|
|
 |
WHITE HOUSE PANEL JOINS THE ONLINE NEWSHOUR FOR RACE DIALOGUE July 22, 1997 The Rev. Suzan Johnson Cook joins Angela Oh in responding to the first online forum on race relations |
|---|
Questions asked
in this forum:
Do initiatives promoting diversity interfere with creating the American melting pot? What are the consequences of redrawing boundaries based on race? Are minorities overly sensitive or are non-minorities unaware of their own racism? Why do we ignore American Indians in race relations dialogues? Could racial dialogue create racial tension? What is the purpose of racial classifications anyways? Should we draw attention to "race" at all?
NewsHour Backgrounders
June 16, 1997:
President Clinton launches a national dialogue on race relations
Browse the NewsHour's race relations coverage.
Outside Links.
White House Initiative on Race
It was at a university commencement speech that President Clinton called for a national dialogue to discuss the sensitive and volatile issue of race relations in America.
Announced June 14th, at the University of California, San Diego, Clinton's initiative is meant to facilitate honest, candid discussion and includes a year of events, such as monthly town hall meetings and a White House conference on hate crimes.
To help accomplish this, Clinton has appointed a seven-member advisory panel, headed by historian John Hope Franklin, to counsel him on race relations policies.
The panel has its work cut out for it. A recent national survey by the Gallup organization highlights the dilemma. The survey concluded that white Americans generally believe African Americans are treated fairly in hiring, education and housing -- but African Americans who were polled, on the whole, don't see it that way. The survey also found that whites recognize racism is a problem in the U.S., but few admitted to being racist themselves.
Now that the White House has launched a national dialogue on race, the Online NewsHour has launched its own.This is the first in a series of forums on race relations with members of the President's advisory panel. Our first guest panelist is Angela Oh, an attorney with the Los Angeles law firm of Beck, De Corso, Daly, Barrera & Oh. She's no stranger to the difficult role of mending race relations in America; after the Los Angeles riots, she served as Special Counsel to the Assembly Special Committee on the Los Angeles Crisis.
The Rev. Suzan Johnson Cook now adds her own perspective to these questions.
Now, the first race forum looks at some of the questions and comments you raised. Can Clinton's efforts produce effective dialogue? How do we deal with our country's past? And what about the issues that polarize us in the present? Should we be talking about "race" at all?
Michael Wendle of Minnetonka, MN asks:
Do initiatives promoting diversity and multiculturalism present obstacles to creating an American melting pot? Is assimilation even seen as a solution?
The Rev. Suzan Johnson Cook responds:
I think that promoting diversity and multi-culturalism is necessary. Diversity and multi-culturalism are door-openers, not obstacles. We can't even begin to discuss assimilation as a solution right now, because assimilation can only happen when equal opportunity occurs. We still have a long way to go before we achieve equality.
Angela Oh responds:
Initiatives promoting diversity and multiculturalism do not present "obstacles" if we understand that the values driving such initiatives are inclusion rather than exclusion, a genuine desire to confront our learned biases rather than to justify them and a willingness to give up the notion that racial identity presents a win/lose proposition in the public policy arena.
With regard to the question that raises the concept of assimilation, of course it is one option. Many have, in fact, opted for it and have been quite comfortable with their choice. However, it is most certainly NOT the only option. As many others are well aware, there are options that are equally viable that do not fall into the assimilationist paradigm. We need to consider why there is so much opposition or distrust of other models in which individuals choose to find ways to honor their cultural heritage. There must be a way to do so without being labeled, "Un-American."
A second question from Michael Wendle:
If we re-draw boundaries based on race, does that open the door to re-drawing boundaries based on economic status? Gender? Sexual Preference? Ethnicity?
The Rev. Suzan Johnson Cook responds:
When we talk about race, we are not re-drawing boundaries. That might suggest that those boundaries were never present. They have always been there. The nation was founded on boundaries: The Declaration of Independence declared an African-American to be only three-fifths of a person and the Constitution supported that claim. Boundaries of race existed from then until now.If you mean to equate re-drawing boundaries and divisions associated with race, we could do likewise for gender, sexual preference and ethnicity.
Angela Oh responds:
I believe that "re-drawing boundaries" on race would open the door in all of the areas you mention. I do not support such a notion. To the contrary, I believe that we need to consider ways to dismantle the concept of race as it is currently understood (i.e., the false notion that race is an indicator predictive of behavior, intelligence or creativity).
Back to the top....
Geoff Smith of Kansas City, Missouri asks:
From the work that you have already done, does it appear to you that African-Americans are over-sensitive on the issue of racism, or do white Americans just not see the subtle racism that blacks feel they are subjected to?
The Rev. Suzan Johnson Cook responds:
"Over-sensitive" is not the language we should use in talking about people who have been victimized. Racism has not been been subtle. In most cases, it has been overt. Many have simply chosen not to see the pain of racism. We need to correct that, no matter how difficult it will be.
Angela Oh responds:
First, I do not think racism is in the least "subtle," for anyone, regardless of their skin color. It is a pernicious, divisive and destructive dynamic that has extracted a heavy price from us all. You need to read the book, "Negrophobia and Reasonable Racism" by Jody David Armour. We'll talk more when you're finished.
Back to the top....
Bryan Lockwood of Groton, MA asks:
Why are we so concerned about racism towards relatively recently-arrived immigrants and yet we continue to stonewall the issue of American Indian rights? Why do we think almost exclusively of blacks when we think of racial discrimination? I hear Clinton is considering apologizing to all black people for what was done to their ancestors and to them... I'd be willing to bet my house that an American president will never apologize to the American Indians in like manner. Why do you think that is?
The Rev. Suzan Johnson Cook responds:
History in America has not been kind to either African Americans or American Indians.
Angela Oh responds:
Good point on the American Indian question. I have been present to hear the tribal leaders in my region talk about the difficulty of administering justice among native people in our country, despite the fact that separate sovereigns and independent systems of adjudication exist. The loss of homelands, the struggle to preserve their cultural heritage and the fundamental crises of survival of the people are touchstones for many questions we currently confront. In a way, the native people of this land have left us an invaluable legacy. Namely, a lesson that demonstrates the enduring quality of one's heritage. Yet, we see that separation and autonomy, along with resources and exceptions in the law do not necessarily bring peace -- in the three-dimensional world, nor in the spiritual realm.
We must be concerned about racism, whether directed at newcomers or our native people, for all of the reasons you already know. At this point in our history and at this point in the history of the world, we know better.
With regard to an apology for slavery. I believe the proposal is yet another red herring introduced by cynical, exploitative political figures who pose a question that is clearly volatile in the political world. Of course, all Americans are ashamed of our history of slavery. An apology is a purely symbolic gesture and in that regard, we have already had plenty of symbolism. It is time to get down to real work.
Back to the top....
The Online NewsHour asks:
Does government intervention in the country's race relations create racial tension? What sort of role should the government play in the 1990s?
The Rev. Suzan Johnson Cook responds:
People are already tense about race in America. We hope that government intervention will, rather than raise tensions, lessen them. The government should help spark a dialogue—which it is doing, most recently through the first meeting of the Advisory Board to the President's Initiative on Race. But government's role can go deeper, and that is what staff members at the White House and advisory board members should review, comtemplate and make a recommendation on.
Angela Oh responds:
Government cannot dictate how we feel about one another. The qualities of humanity that capture our attention, our love, our respect and our admiration cannot be described in racial terms. Each of us knows this to be true. So the role of government is to recognize its incredible powers to create mutually beneficial relationships between the public and private sectors. I hope to be able to do this because I have a million ideas.
Back to the top....
Dan McCrea of Miami, FL asks:
"Multi-ethnic is an increasingly accurate and preferred classification when one can find it. Mixed-race marriages and mixed-ethnicity marriages are really more the rule than the exception. What are we trying to accomplish with these (racial) classifications in the first place? Affirmative action? Anthropology?
The Rev. Suzan Johnson Cook would like to pass on this question.
Angela Oh responds:
Racial classifications are still vital to many communities because our public resources are allocated based upon such identifiers in the U.S. Census. This is one of our challenges: How do we provide a place where multi-racial individuals can comfortably participate in the census and yet recognize that the resources allocated for valuable programs are not drained away? We need to consider new ways in which we might be able to deliver effectively public health, public education and governance dollars. Your feedback would be appreciated.
Back to the top....
The Online NewsHour asks:
If race is something that is only "skin deep," should we be drawing so much attention to "race" at all?
The Rev. Suzan Johnson Cook responds:
Race is not only skin deep. It is centuries deep, embedded in the fabric of our society. In order to reduce the significance of race in America, we must start by raising people's consciousness about race.
Angela Oh responds:
Race is a concept that should be dismantled.
Back to the top....
Additional Comments...
Jan Broughton of Durham, NC writes:
Most Americans who feel that there is no need for Affirmative Action think that everyone is being treated fairly and has the same opportunities. They don't suffer from the slights and humiliations that occur on a daily basis because of one's skin color: being followed in a store because you might shoplift; being stopped by police simply for looking out of place in an affluent neighborhood; being tracked into vocational study instead of an academic area. This reality has to be brought to those who think there is equal treatment for all.
Derek West of Columbus, OH writes:
The United States is a country of great opportunity. Look at our immigration rate--people from around the world want to live here. They know that hard work is rewarded and they can succeed no matter what their ethnic background. Haitians, Koreans and others from around the world come to the United States and thrive. They realize that excellence--not mediocrity--is the quality standard to aim for. Race is not an issue for these immigrants because there is equality of opportunity for everyone to succeed in the United States. Let's get beyond race--it has no place in public policy. The more we voluntarily segregate ourselves, the more we're distracted from more important issues facing our country and world.
Warren Case of Marlborough, MA writes:
I doubt there can be a candid discussion on race relations-- not in this age of political correctness... Guilt, more than anything else, is responsible for the current state of black/white affairs... Knee-jerk liberal guilt in particular. As long as people continue to delude themselves with the ideal (idiotic) notion that all groups (races), ON AVERAGE, have the same untapped capabilities-- given the same opportunities, we can never address the real root of the problem. The point is, different races have different ON AVERAGE capabilities.
Ron Okpisz of Tucson, AZ writes:
A Ph.D on Nightline, I don't remember her name, brought up an interesting point regarding Affirmative Action... there's no reason racially why blacks and Hispanics and other minorities can't or won't be allowed into universities except for their lack of knowledge and education and preparation. This isn't necessarily because of their race, but because many of the minorities haven't had the same opportunities in education and jobs as whites, who have had these benefits and the time to become educated and successful in this country...
...we are going to have problems with "relations" not necessarily because of "race" but because of economic disparity between classes of which most of the poorest and those with the least opportunity are minorities...
Lee Prince, Hansville, WA writes:
The difference in perception between black and white in this country is largely media created. The President exacerbates the problem by continuing to highlight division and even sponsor "apologies" for historical events (next we'll apologize to the Indians for even being here).
The answer is achievement. If folks would stop "race baiting" and let true achievement--NOT affirmative action, NOT preferences, or even dialogue, race relations would heal.
It has to heal day by day working together, NOT by government action. Government action will make the problem worse.
Phil Sexton of Panama City Beach, FL writes:
Until we forget about classifying everyone by race, there will be racial trouble.
I do not know what my "race" consists of. My skin is white. But I know nothing of some of my ancestors beyond my grandparents. And I believe most folks in the U.S. have the same situation. So what am I? Should I be categorized as "white" because my skin is fair? Should my neighbor who is black of skin be classified as "African-American" on that account? How do we know? We must start by ceasing all government classification by race. That is an essential beginning to stopping racial division.
D. E. Halloran of Dayton, OH writes:
As a white African-American (one set of grandparents from South Africa and one set from Egypt), I would like to know why the media, as well as "civil rights" leaders consistently consider all African-Americans to be black. I would like my ethnicity recognized also.
Robert Jackson writes:
To resolve our ethnic issues in this country, I believe we need to:
1) Realize that the only race is the human race
2) Realize that each culture of people have different issues-- African Americans/native Americans/Mexican-Americans have been abused in this country and we need to design programs to restore parity. Are these programs fair? Was 400 years of slavery/cruelty fair to African-Americans? Was it fair to take the country away from Native Americans?
3) Realize that fairness is in the eye of the beholder. How come no one files a lawsuit when someone gets admitted to law school because of nepotism?...
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
