We Hold These Rights Inalienable: The Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Ignorance

An original version posted on 11/23/2007 as "We Hold These Rights Inalienable: The Right to Life, Liberty, and the Right to be Ignorant: Briding Racially Ignorant and Racially Conscious" @ throwascrewinit.blogspot.com

Nooses are everywhere nowadays. Not just in Jena. But also on teachers' office hour rooms at Ivy League schools. Sold at a store near you in New Jersey, Connecticut. Sold online. As Haloween decorations in a predominantly white neighborhood near you! Who says modernity has elipsed our good old fashioned family values? Were once again partying like its 1899!

People nationwide after the Jena 6 incident have been defending their right to display nooses when and wherever they want, particularly during the past Halloween season.

Another Halloween dummy

Latest Noose Incident

Nooses in Home Depot

These latest incidents in noose-hanging are nothing but a platform for them to say what they've been saying since people of color first got civil rights in the United States.

Far as they are concerned, racism is over except for a few lingering isolated incidents and is actually instigated more by blacks. They say that blacks and liberals, and racial militants call everything racist. If asked to respond to someone they perceive as a liberal or racial militant, they counter that "racism is in the eyes of the beholder." They also complain about how society is so politically correct.

If you hear/read that someone believes that "racism is in the eyes of the beholder", for them they believe that racial militants will label anything racist. That statement is full of more bull than Pamplona. They think what racial militants do in noting racial incidents is arbitrary. They are generally skeptical when an act is argued to have racial undertones and racial implications.

To support this eyes of the beholder argument, they often speak of how complex it is to know what's racist and what's not.

With that perceived complexity in determining racism, it then becomes difficult for even the average person to know what wrongs they are commiting at any given moment. With that difficulty, it follows that they should just be absolved of any responsibility and most importantly that they don't get any of the consequences associated with doing something stupid.

So this is how they come to defend people who continually display their nooses as proud symbols despite the incidents at Jena, and Columbia University: they say those selling nooses and displaying them at their neighborhoods probably didn't know what they were doing.

In effect, ignorantly displaying nooses during Haloween was a way of getting a free pass for people to "express themselves." "Ignorantly" is the key word.

It's an effective way of breaking with what they perceive is a "politically correct" society. The logic goes: if you don't know that something is racist, then you should be excused because you just don't know better. I'm no law professor emeritus at the moment, but in any other field, if you don't know something, wouldn't it be considered negligence.

Following these types of comments for a while, even before these string of incidents, I've come to a realization. Those who argue for the freedom of expression by the noose-displayers absolutely hate the thought of being considered a racist (which I guess is a sign of progress).

I do think most of them do not want to be racist, but what they're fighting for in fighting FOR the free display of nooses is...the right to be ignorant. The right to be ignorant...of course without incurring any of its consequences.

There's an old saying that goes along the lines of "the less you know the happier you are." Elegantly stated this is the classic "ignorance is bliss" statement.

Ignorance in general is looked down upon, but in reality we all want it and think we need it as a form of "release."

It's one of life's counter-intuitive ironies at work...we want to be all-knowing, smart, and considered responsible but if that fails, in our less structured world outside of employment, we also want the right to let loose...to be ignorant stupid and irresponsible...without suffering the consequences.

Part of the appeal for non-stars like Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Nicole Richie, etc. is that it seems like they are allowed to act as stupidly and ignorant as possible and still get away with it. Most importantly they do it without much consequence, which is why it was so shocking and the same time, exciting for people to see Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie go to jail.

Plenty of Americans want to re-create part of that in their own vapid lives. They want to break away from all the information and understanding and caring. They want to break away from what they perceive is political correctness. Essentially they're fighting political correctness as part of a bigger societal need to just be ignorant.

Racial humor is one arena/space that fits this description perfectly: people can be ignorant and not care, and most of the time not incur any real consequence. Inherent in these incidents is that people want to feel something real, express something raw without feeling the consequences. They generally expect not to get called out. But when they do get called, they call people like me "too politically correct."

Whether it's printing up tired ass Busted T's t-shirt about Juan-on-Juan basketball or New Mexico being Cleaner than Real Mexico or displaying a noose these incidents are driven by a rebellion against the perceived politically correctness of society.

Abercrombie & Fitch

Two Wongs Don't Make A Right

On college campuses, there are strings of theme parties about stereotypes of other cultures.

Theme Party

Theme party 1

On online forums, millions of anonymous people can be as racist and stereotype as they want. Possibilities are endless. One look at an LA Times' online forum about immigration issues, homicide issues, would probably make you re-think your position of LA being some kind of hotbed of liberty, equality, and acceptance.

What promotes them to not care is that race probably isn't an issue for the people who so flippantly disregard incidents like Jena as child's play. If you think it's all in humor, consider that people probably think it's humorous too when they draw or graffiti a swastika.

For them race and ethnicity is not something that they are made aware of on a daily basis, so they can be as careless as they want. They actually once again puts them in a privileged position of being there only to make judgments, unless of course they get called out.

But for people of color who are likely made aware that they are different, that they are minorities, it's not so flippantly disregarded. By all means you can do it, but you're probably going to be called out for it.

As mentioned before, we live in a time and place of vast information exchange.

People use information to make decisions, including those people in power. We've learned in history how disinformation and stereotypes lying within power players and the public have continually hurt folks of color from gaining admission to schools, buying houses, and getting jobs.

People's perception of things count for a lot these days, especially when all it takes is a simple "bad feeling" about someone for them not to get a job, a house, a loan, etc.

We don't want people to be bringing these messages to people en masse: that it's OK to hang nooses, that's its OK to have racial stereotype theme parties, or even that it's OK to have these stupid ass orientalized, other-ized, T-shirts. This is stuff that while you might get a kick out of, just reinforces people of color's less than human-ness.

We don't get much representation in politics and media, and it's disturbing that the only things that circulate widely is stuff that objectifies our cultures and distances us from other people. I really hope that fuckheads engaging in these kinds of acts aren't going to be decisionmakers, but it's inevitable that quite a few will.

We want to be seen as humans, eating, breathing, shitting, sexing just like you. The way people of color in this country have been disenfranchised has been through skin color (while another color has been promoted on that basis), and for liberal people our color, our ethnicity, our heritages are the the only thing that make us interesting in their eyes.

In all likelihood, those who did hang the nooses at Jena knew what they were doing, but they were secretly hoping that they get away with it. Their motivation is no different than various idiots who print Abercrombie & Fitch T-shirts about Chinese people, Busted T-shirts who print other ignorant bullshit about Africa --- to fight what they perceive is political correctness so they can have their space to act ignorant without consequences. Only they want to do it at the expense of people of color.

All this is like kicking someone in the shin underneath the table during a meeting and hoping that you can get away with it.

If we are getting our shins continually kicked, how would you expect us to respond?

Speedy Gonzales and How He Influenced My Childhood Views of Latinos

An original version posted on 5/12/2010 as "Influence of Speedy Gonzales on my Perception of Latinos as a Kid" @ AMMMO

Looney Tunes was a fixture of 1990s Nickelodeon and my TV-watching experience as a kid.

I didn't particularly aim to watch Looney Tunes, but when it was on, I guess it was alright, it was something to keep me occupied.

Speedy Gonzales was a pretty prominent recurring character whose sole purpose was to make Sylvester the cat look stupid. I hated that, I really wanted the cat to finally catch that little mouse.

Speedy was just one in a line of physically little, quick-moving, thinking characters that included Jerry from Tom and Jerry, Tweety bird, the Roadrunner, and the kids who actually got the Trix in those commercials. These little, quick-moving characters were always elusive, and I couldn't help but be annoyed at each one of them.

I wonder if the 1950s narrative for these cartoon characters was structured so that we would dislike these nimble little characters. The storylines were constructed in a way in which you wondered if those physically little, quick-moving and thinking characters would get caught.

It was always a narrative of evasion (which probably fit in with the time). So while the characters looked physically defenseless, you knew they would always get away with something, almost like criminals.

The narratives never centered around the Speedy's, Tweety's, Roadrunners and a question of when they would overcome these big predatorial characters. It was about when the big predatory characters, the Sylvesters, the Trix Bunny, the Coyote, devising all kinds of plans, would finally win.

Speedy arguably had the most personality of all those little evasive characters. His personality was marked by his ethnicity, which was emphasized way beyond belief: he was undeniably, thoroughly Mexican, from the sombrero to the accent to the use of Spanish.

Arriba, arriba, andale, andale.

I remember going to Spanish class the first day of my freshman year in high school thinking, "I'm finally going to learn what those words mean!"



The video above of Speedy Gonzales is quite relevant to today's debate over immigration.

You've got the immigration boundary, the all-male "border crossers" trying to get cheese (i.e. "stealing our jobs"), and this ineffective "border defense", the cruder older stereotypes of the Latino lover, and immigrants as these opportunistic rats.

Based on current socially accepted rhetoric of "catching illegal immigrants", "breeders", and border patrol video games, I wonder how people might've been influenced in their thinking by mere "entertainment."

People say Looney Tunes was "just" a cartoon, entertainment, as if thoughts can be neatly packaged away into separate compartments of our brains, not ever influencing things like our political beliefs or views on race.

I think things in general would be much easier if our brains actually were structured that way. But our brains are not computers and as was pointed out by Gary Marcus in his book Kluge, our brains are imperfect. This means we are not always rational, controlled, and we don't always act the way we intend to. So we may not always have the most perfectly formed opinions.

Our opinions on politics and race today might've originated from something we don't remember or don't really like to admit. We often don't remember the sources of these beliefs, but we cling to them because they are convenient and our lifestyles have been built around them. I think very few people if any are convinced to change beliefs based on hard, cold factual or statistical arguments. If anything, for both sides of any argument, tools like statistics are just rhetorical weapons wielded from high-minded individuals to convince everyone of their personal extreme rationality.

I tend to think that most opinions on politics, race, even sports originate in early motivations developed from emotional reactions. Our emotional reactions develop from social environments and communities.

I don't think people in general realize how irrationally formed some of their beliefs and perceptions are, particularly those involving race, ethnicity, and politics. I think most people, particularly those who aren't made conscious of their race and ethnicity, latch on to certain beliefs and stereotypes of other races and ethnicities early on in their lives.

As a kid, Speedy stirred up a sentiment of annoyance in me. He was so annoyingly evasive. So I disliked him. By association, I ended up not liking some of his traits, like the fact that he was dirty brown or spoke "broken" English.

I knew that not every Mexican actually talked or acted like Speedy or his friends, but I felt like some of the way they speak was what I observed the way some Latinos in real life spoke and were generally dirty-looking, especially the jornalero types. The stereotype had a grain of truth, I thought.

And so in grade school, when I went to a neighborhood friend's house who was Guatemalan, I saw that he was brown and lived pretty dirtily, unconsciously confirming a stereotype. The friends he brought over from public school were also dirty, especially when one time they played on my makeshift kiddy basketball court, and my finger accidentally touched on dude's tongue. I sniffed my finger and it smelled foul.

Later in grade school for a school project, I had to go to a Mexican's house. I was almost pleasantly surprised to find out how clean he was because he was sort of a big dude and always kinda smelled foul.

I wasn't out there pointing this out to either one of my friends; these were just things running in my head --- caricatures of little dirty brown Speedy Gonzales juxtaposed with confirmed stereotypes of real life people.

It's not like I had anything else in my streaming experience of television, school, or real life experience (in LA no less) to dispel these wholly irrational caricatures of Mexicans/Latinos.

All I knew is that it was wrong to discriminate against any of them or any people or say bad things about them (or any other people of color, much like myself).

All I learned was not to intentionally do bad things around them or anyone else, and everything would be alright.

I didn't learn exactly how to be cool with them, what good food they had, how clean most of them were, you know stuff that we could actually connect on. All I learned was how to joke about their different stereotypes and not take those too seriously.

The problem with the widespread public idea that Speedy Gonzales is "just entertainment" or was about "jokes" is that I'm not sure there is much out there to make a better attempt at representing Mexicans for other people. It's as if their non-White racial and ethnic categories are only out there to be punchlines and caricatures. I could probably tell you more about how annoying Speedy G. than how great Cesar A was.

Solutions for Change After Compton Cookout

An original version posted on 3/1/2010 as "Recapping the aftermath of Compton Cookout and solutions for change" @ Examiner.com

The aftermath of the Compton Cookout organized by students at UCSD has seen a flurry of responses.

Responses have included: a student calling blacks ungrateful on campus television, a protest led by the Black Student Union, plans for a "Compton Cookout Part Deux" and the discovery of a noose at a UCSD library.

The events at UCSD may have touched off a wave of crimes at other college campuses.

Last week, Kris Gregorian, an editor of a controversial campus newspaper said on campus television after the Compton Cookout, "You should be thankful you ungrateful n****." Later after his segment was aired, a piece of cardboard was later found in the studio with the words "Compton lynching" written on it.

Later in the week, Mike Randazzo, organizer of the Compton Cookout, announced plans for a repeat of the Compton Cookout, "We pretty much want people to just choose a culture and harmlessly poke fun at it."

"On Cinco de Mayo, we have parties making fun of Mexicans; on Veterans Day, we make fun of veterans (yes, the same veterans who uphold our rights to free speech); on St. Patrick's Day we make fun of the Irish. Everyone gets made fun of out of jest now, not hate,” the invitation read."

The Black Student Union Protest responded to the week's events organizing a teach-in chanting "Real Pain, Real Action." The teach-in drew over 300 students and lead to a student walk-out.

The latest incident happening late Thursday night involves the discovery of a noose at a UCSD library at around 10:30 PM. An unnamed student has since confessed to the incident, claiming she did not think that "hanging the noose would be a big deal."

A wave of incidents has since been touched off at UC Davis and the University of Missouri.

At UC Davis there have been two instances of race and ethnicity related vandalization. A swastika was carved into a Jewish student's dorm room earlier last week. On Saturday, there was discovery of vandalism at the UC Davis Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender building.

At the University of Missouri, balls of cotton were found strewn together in front of the University's Black Cultural Center. The strewn cotton has significant association to associations of slavery.

Perspective: Why Compton Cookout was not that funny

The party organizers were not intending to harm groups of people, but intention doesn't need to be present to actually harm individuals or groups of people. That's the very definition of "negligent."

However, the fact that it was a party which was planned, ultimately garners little sympathy here. These kids throwing racial parties, products of the 7th-ranked public university in the US News College rankings anticipated such controversy.

People need to recognize that organizing racial theme parties such as the Compton Cookout were not simply mistakes made by simple slips of the tongue. These individuals made deliberate, poor decisions and need to be called out for it each and every time they do organize a similar gathering or event.

I love off-the-cuff jokes and humor as much as the next person, but I can't find Compton Cookout, south of the border, white trash, or Eurotrash parties that funny.

Maybe it's because I know the "ghetto culture" wasn't something fabricated by MTV and merely popularized by rap music. It is a culture of people bred in response to centuries of segregation from advancement and opportunity. It is a symbol of inequality, survival, and ongoing struggle that was created by centuries of logic and policy that excluded black people.

These "ghetto", racialized theme parties puts out to the public that it's acceptable to trivialize products of struggle from different communities.

I know that the theme party to be thrown by Randazzo encourages a mindset that we all need to laugh at ourselves. I agree, laughter is the shortest distance between two people.

But it's hard to see how a fraternity full of white guys taking elements of black culture they only know through TV and computer monitors, is actually laughing at "themselves."

Advice to Compton Cookout organizers: equal opportunity offending is a horrible solution

Party organizer Mike Randazzo has served up the argument that these racial theme parties are an attempt to treat every race equally. They would do this by offending every race or ethnicity --- when I was in college this was called "equal opportunity offending." Seems to draw a lot on the methods of Borat, a movie I absolutely abhored.

The problem however is that this type of offending tends to not to actually be an "equal offender."

The idea of equal opportunity offending is essentially a justification to fight for the right to be ignorant.

Yes, there are so-called "Euro-trash" and "white trash" parties, but they are very specific to certain sub-cultures dominated by white people. If a big percentage of people were white trash or Euro-trash, there would probably be more outrage of those parties by those populations.

Through television, newspapers, radio, and our schooling, we have learned that white Americans are so varied, so unique, and carry such a diversity of opinion. Because they and everyone else absorbing US media have learned that they are so unique, many including themselves perceive their racial and cultural identities are essentially meaningless to the outside world.

With meaningless racial and cultural identities, they get the idea that race and ethnicity is something that could easily be ignored and either turned on or off.

In contrast, people of color tend to be recognized in popular media and work mostly for their cultural differences, whether real or not.

In news reports you see the labels of ethnicity demarcating an individual. You always see the labels "African-American" or "Latino" used to demarcate individuals, and that's even when there is no missing person or suspect on the loose. However, you rarely see the labels "Caucasian-American", or "white American" to describe an individual's background.

As it is, people of color are often perceived by decisionmakers like job interviewers to be monolithic thinkers with no variance, no diversity of opinion, and no uniqueness other than the color of their skin and accompanying culture. It's as if their diversity is the full extent of the uniqueness and talent that they bring.

"Equal opportunity offending" in the form of parties and tropes tends to hit Americans of color harder than white Americans. No matter how much they try to escape their stereotypes, people of color are linked more tightly by the outside world to the stereotypes of their race and ethnicity. As a result of this closeness, they tend to feel the mocking of their ethnicities and races a lot more.

Equal opportunity offending communicates to the word that its still acceptable to look down upon people of color using old familiar tropes that have denied people of color opportunities.

In the meanwhile, this equal opportunity offending offers less relevant tropes for the vastly varied white cultures and ethnicities. This ends up stinging no white person and confirms belief for them that making fun of race and ethnicity is essentially harmless.

Solution: We would build better racial understanding if we assume the best in people

While the idea of "racial and cultural sensitivity" means well, it is a somewhat ineffective idea to describe what is needed in working towards racial understanding.

"Racial sensitivity" for many young white Americans has meant a feeling to need to walk on eggshells when speaking with people of color, careful never to offend. The uncertainty many white Americans feel when dealing with people of color and race and ethnicity leads to this pointlessly rebellious "equal opportunity offending", first-ammendment-asserting Compton Cookout-type backlash.

"Racial sensitivity" is antithetical to "making fun" of something.

People of color suggesting "racial and cultural sensitivity" as opposed to "making fun" makes it seem like people of color have no sense of humor and that we absolutely allow no room for any mistake around them.

One solution to addressing these racially-themed parties and incidents is simple: tell people why exactly it isn't funny. Emphasis on "why exactly" as a way towards rational explanation.

It isn't funny because I understand that many black Americans are struggling still. These stereotypes floating in people's thoughts aren't bound to help anyone in job interviews and decisionmaking, and frankly it isn't my place to judge or make light of what I see people struggle through. Even amongst the best intentioned, bias does play a role when evaluating people of color.

I feel like there would have been no "Compton Cookout" or at least, less justifications of the event, had these kids been familiar with understanding the connections between events, policies, attitudes in the past with today's events, behaviors, and attitudes.

The public needs to understand that there are reasons why people live the way they live, and do the things they do. As James Loewen argued in his classic Lies My Teacher Told Me, people need to understand that the "effects" we observe in the world today all have "causes."

Studying history's many perspectives and establishing connections to today allows people to build on the assumption that there is logic, rationality, intelligence in individuals caught up in so-called "ghetto-cultures" and basically all cultures.

However, if you don't want to learn history and just want to build better racial and cultural understanding, here's something simple: Assume that people of color or white people or anyone with a different background is just like you and have done the best they could, given their circumstances.

Forget education levels, current employment status, assume that all people regardless of background are trying their best at something.

Assumptions we hold of groups of people direct how we see and ultimately understand people.

For example, if you assume that white Americans are evil, then you're likely to keep looking for examples of white people being evil. But if you run on the assumption that white Americans are trying their best, then you'll be more likely to accept and understand that they are essentially just individuals who are not intentionally keeping people down.

Inversely, if you assume that black Americans are lazy, then you're likely to keep looking for examples of black people being lazy. But if you run on the assumption that black Americans are trying their best, then you'll be more likely to accept and understand how hard it is to move up in America.

If these UCSD kids assumed the best of "ghetto people" meaning they assumed that black people were doing the best they could with what they had,they would instead simply see another group of people trying to get by in this even funnier thing called life.

They would not even see such superficialities such as "limited vocabulary" or "speaking loud" as anything particularly noteworthy, interesting, shocking, or attributable to "ghetto chicks."

Everyone has moments when they have "limited vocabulary" or "speak loud."

With nothing noteworthy, interesting, shocking about another culture, there would be less of a pressing "need" or a burning desire to throw parties as if those superficialities were something unique or interesting.

One tangible step people can take towards assuming the best in people is understanding that no matter what Bill Cosby thinks, "ghetto" language or what is referred to as black English is not broken English with mistakes.

It has its own pronunciation rules and logic. Perhaps a speaker of the language displays a lack of college education, but it does not necessarily mean a lack of knowledge or competency.

However because people conflate "education" with "knowledge", Black English speakers are perceived to be lacking knowledge, therefore competency, and subsequently, are looked down upon as speaking "broken" English.

As was stated by Texas A&M Sociologist Joe R. Feagin, "Language mocking and subordination are not about standards for speaking as much as about determining that some people are not worth listening to and treating as equals." Language is simply a tool that people use to understand each other, nothing more nothing less.

If we assumed that people were trying their best given their circumstances, we'd be past feeling suspicious of other people.

If more people assumed the best of different people, the question we'd attempt to answer would be past the warring stage, where people are battling every day trying to scream the existence of racism.

If we assumed the best of people, we'd already know that it happens, and we'd focus on addressing how and why racial division happens, and negotiating how we can all come to some kind of agreement that permits even exchanges across racial, ethnic, and cultural divides.

Responding to the Justifications of the Compton Cookout

An original version posted on 2/19/2010 as "Public debate over racism erupts after student party" @ Examiner.com

Last week, a few students attending the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) held a theme party called the "Compton Cookout."

The Facebook invitation, sent out by some members of the Fraternity Pi Kappa Alpha urged male participants to wear large T-shirts, jerseys, sunglasses. Most controversially however, the invitation included a description of "ghetto chicks"

"Ghetto chicks have a very limited vocabulary, and attempt to make up for it, by forming new words, such as "constipulated", or simply cursing persistently, or using other types of vulgarities, and making noises, such as "hmmg!", or smacking their lips, and making other angry noises,grunts, and faces. The objective is for all you lovely ladies to look, act, and essentially take on these "respectable" qualities throughout the day." Read the Full Invitation

UCSD Chancellor Mary Anne Fox responded with a statement condemning the event and affirming principles of community. Read here for UCSD's Statement.

Because the party was not affiliated with any student organization, UCSD was not able to take further action.

Pi Kappa Alpha issued a statement denying any involvement. Read here for Pi Kappa Alpha's Statement.

While the party has long ended and statements have been given, the issue has drawn enormous public responses. A majority of the responses have ranged from dismissal of the students behavior as an innocent act of fun, to condemning the students' behavior as an act of racism.

What do you think?

Reactions from 10News.com followed by commentary

Reactions asking why this party is still a big deal

"The actions of one individual who created the event page using his own poor judgment and inept choice of words should not reflect on any other person, group, organization, or community besides that one individual. And even so, only to a certain extent."

This type of racially-tinged event is nothing new on college campuses. It has happened before in Clemson, Tulane, Santa Clara, William Jewell College, the University of Chicago. It's not just one isolated event. One individual usually has a network of people supporting what he/she does, and they've learned it from somewhere. The trend does not come from "nowhere."

"This "compton cookout" event is not a sign that the world is beginning to spin backwards and racism is amongst us all again."

Quick, give me the exact time and place when racism even left us, I'd like to record this moment, just for history's sake.

"Does anyone see the absolute hypocrisy in this? So a bunch of students did something juvenile and had an offensive party. That's part of growing up."

Yes, and when you grow up, you get the appropriate reprimand for it. Don't forget that there's usually a reprimand when you do something "juvenile."

Reactions relating to media causing racism

"Clearly the way college students view African Americans is offensive to some. Where would they get these ideas? TV shows on MTV and BET? Spike Lee movies? Television stations that fascinate on ghetto behavior? Who knows...

It sure isn't from the 'frats'...."

No one says that racism originates with frats or even that frats are a new hotbed of hatred.

Media has something to do with these racism-driven stereotypes. However, it runs deeper than media. It's a lack of positive media, the segregation of neighborhoods and demographics.

"NOTE: The only folks making a big stink over this are the media and college administrators trying to cover their arses in the name of political correctness. As I said yesterday, sometimes it hurts to see how the rest of the world sees you. The party may have been in poor taste, but it was certainly a pretty good parody on black youth in America. Just drive through Compton (or Southeast San Diego), and tell me if you see anything different from what this party portrayed."

Firstly, not all black youth are the same. You wouldn't lump all white youth together and characterize them as one type of people. Secondly, Compton is actually not all black according to the 2000 Census, with 66% identifying as black, 42% identifying as Latino, and 11% identifying as white. The median income for a household in the family was $33,000 which is comparable to entire states such as Arkansas and Mississippi. Thirdly, I didn't know that you could understand groups of people, just by "driving through" their neighborhoods and looking at what they wear.

Somehow, I don't quite remember MLK saying judge people by the content of their clothing or their neighborhoods.

"The entire Hip Hop industry is "Ghetto-Themed" but it's OK; they're "keeping it real".
If you're a black college student, you're "embracing your roots".
If you're a white college student, you're a racist. HEY PARENTS: Is this the kind of hypocrisy and double standard you pay to have forced down your kids throats? Also, Hollywood and the music industry do not exactly try to glorify life in the trailer park, the way they do life in the hood."

The music that comes from the "ghetto" is just people talking about what they live. They are not "glorifying" the setting as much as they are "glorifying" the fact that they survived, and are now reaping the rewards.

If you pay attention to lyrics in certain songs, a lot of songs deal with making it from rough, humble beginnings, and the fact that struggles in those settings ultimately made them who they are and successful.

It's actually quite American --- ruggedly individual, material, and at times, very capitalistic.

"I’m not sure what is more funny.

The fact that these students are having a “Ghetto-Party” or that UCSD is promoting respect for the ghetto culture."

UCSD is not "promoting" respect for "ghetto culture," if there is such a thing. However, "ghetto" in the popular imagination has become code word for a "black person." The party's invitation said itself albeit tongue-in-cheek, "a celebration of black culture." The writer of the flyer made the connection that "ghetto" equalled "black."

If there is anything UCSD is promoting, it seems to be respect for people, in general, regardless of "culture". How's that for an idea?

Reactions ignoring the existence of racism in the event

"Racism is in the eye of the beholder"

The problem is that this type of thinking promotes the idea that racism is so subjective and so easily thrown around that racism is essentially meaningless and impossibly large to fight. All the burden of proof falls on the person who experiences it, without people really realizing that it's just as easy to deny it.

The vast majority of us are sick of how offended you are. Your self-esteem is not a concern in the real world, so grow [u]p and stop griping about everything.

This is not about being oversensitive or self-esteem. The debate is about improving the public imagery of people of color. The public imagery of people of color is very important because it's often times the only contact or real understanding that many people have of them. Public imagery informs making wise decisions based on actual merits rather than on stereotypes.

"Ghetto" relates to a segment of the population just as "redneck" refers to a segment of the population. When people think of "ghetto", they think of lower class blacks, and when they think of "redneck" they think of lower class whites. Not all blacks are "ghetto" no more than all whites are "rednecks". I was not at all offended, because these stereotypes do not apply to me, my family, or my friends.

While there are plenty of color who are not offended nor believe the stereotypes do not apply to them, those stereotypes and associations do affect how people think. Stereotypes and associations can affect how decisionmakers make decisions. For example, a Princeton study led by Sociologist Devah Pager showed that black and Latino people with exactly similar qualifications to white people got less than half the callbacks as their white counterparts. Another study by University of Chicago's Marianne Bertrand and MIT's Sendhil Mullainathan showed that black American names such as Tamika, Jamal were also far less likely to receive call backs than white-sounding names such as Carrie and Emily.

Perspective:

Many people have a simplistic idea of what "racism" is. It is not simply an intentional, obvious expression reduced to verbal abuse or obvious harrassment. It is also systematic exclusion from opportunities in schools, jobs, houses, and neighborhoods --- this form of racism is much harder to tell.

In the grand scheme of things, everyone will just look at this party as just a party.

However, the fact that there are over 100 pages of responses on 10News.com from many different viewpoints, it is clearly something that people feel the need to weigh in on. As mentioned above, these racial and ethnic theme parties on college campuses are already running wild in the public imagination.

Plenty of respondents have firmly asserted that this it was a party, but ultimately an act of light humor with no effect. Plenty of respondents have even somehow thrown Barack Obama into discussion as if this somehow mitigates all acts of racism. Plenty of other respondents have asserted the opinion that I'm inclined to agree with; that it was a bad judgment call, and contains elements of racism that is potentially harmful to people of color.

The party is clearly a springboard for discussion about the larger issue of racism. Respondents are arguing not about the party itself, but the implications of what it means for race.

Here's the part where people should pay attention:

Respondents from a progressive anti-racism perspective are criticizing the event mainly to affirm the public image of people of color. Protection of public image is not something done for vanity, but actually plays a big role in first impression of groups of people, especially groups from minority populations. Public imagery of white Americans has saturated traditional media outlets that it's harder to stereotype or tell what a white person is before meeting them.

First impression makes a lot of difference in the job market, especially for people of color. It does not help decisionmakers who allow access to schools, jobs, houses, and neighborhoods when stereotypes of people of color are running through their minds.

It is usually harder to try and understand someone rather than to simply dismiss and ignore them. It's more convenient to dismiss and ignore.

In a culture increasingly bent on information technology to get and give answers quickly, and constantly pressured by time, it's no wonder, many people give their opinions on it, but never go as far as understanding what the term "racism" means in today's contexts.