-Grace, both girls learned to set aside their differences and see each other for the “content of their characters”. This is not only a good lesson for black girls, but girls of other ethnic backgrounds, too. I think this was exactly what MLK would’ve wanted. I think the series still teaches black history while bridging the gaps between two different races.

Some people may be concerned that Marie-Grace outshines Cecile in these stories. I can assure you that isn’t the case. Three books are dedicated to each girl. And Cecile plays a huge role throughout Marie-Grace’s stories as well. Just seeing how Marie-Grace reacts to Cecile can also give insight into the character and the time period.

“This book seems to gloss over the actual struggles blacks have experienced in the USA.”

Black history doesn’t only consist of struggle and hardship. Just as it’s important for children to recognize how hard black people fought for equality, it’s important for children to know that they can rise above any oppression if they work hard enough. It’s important for black children to recognize that they also have a rich history with a rich culture.

Many black people may not be able to relate to this era in time. That doesn’t mean the series has nothing to offer children. This is an opportunity for them to actually learn.

I think one of the most interesting things about Cecile, the main character, is that she speaks French. This series shows that African American girls of that time period were well-rounded and quite cultured. Who knows. This may encourage other black children to learn French. Even though these stories don’t teach about racism largely, the books have many other things to teach children regarding black history and culture.

But I would like to point out that racism is discussed, along with other forms of prejudice, throughout this series.

“Cecile, the main character, acts a little spoiled and self-centered.”

The American Girl stories, like any stories in the world, are full of a diverse group of characters. Of the three black characters offered in the line, Cecile stands out. I think it’s great that she isn’t “Miss Perfect” in every way, just like real girls. But throughout the series, Cecile learns to be more thoughtful, compassionate, and generous. Children today are pretty privileged in comparison to many girls who lived in the past. We all are! Children today don’t have to work. They can go to school. Most children can ask their parents for toys, games, I-pads, cell phones, new clothes and shoes, and other luxury items. They are very much like Cecile, where the smallest things can mean a lot to them. I feel that Cecile relates to black children in this way.

I think Cecile’s stories can help children of all backgrounds step outside of their comfort zones and learn about other cultures. These stories promote tolerance and diminish racism and cultural ignorance. By promoting these values, we establish peace. The next generation can move into the future with open minds if we help them open their worlds. Why not start with a story like Cecile’s? Keeping this in mind, I think her faults are forgivable.

Cecile may not be the most humble character, but she’s only like this at first. I think she was written showcasing some major flaws in the beginning in order to show readers how much she grew from experiencing a major epidemic. Her character works well with the story, and the evolution is obvious.

Events like the Yellow Fever brought different people together, even those who were unlikely to be friends. This shows that all of mankind has the ability to pull together when it matters most. During disastrous events like Hurricane Katrina, another event that struck New Orleans hard, and other natural disasters, children can relate to the struggles Cecile and Marie-Grace had, but can also find healing much the same way the girls did. These stories can help young girls cope with these events through child-size perspectives.

Reading along with the American Girl curriculum guides can really help teachers and parents as they read the stories to children: Cecile’s Book Guide

Meet Addy

Addy‘s stories take place from 1864 to 1866, centering around Raleigh, North Carolina and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania during the Civil War. While the story is fiction, many of the events in the stories really happened, such as the Civil War, Robert Lee’s Surrender, and The Grand Review. Slavery also existed, as we all should know by now. Though the Emancipation Proclamation was supposed to have freed the slaves in 1863, the year before Addy’s stories, much of the South saw themselves as a separate nation. So they ignored the Proclamation. Some slaves didn’t know about it because they couldn’t read about the news and no one would share information with slaves for fear they would run. But word eventually got around, prompting many slaves to try and escape their plantations. Many slaves were eventually freed by Union soldiers. Addy was raised a slave girl during this time. She and her mother planned a daring escape North in her stories. Addy’s stories focus on her life as a slave and her struggles as she and her family try to build a life for themselves as newly freed people of color.

There may be several things that may concern readers when observing reviews of the stories. I always say consider what you can take from the series rather than the negative. Perhaps I can give some suggestions that may make the introduction to the American Girl books easier.

“My child is very sensitive. Some of the things in the stories are too harsh for young children.”

Think about this: While your child is too “sensitive” to hear about real events, little girls like Addy actually had to suffer through torture and pain during this era. No one was around to “shield” them. Many children today go through such things, especially in other countries. “Sensitive” children are the ones that can make a difference in the lives of those suffering. I don’t think it would be right to try to “protect” a child from learning about events that can help them become a mature, compassionate adult. It’s best to protect them from things that will actually make them bratty and spoiled or physically harmed. Addy’s stories may hurt your child, but that shows that the stories reach your child. It’s not hurting them in a negative way. It’s teaching them to appreciate their freedoms. It will inspire the child to think outside of the box and grow a love of tolerance rather than hate. More than likely, your child knows wrong from right, and with you reading the stories with her or him, you can explain how some of these things are wrong.

While there are a few sensitive moments throughout the series, there are many happy and positive moments, too. There are also scenes that children can relate to. If you can get over the beginning of Addy’s stories, she really does have some happy endings.

“My child is still learning English. Addy doesn’t speak the proper English and I don’t want her speaking the way Addy does.”

“I can’t read this book. The vocabulary is horrible.”

Well we’ve reached a dilemma. How can someone teach the realities of slavery to a child when slaves didn’t really speak the way we think they should have?

This is exactly what has always been the problem and why black history is hardly taught in schools or anywhere else. And this is exactly what slave masters wanted long ago.

Addy and other slaves couldn’t receive an education, so they learned English by ear. Because of this, white people would look down on them. They wouldn’t hire them for jobs or listen to them when they spoke up on political issues. They sounded “uneducated”. So even though many were freed, they were still barred from living prosperous lives because they were looked down on. This was a part of racism.

I don’t think that parents should encourage such prejudiced attitudes by refusing to read Addy’s stories to their children. Instead, I think this presents an opportunity to teach your children how valuable education really is. After all, this is a history lesson, not an English one. History is taught through the accounts of many people, whether they spoke the way we think they should have or not. Even museums have journal entries written by people who don’t quite speak what we would consider “proper”. If your child already recognizes that Addy’s speech isn’t quite right, then there’s no reason to be afraid that Addy’s stories will make him or her speak “horribly”. They must already be at an age where they know the correct grammar. So, it’s your job to help your child understand Addy’s situation and help the child to understand that Addy really wanted to learn so people wouldn’t look down on her. And you can encourage your child not to look down on people just because of the way they speak, act, or dress. Perhaps you can also discuss how her snobby desk partner, Harriet, looked down on Addy for those very reasons, which further shows how hard it was for newly freed people.

The reality is that slaves lived this way. If you hide it from your child, you are allowing the child to grow up ignorant anyway. What would you rather do: Read about history and have a discussion about things the child doesn’t understand or prevent the child from learning about an important part of history to shelter the child from Addy’s “speech”?

Some time in your child’s life, your child may run across people who don’t speak English so well, even in school. There are no slaves in the USA today, but there are immigrants that come into the United States. Perhaps this can open up a discussion about helping students who don’t speak English well or a discussion about children who have been barred from receiving a decent education in the USA and worldwide. Perhaps you can encourage your child to develop a tolerant and empathetic attitude.

I want to add that while Addy and her family don’t speak English “properly”, the narration is quite solid.

Addy’s books are targeted to girls 8 and up, an age where they can understand the material, so reading it to any child younger would make things more complicated as well.

“Addy fits all stereotypes and makes all black people seem poor and uneducated.”

Let’s face it. Whether you hate or like stereotypes, this was the way many African Americans lived in this time. This isn’t like some Disney princess story. This is based on real history. Most of ALL black people came to America as slaves or indentured servants, and they all had to fight to be seen as “human” in the USA. There is no reason to be ashamed of that. It only shows how strong African Americans really were and only shows how far black people have come. To have endured such oppression and still thrive and survive is something we all should admire. There are other African American characters in the line that aren’t slaves, but we still have to face the fact that slavery existed. There’s no sense in brushing it under the rug, as the saying goes.

Though black people didn’t receive a “European-style” education, they weren’t dumb. They had to be very clever to outwit their slave masters and escape. Addy is very smart herself. She struggled hard to learn, but she worked hard and learned fast. She was able to rise to the top of her class in less than a month, even winning a spelling bee! She kept her mind sharp by solving riddles and guessing games. Her father was clever enough to devise a plan to help his family escape. Though slave masters tried to keep slaves ignorant, they couldn’t take away their ability to learn. Children today who struggle in school can learn from Addy’s example. Addy struggled but, by studying and asking for help, she was able to be a great student.

There are also black characters in Addy’s stories that have shown they were not poor and uneducated. Miss Dunn was black and was once a slave, but became Addy’s teacher. Addy’s desk partner, Harriet, was the smartest and wealthiest in the class. But should we look down on people who are poor and uneducated?

Addy’s stories teach girls not to judge people by outer appearances, status, or even the way someone carries themselves. By judging based on such superficial information alone, we create the same dividing lines that destroyed our nation during the Civil War. The North looked down on the South. The South looked down on the slaves. None of the sides could understand each other.

I really feel that through Addy’s stories children can recognize how lucky they are to have freedoms other children didn’t have. They can also learn tolerance. Help open your children’s minds by sharing Addy’s stories.

And she’s such a sweet girl to boot.

Reading along with the American Girl curriculum guides can really help teachers and parents as they read the stories to children: Addy’s Book Guide

american girl melody

Melody is American Girl’s newest African American character. Her stories take place from 1963 to 1964. Her stories focus on life in Detroit, Michigan during the Civil Rights Movement and 1960’s culture. While the story is fiction, many of the events really happened, such as The Walk To Freedom, The March on Washington For Jobs and Freedom, the Children’s Crusade, and the 16th Street Baptist Church Bombing. Famous figures make cameos throughout the stories, such as Langston Hughes, Diana Ross, Berry Gordy, and Martin Luther King Jr.

Melody is a normal, suburban African American girl. She goes to school, plays with her friends, and attends her church every Sunday, much like children today. She comes from a large family (Baby Boom) and shares a connection with each member of her family. Her stories focus on black people’s struggle for equality in the USA and the role children played in the struggle for civil rights.

There may be several things that may concern readers when observing reviews of the stories. I always say consider what you can take from the series rather than the negative. Perhaps I can give some suggestions that may make the introduction to the American Girl books easier.

“The events in these stories are too scary for my child.”

Keep in mind that the children in these stories have had to face far more than reading a book about harsh realities. Many of these children fought for equality bravely and deserve to be honored. Many of these children gave up their lives. Perhaps these stories can be inspirational for your child. Perhaps these stories can teach your child to appreciate the freedoms we have in the USA. Push your children to inculcate love in their hearts for people who are different. Instead of shielding them from reality, help them to cultivate qualities that can help prevent some of the tragic things that happen in the story.

Many children in the 1960s were like children today. They were innocent. But events happened that tore children’s lives apart. It’s better when their parents hand it to them with an open discussion rather than “protecting” them with false expectations and lies or worse-the power of “omission”. There are ways to teach children important events without traumatizing them. There are ways to teach them about history in an empowering way. But we can’t act like these things didn’t happen. It’s best to teach our children early, when they are impressionable, events that will help them grow into respectful, compassionate adults.

You can’t get any more censored than the American Girls. Of all the history books in the world, they truly give history in a way that doesn’t sugar-coat the truth, but also in a way that relates to children. Don’t be afraid to introduce harsh subjects to children.

Still, these stories are geared towards children who are 8 and up. Though events can happen to any child, keep in mind that is the target age.

“I’m apprehensive about reading the Civil Rights era. Most stories and accounts make all white people seem evil.”

White people may have this concern. I understand it may be hard to face such evil scenes mentioned during the stories. Everyone knows that this wasn’t the fault of all white people. Still, such hatred existed and such attitudes even exist today. Looking to the past is important because it helps us to fix our mistakes and create a better future for humankind. If we all worked together and overcame our differences, imagine what we really could accomplish as a HUMAN race. Of course, we don’t want to stay stuck on the past, otherwise we’ll never create a future. Still, by reading about the Civil Rights Movement, we learn to develop love and tolerance. That is the black story. Through all of the African American characters, love and tolerance are important themes.

Civil Rights wasn’t just for black people, either. Imagine how many white people couldn’t marry a black person, or an Asian person, or someone Hispanic, even if they were in love with them. Segregation and racist laws even infringed upon the rights of white people! There are many white people who suffered and died because they said something that seemed “tolerant” towards other races or spoke out against racism.

Other nationalities were also oppressed and benefited from the Civil Rights Movement, such as the Native Americans, Asian Americans, Jewish families, and those of Latin American descent. Black people were the leaders of the movement, but it wasn’t a movement that only benefited black people. This is why it was an important event in the USA.

Women may have also felt inspired by the Civil Rights Movement. Many women had to push through gender boundaries in the 1960s and throughout the 1970s. Many women today are still striving to make their mark on the world, so girls today can still relate to this movement..

Why did people have to fight for something so simple as civil rights? This is a question you could ask your children to make the topic easier.

Luckily, for you more sensitive souls, Melody lives in the North where legal segregation no longer existed. Still, racism did.

Aside from the topics on racism, though, Melody is actually a normal girl that I think any children can relate to. She likes flowers, music, getting pampered at a salon and spa, and spending time with her sisters. In fact, I think she and American Girl’s Maryellen, the 1950s red headed character, have a lot in common. If people didn’t make such a big deal about race, I imagine girls like the two of them could have been the best of friends!

Children may find that the events in Melody’s stories mirror some events they hear on the news in modern times. Melody’s stories can help children transition into serious subjects that they may even hear in their daily lives. Events in the story can help girls cope with modern day events that have affected children, such as the Sandy Hook tragedy or even some of the rioting going on right now on behalf of race and against police brutality or even the Charleston church tragedy. Children may have questions about such events, and Melody goes through some of the same trials children face today-only she lived in the 1960s!

Reading along with the American Girl curriculum guides can really help teachers and parents as they read the stories to children: Melody’s Book Guide

Even if you readers don’t want to jump on the American Girl book bandwagon, don’t forget to honor all of the black leaders who,through intelligence and courage, found a way to make life more free for everyone. If you ever want to learn about black history, now is the time to do so.

Though all of these girls come from different times, their feelings, struggles, and victories are very similar to children today.

Peggy Hubbard from Ferguson Speaks Against #BlackLivesMatter and Rejects the Idea of White Privilege

9 Sep

 

As an African American woman, who lives in an all-black community in the city of Chicago, I find this interesting.

Do you agree with her? Or Disagree? The following article is my opinion on the Peggy Hubbard rant. She rants about several different points that I want to address in this OPINION article. The following things I say may offend a few people. The following things I say may enlighten a few people. Some people may agree with what I have to say. But again, I’m a young black woman with opinions, and my readers know this. So, I’m going to go into it.

There are some things she says that I disagree with completely and there are some things she mentions I feel are spot on.

I’ve heard that Peggy is an anti-black coon, she’s married to a white man and so is brainwashed, and she’s trying to bring the black race down with her racist ideologies. I’ve heard she lived in an all-black community at one time; I’ve heard she now lives in a white community. I will tell you right now that I’m not here to go back and forth with the insults. I’m here to agree or disagree. In my opinion, calling any black person a coon, when they have the guts to speak out, even with points I disagree with, is actually bringing our people down. Everyone has the right to their opinion and should be respected for it, as long as they don’t try to force those opinions on me. Being married to a white man doesn’t mean she isn’t black, so that’s irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. On the contrary, I have people telling me she’s really married to a black man…Rumors, rumors…

Overall, it doesn’t matter where she comes from or who she’s married to. She’s still black. Though it may have an influence on why she feels the way she does, I want to address her opinions as they stand, regardless of her background.

What I’m seeing is a bitter, angry, frustrated, black woman. A woman who is angry with her community (not her literal one, but as a black “community”), a woman who is angry that real violence isn’t being addressed, a woman who is afraid of being killed in her own neighborhood or was once afraid of being killed in black communities, a woman who kind of wants to see those black people who constantly kill be brought to justice. I’m also seeing a woman who has grown to hate black people. I’m not saying I don’t understand why she hates black people, BUT the fact remains. She has some deep-seated animosity within her heart. This animosity can come from what she sees in her community. Crime after crime in all-black communities has possibly made her bitter towards her own people. If she lives in a black community, she’s probably really frustrated. If she lives in a white community, that’s probably why she moved out of black neighborhoods and why she doesn’t live in one. This is understandable, but the fact remains. She is fed up with the black community. She is bitter towards the black community. She’s growing to hate her own people. This is so much so, that she denounces the campaign #BlackLivesMatter. She has become disgusted with this. And it probably won’t end there…

Here are the sections you will find in this article in regards to Peggy’s Rant (sorry about the length). She and others talk about:

  1. White Privilege
  2. Black Lives Matter
  3. Pro-police
  4. Black People Are Violent
  5. White-washed, Anti-black, and Coon

White Privilege

In her CNN interview, when asked if she believed in “white privilege”, Peggy Hubbard states, “There is no white privilege”. She goes further to explain about some white people who have nothing, who scrap by to survive, and can’t pay their bills.

Let me just start by saying that this shows me that so many people, including those of the black race, don’t know what “white privilege” means.

Even other ethnic groups, especially white people, don’t understand what black people mean when they say there is “white privilege” in the USA.

Some black people who believe in it somewhat don’t understand what it means to the fullest extent. They may know it refers to white people having better jobs and better communities. But no. It goes much, much deeper than that.

My stand on white privilege? It EXISTS. Mostly, among WHITE MEN. Before all of you politically brainwashed people go, “Liberal, left-wing, Right-wing, Conservative” game, I just want to say I’m a free mental agent. I don’t get caught up in that game. Both parties have issues, and both have strengths. I just see things as I see them.

White privilege refers to the history of all nations of people in this nation, the USA, in comparison to white people. Of ALL the ethnic groups in the USA, white people have had the most freedom and access to the most resources to flourish in this nation. Most white people came to North America on their OWN free will. Therefore, their ancestors were well-prepared to handle the land, its challenges and all. They were prepared to wipe out the First Nations individuals. White people “designed” America. And they designed it by bringing their own ideologies, religion, and fashions from Europe. Their laws and policies were designed to suit them, not really including other ethnic groups.

Many African Americans came to this country as slaves. They did not have any choices, no freedoms, and weren’t educated in “white men’s” language or culture. They were just expected to be like animals. The Native Americans were equally treated harshly. Later, the Japanese experienced this oppression in Interment camps.

People may say history doesn’t affect us now. To a certain extent it does and to a certain extent it doesn’t.

“White privilege” doesn’t mean that there are no poor white people. It’s not to say there are no white people suffering. It’s not to say there haven’t been any white people who suffered oppression in this nation and other nations (especially the Irish, Italian, and Jewish). What it really means is that the really poor white people are poor, but all the really rich people, the billionaires, and the ones with all the power, are MOSTLY white.

Banks, department stores like Macy’s, Walmart, most of the White House, and other areas of big business and political power are RUN by white people. It doesn’t matter that there are some white people who haven’t experienced this. There are hardly ANY black people experiencing this.

How many banks do black people own? Who owns Walmart and other major supermarket chains?

White people can say, “Whose fault is that? All black people have to do is get an education and they can start their own businesses and banks.” Ah, but you see it’s not that simple.

Chase bank has been around since 1799.

Walmart has been around since 1962.

Just two to name a few.

The white people who created these companies were not billionaires the moment they started these businesses, were they? But, at the time that these businesses were created, white people had laws that could support them. They could get any job to help fund their side businesses. Walt Disney worked at a bank and was able to save to fund his cartoon company. They didn’t suffer segregation. They were able to promote their businesses in newspapers. They were able to influence politicians. They were able to have a hand in politics and vote for politicians that could support their businesses. These white MEN were able to build business and political empires.

And who do you think they gave these businesses to after they died? Their children. The businesses passed down the family line. And guess what? We now have WHITE BILLIONAIRES.

Back in those days, black people didn’t have that privilege. So what passed on to our black children today? Black people just got their freedoms in the 1960s, but there were still white people who didn’t like that. Black people were denied a lot of job opportunities well into the 1970s! Starting their own businesses was even harder!

And it’s already hard to start a business and make a profit as it is.

10 Must-Have Qualities for New Entrepreneurs

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/200730

So now, black people have to start from scratch. They are where those white men were back in 1799…More than 200 years ago. Guess what that means? It may take another 200 years before our black children actually benefit from modern black-owned businesses and before they become TRUE billionaires.

This is what white privilege means. It means that those who were born into families that owned major companies were able to easily find employment through inheritance and were able to prosper TO THIS DAY because of it.

This is not to say black people couldn’t have done the same thing. Madame C.J. Walker was the first millionaire who was female and black. Still, it was hard for her to reach the white community, who didn’t want to be bothered with “black-owned’ products, which is why she never became a billionaire. Many black people didn’t have a choice but to buy white products after slavery because they didn’t HAVE anything. So, white businesses flourished off of the money that blacks, and other ethnic groups, gave them, as well as the money from their own people.

Another thing that “white privilege” refers to is the language and culture of our land. Let’s be honest. White people invented America. Everyone else was just forced here or forced to comply with white culture. The language of the land is from Europe: English. The fashions were re-invented versions of what people wore in Europe, like trousers, dresses, wigs, etc. The religions that dominate this country have been big religions in Europe. The big businesses doing the hiring are run mostly by WHITE people.

The standard for getting a job is acting “professional”, right? What is acting professional in the USA? Acting like we have been groomed to act: Like white people. We are expected to speak the English language “correctly”, dress the way white people say is “professional”, like wearing a suit and tie, skirts and dresses, etc., and among other things. These standards were created by white people. And all the other ethnic groups are expected to comply to these standards if they expect to be hired by jobs. It has been in USA culture for so long, we think wearing suits and ties to work is NORMAL. English has become the main language because people beat First Nations and Africans out of their language. Spanish-speaking nations were forced to adopt English in the west-though clearly they were there first! Now, English is the main language. And anyone who doesn’t speak “right”, is a “weird foreigner” that needs to assimilate.

This land was designed to reflect white ideologies. This doesn’t mean that there are things from white people I don’t like or appreciate. I’m not bitter or resentful, and I don’t hate white people now for something their ancestors did. But still, I know for a fact that people from different backgrounds may find it harder to find “jobs” because they don’t fit what is considered “professional” and that’s a world designed mostly by white people. Some white people may be poor, but they seem to speak English better, they tend to know the right outfits to wear, and they seem to understand politics so well because they DESIGNED this nation. This gives them an edge with even minimum wage jobs.

This gives them a distinct advantage over other ethnic groups who have been forced into this land (like black people were), forced to comply to this land (like First Nations people or Hispanics in the west), or came way after the laws were created (like East Asians and Middle Easterners).

The chances that there could be ANY billionaires of ANY other ethnic background besides white is SLIM to NONE. As you’ve seen, it took HUNDREDS of YEARS for white people to become billionaires. Only 60 years of true freedom for black people can’t make up for HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

No, it’s not all white people’s fault, especially children born way after segregation. BUT they still have it better than other ethnic groups.

For those of you Caucasian/white individuals who still don’t understand what I’m talking about and how this CAN affect the success of black people, let me put it in a way you can understand.

Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears are both famous women (and this is not to compare their music styles, images, age, or anything, so just stay with me here). You can say both women have had the same opportunities to become famous, which is why both of them are. You can say that it was their choices to become rich and it was just as easy for both of them. You can say where they came from doesn’t matter because they are both rich. And you’re right about one thing. Their differing backgrounds didn’t make the difference in their success.

But their history has everything to do with how each woman got there. Miley Cyrus is clearly MORE privileged than Britney Spears, even though both are rich. How? It didn’t take Miley much to find success and fame because her dad was already a star. Trying to find auditions? Not a problem. Daddy could buy her a ticket to L.A. so that she could audition to be on Disney Channel. Become a singer? Daddy has connections. Whatever Miley wanted to do with her life would’ve been much easier for her than for Britney Spears. She is “privileged” because she came from a family that already had power and money. It gave her a distinct advantage over Britney in comparison to when Britney was her age.

Britney didn’t grow up rich. She did many talent shows and auditions. No connections got her in the Mickey Mouse Club. She had to audition. She had to show what she had to judging eyes. She had to work harder.

If Miley screws up financially, guess what? She has daddy to help her out. If Britney screws up, who can clean up her messes but herself? Though both girls are successful, despite their backgrounds, their backgrounds and experiences still influence their futures. Miley’s privileged lifestyle gives her more advantages than Britney.

Privilege can be put out in many different contexts. But just like the analogy of Britney and Miley, white and black people exist on opposite sides of that spectrum. To a certain degree, there is always the privileged over the have-nots. But in the case between white people and black people, white people have had more opportunities to be successful than black people have. That’s white privilege.

Of course, white privilege varies as well. White women clearly didn’t have the same privileges as white men. They couldn’t own business and had no political rights in 1799, when Chase bank was founded. In 1962, when Walmart was designed, very few women worked!

Still, magazines, television shows, and other media outlets honored the “beauty” of white women and they still do. White women have always gotten more attention when speaking out about gender inequality than the black women who have been speaking out against the patriarchal society since the 1700s. Black women were never considered “real women”. But you can say this benefited black women in some ways. Black women have always held jobs and owned businesses, which is why the first female millionaire was black. This was why the first female astronaut to travel in space, Mae Jemison, was black. The first woman to run for president was black. Where white women were mostly objectified by men, black women were always working to help their families survive and were seen “beyond their looks”. They had no choice. There were not stay-at-home moms. So, I should say in some ways, white privilege has acted against white women when it came to their goals…

Those of the Catholic faith, like the Irish and Italians, and Jewish faith were also barred from progressing in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Immigrants were treated harshly by natural-born Americans.

Still, white immigrants could prosper as long as they gave up their customs and faith. They could easily build up businesses if they assimilated.

No matter how hard Black people, Asians, Hispanics, and First Nations tried to assimilate, they were still not accepted.

This is what “white privilege” means. So whenever someone uses this term, this is what they are referring to, even if they can’t explain it well.

And this is why I disagree with Peggy. “White Privilege” does exist. I believe her response is because she’s ignorant on the subject. She doesn’t realize the context to which it exists and this is mostly due to her living in an all-black community (though some say she lives in a white suburb, too…) with a white man who loves her. I’ll explain this later…

Me believing that white privilege exists doesn’t mean I’ve filled my heart with hatred. I haven’t become racist myself. I still wouldn’t mind getting to know people of various backgrounds and learning their histories and their stories. I have friends that are white. Still, I know “white privilege” exists out there and if it is going to be overcome, I believe there are a few things black people have to do to overcome it. We can’t change the past, but we can change the future.

White privilege exists, but it doesn’t make a black person’s choices for them. It shouldn’t stop them from achieving in this white-influenced world. However, because of white privilege, black people’s “ideas” of success are influenced by “white” thinking. Money, cars, clothes, homes and many other things have seeped into black culture and is now the definition of success.

Black Lives Matter

Clearly, Peggy is against the Black Lives Matter movement. She feels it is a sham, designed to support thugs in the black community.

Before I get into my stand on this, I just want to say one thing. Whatever side you stand on in this matter depends on the community you grew up in and how you’ve experienced black culture. Your stand on the issue depends on WHERE YOU LIVE or LIVED.

Yes, black people come from all sorts of backgrounds with varying experiences.

From my experience, many of the people who support #Black Lives matter don’t live in all-black communities, weren’t raised in black communities, and in fact, live among mostly white people or mixed races. That’s the first thing I noticed. The other black people that support #Black Lives Matter are people who have had run-ins with the law. The rest are young black men and ALL men have more of a desire to break the law than women do, based on statistics.

Men and Violence

Alicia Garza, one of the women who first coined the term #BlackLivesMatter, lives in Oakland, California. She has white cops because white people LIVE nearby. She lives in a mixed community.

Where do YOU live?

Most of the people against #BlackLivesMatter LIVE in all-black communities or HAVE LIVED in all-black communities.

This is the irony.

This is not to say that ALL people living in all-black communities stand against the movement. This is to say that if there are ANY people against the movement, it’s the ones LIVING in all-black communities.

Black people who live in mostly white communities experience white privilege and racism A LOT more, up close and personal, than the black people who live in all-black communities. Though the black communities experience it, white people don’t even exist in the universe of black people living in all-black communities. This is because they don’t often see white people for miles. I’ve worked with teenagers in all-black communities and many of them don’t even realize they are the minority in this country! This is because all they see around them are black people.

Black people in mixed or white communities more than likely have white cops, a white mayor, white business-owners, white teachers, white administrators, white post office managers, etc. Most of the people in power in mixed communities are WHITE.

So when black people say, “We have to stop these racist cops from killing our people”, they are admitting to the fact that WHITE people actually live in their community. These black individuals have actually been exposed to white privilege, but also have lived among it. They more than likely live in nice homes and their children go to prosperous schools. These are the black people that will say, “Peggy is racist for saying all black people are violent. Peggy is racist for acting like all black people want to do is kill.” In mixed communities, less black people COMMIT CRIMES. I don’t know why this is so. Black people who live among white people experience more racism than black-on-black crime. SO, these individuals probably wouldn’t understand what Peggy is saying. These people don’t live in the “hood”. They don’t understand “struggle”. They couldn’t possibly understand what Peggy is talking about. It’s nonsense to them.

The biggest criminals in their neighborhoods ARE probably the cops. And racists obviously tend to gravitate to neighborhoods where their race dominates.

Treyvon Martin lived in a white community, clearly. He was the victim of racial profiling. This happens in “mixed communities”.

There are a few black people who live in the white communities that are against Black Lives Matter. It could be because they moved out of an all-black city to escape violence or it could be the white people in their neighborhood have been nice to them. But majority of people who are fighting on the side of this movement haven’t lived a truly all-black experience. Peggy is rumored to have lived in both a white and black neighborhood…Hard to say which, but she’s still got a few points regarding all-black neighborhoods and how these communities influence black culture overall (especially through music).

If you live in an all-black community, such as myself, in the city of Chicago, Detroit, Harlem, you see racism to a looser extent. In fact, most black people in all-black communities HARDLY experience PERSONAL racism because there are no white people living in their communities!

In my community, there are no white people for miles. My neighborhood is greatly segregated, if you want to know the truth. All the cops, school teachers, administrators, even the MAYOR is black. So we can’t cry racism when a cop shoots down an unarmed black man, like some of these other neighborhoods do. Yet, black people are not any more respectful of black leaders in this community.

Is it that racist cops are the problem? Or is it that there are black people who just don’t want to follow any laws? Is it a bit of both?

Black people in black communities experience black-on-black crime more than they do racism. Racism hasn’t been as traumatic for them as black-on-black crime. In fact, racism often doesn’t seem real to people who only live among their own kind. They only know racism by what they hear, not from personal experience.

The black people who live in black communities and support Black Lives Matter are more than likely criminals, family members of criminals, or have been surrounded by black people all their lives and have never gotten to know other people, allowing them to be swept up in any cause that seems to support black people.

I agree with Peggy. As someone who lived deeply among black people, Black Lives Matter is a sham to me.

Here are the reasons why:

1)I live in an all-black community. I’ve been a victim of black-on-black crime. I’ve seen neighbors lose their lives. I’ve seen classmates shot down. I used to be afraid to walk home from school. Afraid to go to school. Afraid while in school. I’m scared of going to work even. I help educate mostly black students. I live that life, that life where young men think being shot IS NORMAL. I work among children who don’t care a lick about black history, children who just want to “twerk” their way through life, children who think stealing and killing and getting locked up is COOL. My story is the stereotype. But you know what? I can’t ignore that. I can sit here and say, “Oh, I can’t make the black race look bad. Every community has their problems”. But when are we all going to fix the problems in each of our communities instead of brushing off the issues? Do I have to lie to myself in order to “fit in” with black people? I have to ignore the crimes that have been committed against me?

And okay, I can’t rely on white cops to support me 100%, but if I can’t trust black people, then who should I stand for and who should I stand against? All I have are black people, and I can’t even trust them. A white cop may be racist, but when a crime was committed against me, a white cop drove out of his jurisdiction to help me. Where was my fellow black man? Committing a CRIME against me.

Many of the people in my neighborhood tried to move into “better neighborhoods”, including me. Why would we try to move if living in a black community was such a paradise? Clearly, it’s difficult to live in all-black communities. Why do you think some black people even live in white communities?

I hear some black people saying that they wish the whole nation didn’t have any white people. These are people who have only lived among white people. They think living with only black people will somehow make this nation one big black paradise. No. It’s not that simple. There are neighborhoods with mostly black people. And they are anything but paradises. Even if we do get rid of white people and take their jobs, we’ll still have to struggle to maintain it all. The struggle won’t end.

Many black people in white communities don’t see the reality of how many black people live in these all-black communities. For once, I challenge those individuals to live in an all-black community. Give it a try and see if you disagree with Ms. Hubbard. See for yourself if she’s lying.

You all may tell me that I still shouldn’t be against Black Lives Matter.

There are some people saying instead of acting against the movement, Peggy, and others who support her, could’ve used the movement to support black-on-black crime.

But could she? The movement has been so associated with black thugs in the community, or any black men dying by the hands of cops, the violence against innocent blacks in their own communities have been ignored, like usual.

I, myself, have tried to use the hashtag to stand against black-on-black crime. For some reason, on Twitter, no one wants to favorite that or re-tweet that. No one has paid attention.

Clearly, the only way to bring attention to black on black crime is to stand against the movement that has come to glorify thugs and criminals. They were without arms, and maybe didn’t deserve to die, but they clearly deserved to go to jail or receive some sort of punishment. Michael Brown, the first young man to spark the riots, was tracked down by police. WHY? Because someone, a black man, CALLED the police on him. Why? Because Michael had just robbed the store that another black man was working at! Clearly, he deserved a punishment. Most people don’t know why the police were tracking him. People only know what went down between the rookie cop and the young black man. But if you understand the whole story, it becomes clear that Mr. Brown was a delinquent.

Still, even if Michael wasn’t dead, what would he be doing right now? Going after that black man in the store he’d robbed!

Those who don’t live in the black community have a hard time understanding this.

2)Black lives matter only seems to apply to a threatening situations dealing with WHITE COPS. Police Brutality exists even beyond just WHITE people. There are plenty of crooked cops and government officials that ARE BLACK. In my community, my mayor did drugs! And yet, he ordered many drug dealers to be arrested. None of these cases made the news. But the minute a white cop does something, it’s all over television. It’s hard to focus on black cops killing unarmed criminals using this hashtag. I’ve tried it. The movement clearly doesn’t apply to black authority figures. It doesn’t relate to my community, a community with all-black authority.

People tell me that it’s important to focus on white cops because we look to these cops to uphold the law, not be the criminals. These people act like only white cops commit hidden crimes. They clearly don’t live in black communities. There are cops in the black community committing more crimes than just shooting down unarmed criminals. Many of these cops are doing drugs and HELPING drug dealers! Racism among cops is not the only concern, especially if none of your cops ARE WHITE…

3)When black people kill each other, we divide each other. I feel that if we tackle black-on-black crime FIRST, we can BETTER unite to combat racism. If staying against Black Lives Matter is going to help fight for black-on-black crime, I’m all for it. By encouraging rioting and celebrating thugs, we are doing the opposite of making a difference.

I also don’t like that Black Lives Matter is associated with Fuk Yo Flag. Both encourage murder. They are just as bad as racist white cops. They believe in taking the lives of people, even if those people weren’t the ones who did anything to them. SOME cops are racist, not all. But these activists are willing to take the lives of cops who haven’t even had a HISTORY of racism.

That’s just as bad as racist cops taking the lives of all black men just because one black male was a crook. Still, some of these men that the police shot down, the men people are rioting for, WERE hostile AND crooked. Who do you think called the police on these men? OTHER BLACK PEOPLE. The only affair that was clearly WRONG was Trayvon Martin. And he wasn’t shot by a policeman. He was shot by a neighbor trying to act like a cop. The government acted in Zimmerman’s favor and it was WRONG. The case was clearly an act of racial profiling and that was ignored.

These other cases dealt with real thugs, and I don’t support rioting for thugs OR murderers or any criminals.

I’m especially offended that this group has been planning on committing crimes during 9/11. Do you know how many black people died during 9/11? That’s disheartening and disrespectful to those victims. And Black Lives are supposed to matter to these people?

But Fuk Yo Flag and Black Lives Matter feel they are some sort of revolutionaries, so they have become ruthless. They no longer care who they harm anymore, even if it’s OTHER BLACK PEOPLE.

Fuk Yo Flag hates the American flag and America’s policies….And yet, these people are still living in the USA…Taking advantage of the freedom of speech amendment UNDER the flag…

What is their purpose? Is it to reform the USA? Or is it to destroy the USA? And if it’s to destroy the USA, what would they do after that? What are these people’s goals? To tell white people they can’t mess with us? Would it really get them to stop messing with us?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/09/fukyoflag-movement-calls-for-black-lives-matter-violence-on-911/

I think the above website may have been made by white people who are against the movement, but the videos are very real and made by black people.

Don’t do this. This is killing the movement for me and many others.

I hear black people telling me that “Bashing black people and saying their communities are crime-filled is feeding into white-man propaganda and is brainwash.” “Brainwashing” can’t happen when you PERSONALLY experience the crime. Or when the crime is done to you! I’ll bet the people saying this, again, don’t live in black communities!

I’ll tell you what better feeds white men: Black genocide. Black-on-black crime FEEDS racism. The more we kill each other, steal from each other, especially our men, the longer black people STAY the minority. When we loot our communities and then beg the white man to fix it, we’re doing white people a favor. They would rather us tear up our own communities. That’s less for the taxpayers to pay for. And that’s just one more way to make white people feel superior.

People say by not rioting we are “kissing the white man’s butt”. We kiss more butt when we tear up our neighborhoods and then beg the government to send money to fix our property.

Which do you think works more in the white man’s favor?

When the riots happened, it hit the news. But black-on-black crime is so common in black communities, it doesn’t hit national news AT ALL. It has been ignored for years. That’s why black-on-black crime continues to exist.

I don’t want to believe that my community is this way. But when a crime was committed against me, I just couldn’t ignore it. It’s time to stand up against senseless violence.

Peggy may be shady in some areas, but the context of what she’s saying is true. Black Lives don’t seem to Matter to black people in black communities, so why should we expect our lives to matter to white cops? Why should I stand with people who have committed a crime against me from EITHER side, black or white?

And I’m sorry, I’d rather fight for the life of the innocent than fight for the life of an unarmed CROOK who may have gotten the death penalty anyway. It’s wrong to shoot an unarmed person, but there are young children who are unarmed and more defenseless in these communities than any of the men that went down by the hands of policemen. The policemen weren’t right. But you know what wasn’t right about police? The fact that the POLICE ignored this CASE about the little black girl mentioned by Peggy and NEVER brought her killer to justice. The police didn’t even see that the life of this young girl was even important enough. That’s what’s more sad. Those other thugs probably did something to OTHER black people, which is why the police caught up to them in the first place. This young 9 year old girl was just doing her homework! So I guess this isn’t important enough for police; not as important as the lives of criminals…Where is the justice?

4) The coolest part about Black Lives Matter is that some of its leaders are gay women. Even though I don’t agree with everything they stand for, I respect them as black women.

But how do people feel and treat women and gay people in the black community? I’ll bet that if anyone knew that the original leaders of this movement were gay, they wouldn’t support them. I hear and see many black people shaming gay people online over and over, and then turning around and HASH-TAGGING #blacklivesmatter! And they don’t even realize that this movement was started by GAY people.

I’m sure the women had good intentions. But individuals are taking the movement and making it suit their own agendas. It no longer even seems to be about equality. Some of these people seem to hope to get some resources out of this, especially the rioters.

Pro-Police

Peggy is clearly pro-police. She mentions she calls the police and that she put her step-son in jail. She also believes he deserves to be there.

There are many people in the black community that are AGAINST the police and feel that Peggy is wrong to put her son in jail and wrong to trust the police, including her own husband.

Because I know there are crooked people in every profession, I am honestly not going to go against every police officer in the world, just like I’m not going to go after every profession just because there are lousy workers working there. But I believe there NEEDS to be reform in the police force and in their policies.

In white communities, RACISM among white officers on the police force exists. In all-black communities, LAZINESS among black police officers exists.

I agree with Peggy in some ways and I don’t agree with Peggy in other ways. Let me explain.

In serious situations, the cops have always been there for me when I’ve called. When crime happens to me, who can I call? The only people that will come if someone is murdered in my house are the COPS. You really think my fellow black man, my neighbor, will run to my rescue to capture the bad guys that beat me up, robbed me, tried to shoot me? No average person has the forensics technology to catch a clever crook BUT the police. No average person has the training to deal with criminals BUT the police.

Still, there have been situations where my case wasn’t taken seriously by the cops. There have been times where the cops would do nothing for days. I literally had to stay on them. Peggy’s case with her son was probably taken seriously because she’s MARRIED to a cop. But if you have no cop in your family, the police don’t care what happens to you, not white cops or black cops, unless YOU care.

Peggy is right to try to make her son pay for the harm he’s done to people. Jail at this point is what’s best for him, for now, because it’s the only justice system we have. Some people feel she’s a bad parent for turning in her son. I’ll bet the people who think that are:

a) Thugs and criminals who don’t want to be caught

b) Parents of thugs and criminals who are benefiting from their child’s thuggish life.

c) Wouldn’t turn in their criminal son into “racist cops”, I suppose if you’re living in a white community—I say why not? That’s the best punishment if he committed a crime…

d) Black people who don’t live in black communities and never raised black children in black communities

e) Kids, because kids always feel discipline is wrong

f) Parents with young children who haven’t experienced the “teenage” years yet. Not their baby!

I understand why some people wouldn’t want to call the cops if their child is committing a crime. 1) It’s their child. Parents are protective and don’t want to feel the shame internally. 2) People have been persuaded by black power movements to act against police and not trust them.

And they are right not to trust all police officers. Again, some cops are racist and some don’t care about you.

But say, okay, let’s not use the police at all. What are we going to do about justice?

It is hard to know what Black Lives Matter and Fuk Yo Flag, the two movements against the police, REALLY want. These two movements are great at being anti-police and spreading the fact the policemen can’t be trusted, which is true in many cases. But they DON’T offer ANY solutions or ALTERNATIVES to this problem. What are we going to do when we can’t trust the police?

What do I mean?

Well, if cops are the bad guys and we can’t trust them now, there are only two different options:

  1. Reform police, right? Force government to change all policies on the police force, right? But is that really what Black Lives Matter and Fuk Yo Flag WANT? I’ll bet that even if the government DOES change the policies, these people still won’t trust police. They barely trust government! It’s not like the policemen will lose their jobs. And okay, let’s not just reform the policies, let’s fire the racist police officers, indict them, and/or kill off all of them until they all stop being racist and targeting black people. Okay…What are black people’s idea of being “targeted”? Is it that they shouldn’t be pulled over AT ALL if they’re speeding? Is it that they shouldn’t be handled at all if they are hostile? Is it that they shouldn’t be arrested if they commit a crime? Or is there some particular way a hostile person is handled? What do we propose we teach cops so that they can “handle” hostile black criminals? Do you think that no cops should arrest black people AT ALL and should leave black people alone? If so, are we saying that NO COPS should arrest ANY black people? Ever again? Doesn’t this conveniently seem to benefit criminals?…
  2. Okay, the other option. Let’s get rid of police altogether. GREEAAATTT. What then? What is Black Lives Matter and Fuk Yo Flag’s ALTERNATIVE to the police? Just let murderers and thieves run free? Because it’s unrealistic to assume black people WON’T commit crimes. Am I anti-black for assuming that? Okay, if you think I’m just throwing shade on the black race, tell you what. I have an idea. I propose, since black people don’t like cops and since black people really don’t trust reform of the police force, that all cops take a “Cop Holiday” (Just as FDR created a Bank holiday). For a whole WEEK, I propose that cops not ARREST one black person. Don’t answer one call from a black person. In fact, don’t even protect schools and businesses. Don’t circle the neighborhood, none of that, even if someone is suspicious. If a black person does something, act like it didn’t happen. Let’s test this out. All Cops: Don’t ARREST or HELP any black people. Wait, what? That’s racist? To allow cops to help white people but have cops IGNORE black people?

So let me get this straight…

Black people don’t trust cops and don’t want cops arresting black men. Okay. Black people won’t allow racist cops to kill them. Okay. If the government doesn’t reform police, we won’t…call police when a crime is committed against us or someone else? Okay. I guess that means when someone commits a crime against us, we’ll let them because the person is black…

Still, even if government does reform it, who’s to say we can trust government or the police force ever again? Okay.

Down with police! Kill them all! Okay. All killed. Now what? Oh, black people will be happy and people will learn that there is NO crime in the black community. Black-on-black is just an illusion anyway. So without cops, all problems are solved…Is that the position that Black Lives Matter and Fuk yo Flag stand on?

My question to the Black Lives Matter and Fuk Yo Flag movement is, have you people thought about ANY alternatives to these issues and holes? What do their supporters TRULY stand for? Only after the gaps are filled will I be able to fully support the movement. But if NO justice is going to be brought to the crimes that are committed against me, then my best bet is the police.

The only way the Black Lives Matter campaign can work efficiently is if there is an alternative to the justice system. Killing off police officers just means less police officers…less policemen to trust. But how do we stop crime when it really DOES exist? I don’t think those movements thought this far in advance…

People may say it’s up to the parents to take care of their criminal children and make sure their children don’t grow into crooks. I just wonder if these people understand something called “peer pressure” and “struggle” that makes people commit crimes. My readers know that I work at a school. Even teenagers with the best parents in the world, even teens who have never been through anything, commit crimes, especially young men.

All of the students that have tried to do things to ME, a black educator, have been young, privileged black men. They were persuaded by the struggling black children to jump along the bandwagon. A parent can’t stop their child from committing a crime when that child has made up in their mind that they want to do it. And if a parent tries to handle a murderer in their own home, what would that do? That’s not going to stop the murderer….

What do these parents with children propose is done when their child commits a crime that harms someone, possibly someone like the life of the child Peggy mentions?

You may say, “Oh, Peggy doesn’t care about her. She’s just trying to get attention.” Maybe she is. But what about the parent of that nine year old girl? How do you think they are feeling right now? If Peggy hadn’t spoken up, regardless of her reasons why, where would the justice be for that child? What is Black Lives Matter doing for her? Or Demario and Demacio, the twin boys who were victims of robbery and gun violence in Chicago? What are they doing FOR THEM?

I’ve heard people say black-on-black isn’t nearly as bad as the racist acts done against black people. In history, I agree. The history of racism is horrifying. But in modern days, in all-black communities, where white people are the minority, black-on-black crime is just as bad. It is OUTRIGHT crime.

Don’t get me wrong. I have experienced racism. When I was in high school back in the 2000s, I lived in a mixed community for one year, trying to escape black-on-black crime and violence in my all-black high school. I had a teacher who was racist. She made all the Hispanics/Latinos, East Asians, Middle Easterners, and African Americans sit at the front of the class to “watch them”. Though she claimed she gave everyone seating charts, she would let the white people sit wherever they wanted to. When teens of other ethnic groups tried to say good morning to her and make conversation, just to be polite, she would act like they didn’t say anything and wouldn’t respond. But she always made conversation with white kids.

She wrote up a bad report on one of the top ten students in the school, who was black, just because she “thought” she was talking. When the girl tried to tell her she wasn’t, she wrote her up for insubordination!

On the first day of school, the kids sat wherever they wanted to. But she would make the kids of other ethnic groups sitting in the back move to the front, even before she made a seating chart.

If any of the white kids forgot an assignment or couldn’t finish it, she would give them an extension or allow them to finish it during the class period. But if ONE student from a different ethnic group even forgot their assignment in their locker, she would give them an F.

It was so hard to prove she was racist, too. She knew how to cover her tracks well. And I’m not usually the first person to say someone is racist, but she was. Whenever the teens spoke out, she would just say we don’t like her because we’re “insubordinate” and don’t want to follow rules. The principals and administration were all white, so they couldn’t possibly see it.

The main case that exposed her was the half Mexican, half white student. For most of the school year, she thought he was white. She used to talk to him and allow him to finish his homework in class. She found out he was Mexican when he was a part of the Mexican Independence program we had at our school. From there, she began to treat him differently. That’s when he realized she was racist. Because he clearly had no bad record prior to the teacher finding out his ethnic background, he was able to expose her.

That experience made me furious at racists.

This is an example of how racism can hold African Americans, and other ethnic groups, back.

But when I went BACK to my school in the black community, I experienced bullying for being “different”. The students loved to fight. Guns were common. The black teachers were fed up. We didn’t have many white and Mexican students. Only one or two, and one Asian girl. They were all bullied. I was always afraid to walk home from school because gun violence was common.

Racism held me back, sure, but black-on-black crime physically harmed me. I could fight racism. But what could I do against my own people? The people who should’ve seen me as their “sister”? With racism, I had a problem with authority. With black-on-black, it was the common student that was out of control ALONG with the authority!

Likewise, in white communities, authority is more of the problem. But in black communities, it’s every other neighbor, including authority figures! Depending on the neighborhood you live depends on what you feel is “worse”.

Black People Are Violent

Many people say this remark is racist or “anti-black”. It’s the words of a coon, right? Anyone bringing down the black community, even if what they say is true, is cooning, right?

Let’s review this question truthfully. Are black people violent?

Certainly, we can’t use the examples of those who’ve hash-tagged “Fuk yo flag” because clearly that’s hostile wording. These people in this movement have threatened to kill police officers. Are they violent?

Maybe they have a good reason. But it’s not about the reason. Are they violent about it?

Certainly when observing rioting in Ferguson and other places, people would think black people are violent.

But you can just say that’s white media only FOCUSING on the negative. It’s true that the news media conveniently missed over the peaceful protesters. And which is more newsworthy? Which is more dangerous? A peaceful protest or a violent riot? Still, this could be the workings of “white media”.

So are black people really violent?

Well, my fellow black people, the answer lies within yourself.

I know I’m not a violent person. And not every black person is violent. But I don’t think Peggy was referring to the context of “all”.

Let’s look at modern African American CULTURE. Many African Americans aren’t violent, but do we glorify violent culture? Really, most Americans do.

African Americans may not be violent themselves, but let me ask you, my fellow black people, do you gloat about being from the streets? Do you gloat about the kind of weapons you own? Do you threaten to beat up people? Do you enjoy watching a good fight? When you disagree with someone, are you first to threaten them or the first to try to jump this person?

How many of you people, reading this article, are thinking, “I just want to beat this writer up because she’s such a coon, I don’t care what happens to them”?

Is “thug” culture glorified? From among the kids I teach, the teenagers often boast about running from cops, being chased by cops, being in jail, and beating somebody up over the weekends. Many of these teens are lying clearly, but still, they glorify it and boast about it. These “teens” are as young as 11 years old. WHY? Because having “street cred” is glorified in black communities. Being from a bad neighborhood, a neighborhood full of crime, and being among the black men “that won’t submit to any authority but their own father’s” is glorified. Breaking a law is considered a “good thing” in the minds of many black youths, even when that authority is black. Showing respect for anyone is called “kissing someone’s butt”.

Movies like Boys in the Hood, Friday, and even Straight Outta Compton show how black people live in the ‘hood. Do any of these movies show black people as violent? What do these movies show? You can say that they don’t reflect how ALL black people live, and you’re right because many live in mixed communities. But the movies reflect how SOME black people live. Where do you think the source material came from?

Many black youths, especially youths who live in mixed communities, glorify these movies. They see these movies and funny and entertaining and often hope to live this kind of life. A life that will give them “street cred”.

If there were no mayors, no teachers, no black authority AT ALL, would there be anything to glorify? Again, I propose a “holiday” where those in authority do nothing to help stop crime in black communities. THEN we’ll see whether black-on-black crime is an ILLUSION or a FACT.

Do people just like to commit crimes just because it’s wrong? Doing the “wrong” thing can be fun to some people. This is why young people get swept up in rioting and huge fights. So if we don’t have cops, would it indeed make those who get a rush from doing the “wrong” thing stop violent acts?

I feel that many people make black people out to be more aggressive and violent than all really are. But also some black people have taken on the stereotype as a compliment, admitting that “black people aren’t anything to mess with”. When you ask black people how they would solve many hostile problems or issues even within their homes, the answer is usually violent.

And based on stats, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf , more black MEN commit crimes than any men in the nation. This could be a skewed survey, designed by white people, and collected by government so they can make black men out to be criminals. But who is doing the reporting to these policemen? In all-black communities, it’s BLACK people. That’s how these stats are recorded. Maybe some policemen are just going into the database and adding in a black man for crimes they didn’t personally commit, or adding in crimes that are really minor. But homicide is a strong crime, and more black men have been reported than BLACK WOMEN. Is it that black cops AREN’T putting in black women in the stats? Why aren’t they doing this racial profiling towards black women?

And what about in communities like mine, where all the cops are black? Did they just insert homicides in their stats, too?

If we, as black people, want to prove that these stats are designed by white cops to demean and undermine black people, we have to tackle the ACTUAL crime in our communities. Once we do that, there won’t be anything to report, not even from within the all-black communities. We can truly see if these stats are legit or over-exaggerated reports. As long as there are black people who feel like victims of crime, such as myself, there will be reports. But if Black Lives Matter can convince black people who are victims of crime why racism is more important, then they would truly be able to make the difference they want when combating racism and white supremacy in the USA.

A bit of of the armed robberies and drug issues in black communities do have something to do with poverty levels and the black struggle, which is the result of “white privilege”. Still, if we combat black-on-black crime, perhaps we can better tackle poverty and ultimately racism.

You know what I find really funny? I’ve noticed that when black people get some money, they move into majority-white-mixed neighborhoods. This is a common thing. Do you see Nicki Minaj living in her neighborhood in New York? What about Beyonce? I’ve heard some black people tell me “#BlackLivesMatter and we have to stop racists”. But then when I point out that some of these people are living in white communities, they start showing off how many degrees they have, and where they live, and how they deserve the finest. Well, why does living in a white neighborhood constitute as living the “finest” lifestyle? Why do black people move into mixed communities the moment they get a little money? If white people are capable of stealing just as much as black people, WHY MOVE?

These are questions to think about.

Instead of answering that question, I just want you readers to meditate on it.

White-Washed, Anti-Black, and Coon

I hear many black people calling Peggy white-washed, anti-black, and a coon.

I won’t disagree with her being anti-black. She seems to be fed up with her black community, especially because of the senseless violence.

White-washed means a person of a minority group has assimilated with westernized culture. It’s to make something whiter by PAINTING it over to seem more white. When using it on black people, it means that they have become more like “white people” in their thinking.

I disagree that she’s anymore white-washed than any other black people in America. The ironic part about everyone calling her “white-washed” is that they were talking to her in English, on a white-man’s invented iphone, on a white man’s invented internet, on white man’s social media, with white-man’s invented hashtags….We, as black people, have all assimilated into western culture, whether they want to admit it or not. We have all adopted white people’s ways of thinking one way or another. That gun many young black men glorify on facebook and twitter? Invented by a white man. The white man’s inventions have HELPED black people assimilate into western culture.

Black people have adopted Christianity into their culture from slavery. Black people have adopted trousers and dresses and blouses from WHITE culture. We have already assimilated.

We can’t do anything about that because we were born in the USA. Still, it’s important not to get ahead of ourselves and enlighten ourselves. It’s important to know just how deeply African Americans have been assimilated into USA culture.

Further, “white-washing” happens when you have been TAUGHT something about something else, though it may not be true. It is not personally experiencing something and speaking out about it. Being white-washed is being taught white ideologies and BELIEVING them and living by them.

She may be like that in her personal life.

But in this case, she was expressing what is REALLY going on in her community or communities she’s lived in. She was expressing the REAL violence she experiences or has been experienced, day after day! That’s not white-washed. People are using the term out of context.

Say, for instance, the mother of the young 9 year old victim decides to speak out against black-on-black crime. Is she being white-washed? Is it white-washing to stand against something that isn’t right, especially when her child was the victim? Is it white-washed to try to prevent her community from being destroyed by outlaws? Is it white-washed for her to care about the safety of other young children in the community at the hands of senseless violence?

If white-washing helps you SAVE black people’s lives, rather than kill them, would that really help spread white racist messages?

What do RACIST people really want for blacks? They want us to stay thugs and criminals. They think that we deserve police brutality because we destroy our communities. They don’t WANT us to fix our communities. They don’t want us to be the majority. More black people? No, that’s not what a racist wants. They want a genocide to happen. They want us to hash-tag sayings on white-made social media so they can say, “See, we’ve even invented things that black activists try to use”. They want to gloat their superiority over black people. That’s what racism means.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS543US543&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=racism

And racists don’t just use police to do it. They use OTHER black people. They provoke them. Racists create addictive drugs and sell it to black communities. Black people take the “product” and sell it for them, letting those white drug creators make BILLIONS. White people invented guns. Black people use them.

In more ways than one, black people have fallen into the traps.

I’ve heard people tell me that they’d rather riot and fall into the stereotypes than try to get the respect of white people by admitting there is black-on-black crime in black communities.

But you see, by rioting, you’re still kissing the butts of white people, only this time, you’re taking from black people, too. You’re doing exactly what white people expect of you. And not only that. But whose attention are you trying to get by rioting? Who do you want to pay attention to you? WHITE PEOPLE. The Government. The government that is run by mostly WHITE people, the same people you claim you can’t trust. Why would these people be trying to get the attention of white people, people who won’t care any more than they did before, and will in fact think less of black people?

Whose attention is #BlacklivesMatter and #FukYoFlag supposed to get? Clearly, not other black people because black people aren’t the supremacists here. They clearly want WHITE people to look at them. The ones rioting and hash-tagging clearly want to gain the RESPECT and NOTICE of white people much more than those who want to clean up their own communities.

People who want to clean up their own communities don’t care what white people think about them. They’re not even concerned with white people. They’re not begging for the white man to respect them. They are independently trying to fix their OWN issues without the white man’s government and the white man’s help.

The “rioters” are clearly trying to gain the attention of white people and white media. They want to stop white police from killing black people. But at the same time, don’t want anymore policemen, either…But they are trying to get white attention to do it. They aren’t focusing on building black strengths in the community so that WE can RISE to power and change the legal system. So that WE can become the majority in this nation and take back power from European influence. No, they are destroying and rioting and killing off their own neighborhoods, and then asking for the white man to clean it up for them.

They want white racists to change their minds? Racists NEVER will change their minds if you keep rioting in your communities and threatening them. It’s just going to make them target you more.  Can you see feminists and the LGBT community changing the minds of people with a hostile attitude? No. You can do all the killing and rioting and all it will do is take away from YOUR black people, but it won’t phase racists.

We need to build who we are, mark our identity, and destroy the system in a deeper, more subtle, and most efficient way. Rioting solves and does nothing for black people. Killing cops won’t do anything but start a race war, where lives from both blacks and whites will be taken. Do we want another Civil War? Both sides lost people they could never get back during that war. It’s not worth it. Let’s not repeat history like idiots. That war helped free the slaves, but left a bitter South.

We should do things differently. We should unite to clean up our own communities’ problems first. THEN we should unite to fight RACISM. Once all black people get on the same page, we WILL have a large army. But as long as there are ANY black people killing, there will be black people calling the police. Somehow, we need to find a way to better trust some policemen or we need to find a better alternative. We need to support non-violence. We need to build our communities and our schools. We, as people, need to get more involved with our black authority figures so we can REALLY see what’s happening with our black leaders.

The last thing I want to talk about is that word ‘Coon’ some black people are using to describe her. To me, ‘Coon’ is like using the word ‘nigga’, if not worse.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=coon

It just goes to show you how badly black people have assimilated into a white-washed society. They are now freely using “slave” terms, without any remorse, to a black person who wants to speak out and make a difference. A RACIST person doesn’t want to see ANY black people speak out. They feel black people are too inferior to have opinions. And yet, black people are going to use this RACIST SLUR to try to repress a BLACK woman from speaking out? I don’t care if she IS married to a white man. That term is a WHITE MAN’s WORD. A word they designed to describe dark-skinned individuals. I feel that ANY black person that has the courage to speak out about something THEY feel is important is ANYONE but a coon. To me, anyone USING this racial slur should never even CONSIDER themselves pro-black. They are doing NOTHING but spreading a term designed by a WHITE RACIST man. If you are guilty of USING this word, just stop thinking you are ever doing ANYTHING for black people.

These are just my opinions on the ‘Peggy Hubbard’ rant.

What are yours? Leave me a comment in the comments’ section and let me know!

Nick News with Linda Ellerbee: Different Approaches to Education Than The Traditional

17 Dec

nick news

Nick News on the Nickelodeon TV network aired a segment highlighting five different schools that decided to take less traditional approaches to schooling. It was quite an interesting segment because it highlighted how innovative and liberal people have become regarding education. In this Digital Revolution, education has become less important to children, as internet teaches people things on a daily basis, and it’s clear to see that modern-day children in the USA do not value a traditional education the way other nations do. In fact, most American children do not appreciate an education until they get to high school and realize they have to take care of themselves in a few years. Unfortunately, so many American children get dumped out in the world with limited job opportunities, yes, because of the economy, but also because they lack the basic skills to pass higher education courses or to get into trading courses that require particular technical knowledge. Not to mention, they lack the focus and discipline to deal with rigorous courses. I must admit, technology makes life fast, and it can stress children out. Everything is expected to be done in a timely manner. I can’t say it’s much different on a job, but you know, I suppose people are working to try to change that, too…

Well, the unfortunate part is that children who don’t appreciate school do not really learn. They also end up very disruptive and restless. They may also suffer from self-esteem because they just can’t seem to get into school. I was that kind of child.

I don’t want to go head-to-head with parents, but a lot of it has to do with parents. It’s not that most parents don’t care, (though some don’t, I’ve met many), but most parents just can’t seem to find the time to instill an appreciation for education in their kids. Then you have parents who really don’t appreciate education themselves or have felt inferior in an educated environment. They are more than likely to be negative about school. Especially if they were not the best behaved. And these same parents also do not instill a healthy dose of respect for authority. I understand some authority can be unjust, but some authority is there to keep things orderly and safe. Imagine schools without anyone keeping the behavior in check. Fights will break out and kids will be killed. End of discussion. Of course, we have parents who don’t see that far in advance or who can’t see their child as anything but precious “angels” or “babies”. But hey, kids have their home life, and they have a social school life that parents often don’t know about the way teachers and school staff does. In fact, from experience, most children live a double life, as early as 5 years old when they begin kindergarten.

Unfortunately, a parent who doesn’t instill a proper respect for authority in their child soon finds their child rebelling against the greatest authority figure in their own lives: Their parents. And physical discipline can straighten action, but not feelings and thoughts. Children can feel like they want to rebel even if they don’t actually do it. I was that kind of child myself.

My experience? Yes, I work in the education system. I was once a poor student in elementary school, and it greatly affected me in Middle School, High School, and even College! I was able to push through, but so many in my age group dropped out. We were the “test dummy” children put under the new system “No Child Left Behind”. So many programs focused on improving test scores, but little good did it do. We all just wanted to do what we wanted to do, and felt we shouldn’t be forced to do something we weren’t ready to do. Of course, we were children, so all we wanted to do was play. We had no work ethic. Might I add, many parents today also do not instill a work ethic in their children. I used to blame the school as a child, because well, I was a child. I used my mother as a scapegoat to get me out of situations in school that I felt were too challenging. Did it benefit me? At the time, but not in the long-run. This may not go for every child, but it’s just my experience…Which wasn’t too long ago, considering I’m still in my twenties…

The education system we know today is not without flaw, either. These declining test scores reveal serious problems in the established education system that aren’t all direct. There are teachers who seriously do not have the patience to truly deal with children. If you are a parent, imagine having thirty kids in your home for 6 to 8 hours a day…A whole work day…Some parents can barely deal with two to four children that long. That’s what teaching is like. Some teachers get so overwhelmed with their jobs, they want to give up and don’t give the students the proper attention they need. Some teachers get into the profession thinking it will be ideal and thinking it will be easy to deal with children. After all, they are just children, right? Right? Treat them with respect and they will love and respect you? Wrong. Children often don’t respect you just because they don’t want to. They sometimes think it’s funnier to tease the butt monkey, i.e. the teacher. Many times when you start off nice, it’s hard to be firm when you have to be, especially when they child is not used to being disciplined at home. And then there are teachers who let children provoke them, because they haven’t quite matured, and end up over-doing things…

In the high school, you have teachers who just don’t know their place…

With all of these issues, there could be several reasons why children are not performing in school, which are the basis for the founding of “new schools” mentioned in this news segment:

1) Children feel overloaded with work.

2) Schools have pushed on higher levels of stress upon modern children.

3) Some children are bullied, or fear being bullied, and can’t function in a hostile environment.

4) They are not challenged enough and are too advanced for the curriculum.

5) They can’t handle being told what to do.

6) The material is not presented to them in a way that is interesting and fun.

7) Parents have turned them off from liking school.

8) The teachers were too strict or impatient and not attentive to each child’s needs.

10) They may have a disability or another set-back and need extra help.

11) Parent did not instill discipline in a child so that they could endure long hour days and focus.

12) Children may not get any help for the problems they do not understand, not from teachers or parents.

13) No one at home or school cares about their successes or failures, and therefore, they have no real motivation for achieving aside from the fact it could give them a good job in the future…If they really care to think that far in advance. I think this is so sad, but is a true reality that I’ve seen. 😦

14) They live privileged lives and can’t see a future where they are not reliant on their parents. This can turn into a “Peter Pan” syndrome.

15) Awards are not earned. Children are either awarded during Christmas and birthdays, without having to behave, so they don’t see the importance of good behavior, or they are not particularly awarded when they do good in school, and are only awarded when they cry. Or not given any awards or attention at all. This often happens in families with many children.

16) Older children feel they already know what they want to do in the future and don’t see the need to learn various subjects they’re not interested in.

17)  Parents may not stick the children to a schedule in the home. Bedtimes are not enforced, so children are not getting enough sleep.

18) There are other severe issues with the home life, such as poverty or abuse.

These are several issues I’ve experienced, but this may not even reveal ALL of the issues!

Now, back to the topic. The schools mentioned in this segment all seek to improve the above issues. Many of the schools seek to place children in environments deemed more “comfortable” for children. Many of the ideas of these schools are truly innovative, and I think should be implemented in all schools. But many of the ideas…don’t strike me as practical for the real world. I don’t want to bash a school’s head in. I encourage all education. Perhaps I will seem a little bias, though it won’t be intended. Still, I am entitled to have certain questions and comments when I feel that something is not considered in the grand scheme of things. This may spark a debate, but I’m no stranger to controversial subjects. I welcome all comments, even if I don’t agree with them.

Quest to Learn

Quest to learn

This school uses games to teach children. They are constantly using cards, computers, and other game tools to learn subjects. Some of the kids commented that they often “move so fast, they don’t realize they have learned something, but then later, they recall it all”. This school believes that children learn best when they are active and involved. They seek to make school fun and action-packed. They mentally challenge students to think on their toes.

One student comments: “I was really zoned out. I was like reading comics in class,” he says. “But now I’m not even considering touching a comic book because I’m so scared that I’m going to miss a subject.”

It seems like the goal is to get children so busy and mobile, they don’t have time to be distracted.

I like the idea that this school uses games and other tools to motivate students, though most schools have this included in their teaching strategies, but just not so extreme. This school seems well-suited to children who catch on to things quickly. It’s also suited to children who thrive well in a competitive environment and enjoy movement.

As a child, I was not that kind of little person. I’m sure there are other children who would feel nervous in this kind of environment. It struck a nerve when the child commented that “He’s so scared he’s going to miss a subject”. I’m not a firm believer in scaring a child. I think fear intensifies stress.

As a child, I needed a versatile environment that considered my needs. Established public schools have all kinds of teaching strategies for every kind of child. This school only provides the strategies that could appeal to a child that doesn’t feel challenged enough.

But hey, there is every kind of school for every kind of child. The only down-side is when these children move on to higher education, they may be so used to a fast-paced environment, they may be frustrated with how slow-paced college courses are. In college, there are no games, there are no quick lessons. These children may ultimately end up impatient with college, and may end up dropping out for quick employment.

Children who learn to get things quick are quick about getting things done. Learning to move quickly may not be bad when it comes to meeting deadlines and challenges on a job, but sometimes these actions can lead to impulsive decisions when choosing careers.

Trek North

Trek North

This school takes it’s students on wilderness trips to teach outdoor skills. It’s a bit like Boys and Girls Scouts. They take service trips, and often they take these week-long trips to help the homeless.  A student can get a high school diploma from this school just from completing tasks. This school seems designed to give children a hands-on approach to learning, which teaches skills that are beyond the range of modern society. These children learn survival skills, which can be useful if the whole system crashes.

This school seems like a lot of fun. This is a school I would’ve loved attending as a child, as I always appreciated the wilderness and volunteer work.

The only issue is that it doesn’t teach children various skills that can assist them in a modern, progressive society. It doesn’t help them properly compete in a GLOBAL economy. Getting a piece of paper is not as important as what you learned to get it. I think this school would be great if implemented as a mandatory after school program. But the main education? I think this leaves a child handicapped in the job force. They also won’t have many options with the skills they learn. Their experience may bring them to jobs that deal with the wilderness or some volunteer work, but if they decide they change their minds, they may not have any OTHER basic skills that could transfer them into another career. We learn various subjects to give our children various options in the world. We don’t want our children limited to one career field when there is much to learn in this world!

Durango Big Picture High School

Durango

I absolutely love this school’s ideas. One student said:  “I wanted to come here because I didn’t like sitting in the classroom listening to a lecture all day,” she says. “(Here) you’re creating a future that you want.”

This school may be just the ticket to help children appreciate school. I believe that children learn better when they understand that their education will benefit them and help them get jobs. In fact, I wish there was an elementary school like this. I wish I had enrolled in a school like this. The reason many of these children don’t appreciate school is because they don’t realize or don’t feel an education will help them get jobs in the future. It’s sad, but I’ve run into children who don’t see the benefit in learning how to even spell their name. But if someone emphasized how important this was in the world, it would motivate the children to do it. An internship, where a child experiences the working world first-hand, is just the ticket.

My only qualm is that it doesn’t consider the indecision of teens. I wanted to be a journalist as a teenager, and even did a program to help assist me. Of course, I changed my mind. But I had strengths in other subjects besides English (History), so I was able to transition into another career. Again, when a student doesn’t learn various skills, they limit themselves. A child may get work that fits their skills, but technology is taking over at a rapid pace, the business they are working in may close, and they will be forced to return to basics to learn a whole new set of skills!

Children need variety. I think this school lets children make decisions they are not half way mature enough to make yet. Heck, I know more than 20 of my friends who went to college “Undecided”, and a dozen of them who have changed majors about three times…And they were all adults! But at least they had basic skills in other areas to make that transition. It’s especially important to have reading and math as mandatory subjects, even if a kid thinks only one of those subjects are important, even if she says she only wants to be a book author. I mean, how is she going to count her money without knowing the value of a dollar?

Aside from all of that, a student can come out of this school working. They can adjust to a work environment easier. They can use that money from their job to pay for a higher education. It’s really a well-developed school with minor kinks.

Connections Academy

????????????????????????????????????

A student said, “I learned that actually not having a lot of kids around me makes me thrive,” she says. “Now that all the distractions are removed, I’m a lot more focused.”

When I think of the future, I always think of online education. This is an online school. This is the modern home-schooling world. The goal of this school is to remove children out of distracting, and even hostile, environments.

My first taste of online classes was in college. In college, you had the option to work in a quiet environment and work at your own pace. It was a new thing for me and my family.

What I hated about it was the deadlines. You couldn’t get an extension or extra time unless you informed the teacher way ahead of time. Computers are impersonal, despite what anyone says. It’s often hard to get the help you need. In order to get help, you can chat with your teacher online, BUT it’s sometimes hard to tell them exactly what your issues are because they are not sitting next to you or watching to see if you’re doing everything correctly. When they correct your work, they correct it, and then forward it with instructions on how improve the assignment. But they never give that personal one-on-one attention. If you are a student that catches on to subjects quickly, online school is the school for you. But for me, it’s the reason I almost failed Chemistry.

You also need a lot of focus. Sometimes, computers can be distracting. Even when I was doing my Microsoft Word paper on the computer, I was distracted by Social networking, so it took longer to finish my assignments, and I was sloppy in my work in a rush to finish.

Home-schooling like this can help a child become a computer expert, as all of their work is done on the internet. The problem happens when a school is only online. Computers do break, and internet does go out. Some home-school programs offer books on the side and allow you to send the work by mail to a school. This home-school program is all-internet.

The other problem is that this schooling doesn’t put a child in social situations, therefore social problem-solving skills will not develop. When they do grow up, they will be weaker to peer pressure and will have a harder time deciphering the right healthy association, unless the parents warn children of this early on. Further, they will be more sensitive to insults and criticism, things they may not experience at home. If they experience it early on, believe it or not, they will expect it on the job and find ways to deal with it. Home shelters them.

They may also develop a mind-set where they expect the working environment to be “like home”. They may be disappointed that the world is not like home. On the plus side, if they become entrepreneurs, they may create a more comfortable working environment for people. Most children who have this schooling are some of the most well-behaved children because they don’t have the social pressure to be bad. Their only influences are their parents. On the same token, if they are only used to listening to their parents, they won’t get accustomed to listening to new ideas that may be more beneficial than what their parents are teaching them. These children carry the risk of not being able to think entirely for themselves. And it’s important for children to develop some individuality and independence from their parents.

And again, while they are in school, they are usually not influenced by peer pressure. But when they graduate, step out into the working world,  they will not be used to peer pressure. They won’t be able to avoid peer pressure. We learn how to deal with this pressure in school, especially in high school. Though home-schooling is meant to protect the child from peer pressure, it doesn’t help them learn to deal with this pressure. And no, bullying and negative peer pressure is not good. I understand that some parents would rather protect their children. In schools outside of the home, not only do children make friends, but they learn to deal with peers. Traditional schools don’t just teach reading and math, but the purpose of a school is to teach you how to deal with other people. In the real working world, they will end up experiencing people they don’t get along with, questionable friendships, and bullies. Daddy and Mommy will not be around to tell them to quit a job and home-job them. Some may work from home, but most will end up working outside of the home. How will they deal with this issue? Will they quit every job they feel is hard, which is every job? Will they let people get under their skin?

These children can become more impressionable than the average person when they become adults. This is not to say this is every child who is home-schooled, but from my experience, it’s a risk. Justin Bieber would be an example.

The upside is that when a child is alone with their work, they have the ability to develop all kinds of skills. When there are no distractions, a strong curiosity can develop. From my experience, home-schooled children acquire skills that most children learn when they are older, like the ability to sew. Many develop talents. They often learn to become excellent cooks and often eat healthy diets. They stay children much longer. They are least likely to be pregnant teens and will more than likely plan their lives.

Yet, the strong curiosity can lead them into danger as they get older. They may wish to do all the things they missed out on,and they may live wild lives in an attempt to do all they missed out on.

Diablo Valley School

Diablo

This school doesn’t have a curriculum, doesn’t give homework, tests, or grades. When we think about this ideally, we can see that this school has good intentions. They want children to be comfortable in their learning environment. The school setting is more like a house, where there are couches and the staff cooks lunch for the kids. They allow children to attend board meetings, voice an opinion, vote, and help with school-wide decisions. This school’s goal is to encourage children to be confident in themselves. This school wants children to develop their own identity, and be proud of who they are. It’s a school that wants children to recognize that everyone has individual strengths, and it minimizes the idea that any child has a weakness. The goal is truly ideal.

One student said, “I’ve become a lot more confident with myself,” she says. “And I think the best thing about this school is that there is no pressure to be anyone other than yourself.”

Many of their ideas are so out-of-the-box in both excellent ways and debatable ways. I like that they let the children have a voice on what goes on in the school, and I like that they let those children take leadership roles. This helps them move their school and learn the importance of responsibility. This school is great for students who don’t feel confident in a regular school. This is also a good school for students who need a little more intimate attention from their teacher. This is also good for students who want to have fun. The children did seem happy in the segment. What child would not want to go to a school like this? This is a school where kids rule. To add, the food probably tastes better than the food at any school around the nation…

But there are a few things that I think was not considered in the greater scheme of things.

This school seeks to “protect” or “nurture” children by giving children what they emotionally need and want, but it doesn’t prepare them for the harsh realities of the real working world.

This school allows children to begin learning basic skills such as reading and writing…whenever the child feels like learning it. Yes, they decide what they want to learn and when they want to learn it. They feel this helps the children develop a natural interest in subjects. If a child wants to learn something, they ask, and the staff there helps them learn it. And it doesn’t have to be basic skills, like reading or math. It can be something like sewing. I understand this school was designed to make children feel more confident in what they are learning.

But I feel this school treats the children like babies. While the school provides a comfortable learning environment, it doesn’t teach them how to adjust to working environments that are not ideal when they get older. In traditional education, at least a child learns to adapt to various working styles. This actually teaches them how to endure in many different kinds of jobs. It gives them the discipline to deal with the working world. When a child becomes use to this environment, a real job becomes a cinch. They learn that each job has it’s own rules and it’s own code of dress and many other similarities to their school.

A comfortable environment makes the children feel at home, but gives them unrealistic expectations about the job life. These children will grow up with the attitude that on a job “They will work when they are good and ready”. They will not know how to do something they don’t want to do. But guess what? No one wants to work, but we have to. Otherwise, who will eat?

Sometimes, it may ultimately make them less confident as adults as they begin to compare how much they know with the other adults around them who have learned so much. Some children may not even acquire the curiosity to read until they are teenagers. By then, many teenagers their age would’ve learned so much more, even the students that are considered “struggling” in traditional schools! I asked one child, who was struggling in 5th grade, to spell her name out for me as fast as she could. She spelled it so fast, you can tell that she had written that name a thousand times. She knew it by heart, even though she was struggling with her school subjects. I told her that’s how I knew she was in 5th grade. I could tell that she had spent five years practicing that name. A student who decides when they are going to learn this in teen years will be way behind…

Children with mental disabilities often never acquire an interest in learning because of their set-backs, so this school would leave them empty-handed. I’ve had to push (not shove, of course) many students with disabilities to learn subjects. They may not have liked it as children, but when they get older, they often felt confident. When they are not pushed, they don’t learn, and are left to feel odd or as mentally disabled as people make them feel when they become adults.

Also in a subject like history, this school will put the kids behind. There are certain things children should know about history by the time they are in 8th grade. We learn history so we can avoid making the same social mistakes and so we can borrow inspiration to create a more progressive future. That’s how we were able to make many of the inventions we have today, on the basis of what people did. Most children do not acquire a natural curiosity to learn history. I know this from experience.

Instead of helping them compete with a global economy, this school will still put them behind. This school stated they are focused on improving test scores in the nation, but without…testing the children. It sounds like they are only about the numbers, not the education. Or rather, they seem to be all about the numbers they decide to put in. But without a curriculum guide, they don’t really seem to care if the child can truly compete with other children globally on an intellectual level. The students may not feel these debilities as children or teens, but they will feel it as adults.

The school also doesn’t prepare the students for a higher education. In college, while they do get to choose the subjects they want to study, and what time they want to take the courses, they have to sit for long hours in lecture halls, complete homework assignments, and deal with stressful exams. How does this school prepare them for a higher education should a child want to pursue that path? This school, in my honest opinion, is for the pampered and babied. In fact, without a test, how could they monitor a child’s progress or really know whether they have learned something in the school? How can they know if a child has even learned to count? By letting the child monitor their OWN progress? Children just want to play, and may say anything just to get work out of their hair.

The upside to this kind of schooling is that these children may grow up remembering that they don’t have to work at something they don’t like. That’s the privilege of living in the USA. This may thus help them push for more creative freedom in a work environment. But making that kind of difference takes time. And they still need to learn to work at a stable job. But then there are those moments where the lack of various skills limits them to odd-end jobs…

What really disturbs me is the fact that none of the “teachers” are required to be certified. The children learn from random people who share their “experiences”. Again, this is ideal, but not at all realistic. The school seems to be lacking in a little historical education themselves, and are doomed to repeat the same mistakes of the past. In the past, teachers were not required to have any more than a 8th grade education. Soon after, women were usually married off and men began working. But how could a student be confident in a teacher they are not sure has been to school or learned anything themselves? Would you want a certified Doctor operating on you or your family? Or some random person who came into the hospital saying they know a little bit about medicine? I know a college degree doesn’t make a person smarter than someone without one, but at least you know they have acquired the knowledge to attend to the job at hand. The certificate is confirmation that it has been a field of study for 4 or more years. When someone is not certified, you can’t really know if you are being taught lies or not. You may not know with a certified teacher either, but at least you know they have studied the facts before.

Then, there are things personal experience cannot teach you. There are some subjects that can’t be understood in-depth without consistency and an expert. For instance, there are hundreds of countries around the world. It is not only beneficial to talk about the country the child lives in, but also about other countries. This not only broadens their world view, increases compassion in a child, but it also teaches them to think about someone other than themselves. A random teacher can’t teach a child about correct geography or how to read a map correctly. These “teachers” are also probably not equipped to deal with mentally disabled people, either. I mean, the school isn’t bad, but is it really on the same quality-level as a traditional school? Or should I think it’s better just because it’s free and new?

The school would then have to place value on what THEY deem is more important to learn, which means they would be belittling the subjects they feel are not so important. I’d like to think that each subject has a use. If we belittle a subject, we belittle a job and therefore limit what our children could do in the future.

So, this is my spin on the “new school” education. Share your comments on the matter. Do you think the schools have the right answer to combat declining test scores in the USA?

The Civil Equality Tests

29 Nov

diversity

Previously, I created a Bly Test and Socrates Test to improve gender relations, and create a more “equal” experience in media. These tests were based off of the Bechdel Test, a test known to create a more equal and fair female movie experience, but is very vague in it’s standards. You can click the links on “Bly Test” or “Socrates Test” to learn more about them…

But lately, the topic seems to be about race and ethnicity. Ever since the Michael Brown case, racial issues have resurfaced into a second “black-power” movement of sorts. Many of the issues center around racism. Though I believe the Michael Brown case had little to do with race, more on that here —>Michael Brown case issue<—, the topic of race was bound to show up sometime in this century. It has been boiling up for years.

Because it has shown up, I realized how tense relations between the many ethnic groups are. The issue is that neither side understands the other, and neither side wants to. The protests show that many ethnic groups, particularly the Caucasian and African American groups, do not trust each other. And yes, I say each other. Neither sides want to be caught up in a race issue, and yet both sides can’t seem to rise above the issue.

Racism still exists, true enough. There are white people out here who hate black people just because they are dark-skinned. There are white people who are closed-minded and think they are better than other ethnic groups. There are white people who believe the European way of doing things is, was, and always will be the superior way of living.

On the other hand, there are some black people who have a difficult “character” to deal with. Many prefer to solve their problems with aggression and violence. And many black people don’t trust any white people and so will find racism in every little thing. That could be challenging for a white person who really isn’t racist. Some black people don’t want to like white people, and want to live their life in hatred. Some have developed racist attitudes themselves (yes, it’s possible for a black person to be racist).

Yet, black issues, even without racism, are ignored. What is resurfacing is something that hasn’t been truly weeded out at the origin. Race issues have only been touched on the surface, but the deeper psychological scars haven’t been healed. Grandmothers are still alive to tell their stories. It still affects the children of today, if even in small ways. Yes, the slaves have been free for hundreds of years. Yes, the civil rights era was over 50 years ago. But were the issues truly resolved at the core? At the deep psychological core?

Because this issue still persists, and because the races still have tension, neither side will cross that dividing line of trust. The real issue lies within. How do we view each other? This issue is even more intense than the division between men and women.

In order to root out racism, one must have insight. Hatred is an internal thing that may not be visible. A superiority complex is something that is bred deep within. The true meaning of racism is to think one race is superior to another. This can be done from all sides. Sometimes, the affect is so deeply-rooted, we may not even realize it is there until we are tested.

This test is to check to see if all of us, we as people, have any hidden inner racist ideas, and to help us become more open-minded to other races. This may not be the overall answer, but it could be the start of healing racial tension.

I’m calling this test the “Civil Equality” Test. This test will push a more equal mind-set in people in a civil way by allowing people to reflect and think about other nationalities outside of their own. This will also rule out any self-hatred. For once, imagine being a different ethnicity for a day. How would you think? How would you feel? What would you do in your daily life? These are simple questions that a person with true understanding of another could answer.

This test may be controversial in nature, and I hate to step myself into racial issues. I like all people. I’m African American, and I’m obsessed with Asian culture. But as such, it’s even more important that I step into this issue.

One may argue that one race could never understand another race. But if we have that attitude, how can we ever resolve racial issues? How can we ever find peace among each other? We all live on this Earth, we can’t escape each other. Understanding is the key to ending war among people…Unless of course you enjoy and thrive on war…Then, you may have some other mental issues you have to work through…

b390_racisim_is_a_social_disease_button

This test works differently from the Bechdel Test, the Bly Test, and the Socrates Test. This test will pose a series of questions for each person to reflect on and answer. If you can answer ALL of these questions, then your mind is open to learning about other nationalities. This means you are NOT racist, because you don’t think your own ethnicity so superior that you are not willing to try to understand other ethnicity groups. If you can only answer half of these questions, you may be interested in other ethnic groups, but you only care about your own people and are only interested mostly in things that reflect you personally. You may have hidden prejudices or may ignore races you don’t feel fit in your world. If you can’t answer ANY of the questions, you have a hidden superiority complex and are a hidden RACIST. You might want to make friends or associate with different kinds of people so you can understand people outside of your small range of understanding…

So, here come the questions…Not that this should be the ONLY thing that decides whether a person is open to understanding others, but I think this test will be pretty basic. If you can pass this test, you have a start. Even a child could pass this test. So are you ready? Here goes.

1) What is Your Favorite Movie Where one African/Black descendant Male AND one Female Stars as a Main Character

Then name a music artist

Cartoons are included, by the way.

I will begin with this for starters, since this is my own ethnicity, and I will give an example, just to show you how this works. As an African American, I have plenty of knowledge on African American media, so obviously this would be the first to answer. It’s best to start with your own nationality to rule out self-hatred.

I know one African American woman who hates all black media. She never has a good reason why…I sense some self-hatred.

My favorite movie where black males starred are Friday, The Brothers, Bad Boys, Good Burger, and White Chicks. I enjoy all of the Madea movies. My favorite movie where a black female stars is The Princess and the Frog. I also enjoyed CrazySexyCool: The TLC Story and Akeelah and the Bee. I also love 2 Can Play that Game. I also loved Why do Fools Fall in Love and The Color Purple. I loved Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella, starring Brandy. I also liked College Road Trip.

Favorite male music artists are Omarion, Usher, Ne-yo, Dru Hill, Chris Brown, Tony! Toni! Tone!, The Jacksons, Prince, Stevie Wonder, The Gap Band, and New Edition. Favorite female music artists are Rihanna, Tamia, Janet Jackson, Monica, Brandy, Alicia Keys, Jennifer Hudson, En Vogue, Toni Braxton, and TLC.

See how easy that was? You don’t have to name two, but if you can name more than one, you are really interested in thinking outside of your own realm. If you can name more than one in your own ethnicity, you do not suffer from self-hatred in any way, as you can relate to your own ethnic experience and are not ashamed to watch entertainment geared towards your own target audience.

2) What is Your Favorite Movie Where one Caucasian Male AND one Female Stars as a Main Character (name at least one that is Jewish, too)

Then name a music artist

I know there are plenty to choose from, but it’s still something to consider.

My favorite movie where a Caucasian male stars is Pirates of the Caribbean and all of the Harry Potter series. I also love Stepbrothers and Bedtime Stories. My favorite movie where a Caucasian female stars is A Series of Unfortunate Events. I also enjoyed Hunger Games and Tomb Raider. I also loved The Golden Compass. I absolutely love Annie, Psycho, and all of the American Girl movies.

My favorite male Caucasian artists are Panic!At the Disco, Fall Out Boy, A7X, Justin Timberlake, Adam Lambert, Backstreet Boys, Jesse McCartney, ColdPlay, Robin Thicke, Eminem. My favorite female Caucasian artists are Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Lillix, Gwen Stefani, Avril Lavigne, Lady Gaga, Pink, Adele, Demi Lovato, Jessie J, Ariana Grande, Amy Lee, Hayley Williams, and Miley Cyrus.

3) What is Your Favorite Movie Where one Hispanic/Latino Male AND one Female Stars as a Main Character

Then name a music artist.

My favorite movie where a Hispanic/Latino male stars is The Legend of Zorro. But I’m afraid I don’t watch enough of Spanish media. 😦 I need to open my mind more…

My favorite movie where a Hispanic/Latino female stars is Gotta Kick It Up and the Cheetah Girls series. I also loved The Princess Protection Program.

I ought to be ashamed of myself. I should have more knowledge of Spanish media. 😦 You see how honest you have to be with yourself? It takes a lot of courage to have insight.

Perhaps others can recommend some movies where Spanish-speaking individuals star, and excuse my ignorance.

My favorite male Hispanic/Latino music artists are Daddy Yankee, Fat Joe, Miguel, Enrique Iglesias, and Mario Vazquez. My favorite female music artists are J.Lo, Prima J., Selena, Paula DeAnda, Nina Sky, and Adrienne Bailon.

4) What is Your Favorite Movie Where one Asian Male AND one Female Stars as a Main Character

Then name a music artist.

My favorite movies where Asian males starred are Prince of Tennis Chinese live action, Detective Conan live action, Mushishi live action, Fashion King, and Rush Hour. My favorite movies where Asian females starred are When Love Walked In, Mulan, and To The Beautiful You.

My favorite male music artists are Gackt, Shinee, Suju-Henry, Got7, Se7en, Show Luo, Bi-Rain, Jo Kwon, George Nozuka, and Mike Shinoda. My favorite female music artists are BoA, Utada Hikaru, f(x), Keiko Lee, Namie Amuro, Ayumi Hamasaki, Jade Valerie, Kristine Sa, and Jolin Tsai.

5) What is Your Favorite Movie Where one Middle Eastern/Indian/Islamic/ Israeli Male AND one Female stars as a Main character

Then name a music artist.

My favorite movie where a Middle Eastern stars is Million Dollar Arm. Unfortunately, I don’t know too many movies with women starring as leads. 😦 I need to open my mind here.

My favorite male artist is Tarkan. My favorite female artists are Tina Sugandh, Natacha Atlas, Nawal Al Zoghbi, M.I.A, Super Woman and Humble the Poet, and Samira Said.

6) What is Your Favorite Movie where one Indigenous/Native Male AND one FEMALE stars as a Main Character 

Then name a music artist

My favorite movie where a female stars is Pocahontas. Unfortunately, there aren’t very many that I know here, either. I really need to learn more about other cultures.

My favorite female music artist is Lucy Idlout. I don’t know any Native/Indigenous male artists, unfortunately. 😦

So, you see? This one simple examination can reveal how open-minded a person really is. It can also reveal how open-minded media is in representing all kinds of people. Hopefully this sort of test opens people’s minds. Just doing it myself made me realize where I was lacking.

You can bring these questions to other categories, such as literature and television shows. Then you may really be able to open your minds. It’s also healthy to know about at least one historical figure that’s of a different nationality other than your birth nationality. When we can open our minds, and learn about others, we become less racist in our own minds. After all, racism begins as a mentality.

4879775734_976dd2c681_z

Leave me a comment and let me know what you think of the test. If you’re not too shy, perhaps you can share with me some of your favorite movies with different ethnic groups.

racism_logo_sq

%d bloggers like this: