Does everyone have an equal playing field?

Have you ever found yourself wondering why you are more successful than others? Do you believe everyone has an equal chance of being successful? In our society many white people will admit that minorities (specifically African Americans and Natives) have more barriers in their road to success due to the past/present inequalities they face; however a very small amount of white people will admit that they became so successful due to the privileges they face from their skin color. White Privilege is a term that is not often talked about especially by the white population. So what does “White Privilege” entail?

White Privilege:

1. a. A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by white persons beyond the common advantage of all others; an exemption in many particular cases from certain burdens or liabilities.
b.A special advantage or benefit of white persons; with reference to divine dispensations, natural advantages, gifts of fortune, genetic endowments, social relations, etc. 

It is clear that white privilege occurs in the everyday lives of the white population, so why do the majority of white people not acknowledge their privilege? I think it’s because if the white population admit to having an advantage due to their skin color it may take some of their credibility for superiority away. Everyone may realize they got that CEO position not because they are smarter but since they have white privilege which allows them to be more capable of doing the job; maybe they have that high GPA in secondary school because they have their tuition paid for from their parents so they don’t have to hold a part time job while in school. As long as white privilege occurs so will racism and inequality for minorities, if one group is at an advantage then that means there is also a group that is disadvantaged.

It seems to me that the majority of the white population is willing to assist minorities and try to help solve their inequality issues. However they are unwilling to give up the power and advantages they face due to their skin color. As a result of this there will always be a class system in society which will create inequalities. It is important to recognize the privileges white people obtain and realize that minorities are not inferior but instead they are faced with inequalities which hold them back. When white people realize they are privileged it may help them to be more sympathetic and understanding towards the minorities who may not have a high education or a job. This can help reduce the negative image of the minorities and may open opportunities to them.

Stereotypes in Hollywood Films, Stories and Games

What’s the first though that pops into your mind when thinking about an Italian in a Hollywood movie? Or an Indian in a western movie? An African American playing sports? Picture Harlem what does it look like and who are the people living in it? When you think of a Gangster is he white?

All Italians Are In The Mafia

All Indians Are Barbaric and Prey on the Innocent 

. 

All Black People are Good Athletes

The Hollywood film industry is more sensitive to issues of gender and culture than it once was however movies are continuously spreading misconceptions about groups/people based on stereotypes. When negative connotations are linked to specific people it can develop into prejudice and eventually discrimination. In today’s society many minorities are faced with discrimination due to the media/Hollywood’s representation of them. For example; western movies create a stereotype of the Indians being barbaric blood thirsty killers who hunt the weak and the innocent.The cowboys are seen as a strong heroic (white European) constantly battling the deviant Indians. Anyone who has learned about the residential schools in Canada/Australia will know that the white Europeans (Cowboys) were the ones committing a cultural genocide. However as these false representations are constantly available though media/movies they become believable and accepted.  

Hollywood movies are not the only sources keeping stereotypes alive. In one of my University classes we examined two different articles. The first article "Toys of Genocide, Icons of American Colonialism" was based on the concept of Cowboys and Indians. This game seems to be an innocent way for kids to have fun however this article points out that there is much more meaning behind the popular western game. The concept of the game (in my experience) was to have the cowboys as the good guys and the Indians as the bad guys, the good guys would serve protect the their town, while the  Indians attempt to attack and take over the town. Through this game we begin the formation of identity-making with the cowboys (white people) having a positive image and Indians (indigenous people) having a negative image.

The second article "The “Old West” in the Middle East: U.S. Military Metaphors in Real and Imagined Indian Country" outlined how inaccurate portrayals and misconceptions can be accepted by society. In this article the U.S. uses a metaphor called the "Indian Country". This metaphor created by the U.S. military envisioned the Indian Country as "a metaphor used by U.S. military personnel to refer to hostile, unpurified territories in active war zones” (Silliman, 2008, p.237). This metaphor was able to transform the perception of what the actual Indian country is. Instead of envisioning a country with rich culture, loving family’s prosperous communities; we in vision savages who are inferior and always looking for confrontation.  These articles show that it does not matter if a story is true as long as it is believable and the public accepts it. 

As a result from these stereotypes Indigenous people are still feeling the effects of racism today their once rich culture full of important traditions have been replaced by the Western worlds caricature.

 The Affects of Residential Schools on Aboriginals Education 

Residential schools had a very negative impact on the Aboriginal population as there was not only many innocent casualties but a cultural genocide had also occurred. Residential schools had a profound impact on the aboriginal children as many were forced forget their own culture and learn the Western/European teachings and culture. This section will analyze a few ways in which the Aboriginal population is still affected today (specifically education) as a result of the residential schools; also if Canada uses imperialism in its education today. 

The first section we will analyze is the literacy rates among the Aboriginal population.

The International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey (IALSS) surveyed the Aboriginal population aged 16 and over living in urban Manitoba, in urban Saskatchewan, in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, as well as the Inuit population in Nunavut.

Their scores were marked from 1 to 5 based on their comprehension of each of three types of literacy: prose literacy, document literacy, quantitative literacy (English/French).

The prose literacy performance of the Aboriginal populations surveyed was lower than that of the total Canadian population reflecting, at least in part, differing levels of formal schooling and use of a mother tongue other than English or French.

 Over one-half of the Aboriginal people living in the Yukon, about 69% of the Aboriginal population in the Northwest Territories and 88% of Inuit in Nunavut scored below Level 3 on the prose literacy scale.

About 60% of the urban Aboriginal population in both provinces scored below Level 3 on the prose scale. This compared with 45% of the non-Aboriginal population of Manitoba, and 39% of the non-Aboriginal population of Saskatchewan.

A very important point to outline in this survey is the fact that the testing was in English and French (Canadian national languages), however a high portion of Aboriginals (especially in Nunavut) communicate though their native language. Over 60% of respondents in Nunavut indicated a mother tongue of Inuktitut and over half of the population reported using this language on an everyday basis. So, while the survey does indeed measure the competencies in each domain in French or English, it does not provide an accurate picture of the intelligence of this population as the test is not written in their native language. This survey shows me that Canada has still not gotten over imperialism as they only value their national languages for the literacy testing. I know that if a Canadian who spoke English/French had to take a test written in Inuktitut (mother tongue of Aboriginals) they would score well below the level three ranges also! 

The next section I will analyze is Schooling:

According to the 2006 Census, more than one-third, or 38 per cent, of the Aboriginal population has some type of post-secondary education. This includes apprenticeships, trades certificates, diplomas, and college and university degrees. Of those who pursue post-secondary education, 19 per cent chose college, or another non-university diploma.

Thirty-eight per cent of the Aboriginal population has not completed high school. A common term used to describe these people is “drop outs”; this is a very negative term as it implies quitting. I think it is important to find out why these students have left school instead of judging them on “lack of motivation”.

One reason why there may be so many Aboriginals who leave school is due to the curriculum. In most of the Canadian school systems the motto is: “strive for excellence”. So who decides what excellence is? When looking at the school board/teachers the majority that I have encountered are white European’s, these are the people who create the lesson plans for the students. After talking to many friends and asking the classmates everyone had the same conclusion; these white teachers focus on Western European culture for their teachings. I remember there being 1 day out of the school year in which we recognize a minority group/political activist (Martin Luther King, Aboriginal day), and after that day is over we forget about them for another year. In my experience when a unit was taught on aboriginal culture it would be heavily influenced though propaganda. It would ignore the past cultural genocide that was committed by the white Europeans and focus on basic information of Aboriginals. If Aboriginals cannot learn about their heritage, traditions and culture their interest in school may decrease drastically thus resulting in a high “dropout” rate among Aboriginals.

Canada has apologized for the residential schools as they were a form of cultural genocide, trying to wipe out the Aboriginal culture not only through killing many innocent Aboriginals but also enforcing Western culture and practices among the Aboriginals. In the apology speech it makes reference to not enforcing Canadian traditions/culture on the Aboriginals any more, however there continues to be an imperialistic view among the Canadian school system as the curriculum focuses on Western European culture. 

University degrees: 

More Aboriginal people are earning university degrees. In 2006, nine per cent of the Aboriginal population had a university degree, compared to seven percent in 2001. Aboriginal people still lag behind the non-Aboriginal population, whose percentage increased from 23 per cent in 2001 to 26 per cent in 2006. This indicates a slightly widening gap.

 Some reasons for this widening gap are:

·  Residential schools have had a profound and continuous negative impact on Aboriginals today. Abject housing conditions and health care, lack of job opportunities and low income contribute to a lower quality of life for Canada’s indigenous people. All of these inequalities lead to a lack of opportunity for secondary schooling.

·  As we learned in Class “whiteness/white privilege” has a huge impact on the amount of opportunities and doors that are opened to white people. The majority of the white population is born into a family with, resources (money, car, house, and food), connections for jobs, opportunity to play sports, live in a friendly neighborhood, etc…

·      Many Aboriginals do not have positive role models in their lives to help motivate them to achieve a higher education or aspire to be successful.

· Aboriginals continue to live in poverty thus don’t have money for education.

·   Many status Aboriginals live on reserves which can be far away from University’s/college and may not have transportation.

·  Another very important aspect for the lack of Aboriginals attending secondary education is Lack of Funding from the Canadian Government! 

The following is an article from Canada News Wire about the lack of government funding for Aboriginals to attend secondary schooling. 

http://www.newswire.ca/fr/story/602551/canadians-head-back-to-school-aboriginal-students-still-shut-out

What Is Race?

   When you think of race what is the first attribute that comes to mind For 

me it use to be skin color. After going into further analysis on race I began 

to understand that there are many attributes that contribute to race other 

than skin color. A man named Robert Miles has a book in which he explains 

why he puts "race" in quotations. Miles makes the argument that race is 

not an object by itself but that there are many factors that can contribute 

to ones race. Miles believes that there is a social construction for race 

which requires and explanation. Miles talks about the process of 

"racialization", in which race is formed by specific economic, political and 

ideological relations.

    

    During one of my University classes we looked at how "racialization" is 

a process and a revolving circle. In this circle biological ideals of race lead 

preconceived notions to cultural ideas of race, which leads to people 

believing "race" is fixed to certain bodies (skin color/shape of skull) and 

eventually social exclusion/material inequality. As a result of this revolving 

circle the white British/Europeans were able to control the public's view on 

people from different "races" (Africans, Natives). The view of the Africans, 

Indians and even Irish was negative thus they were seen as inferior to the 

brilliant Europeans, as a result the inferior struggled with poverty, 

inequalities and lack of freedom. The Europeans compared pictures of the 

Irish, African's and Europeans, in which there were some clear distinctions 

in facial features and skin pigment. It is important to point out that these 

differences were often over exaggerated. Due to these distinctions the 

Europeans justified that they were the elite/superior and the other "races" 

were inferior. If we continued that biased judgment on "race" today 

anyone who did not look like a typical European would be viewed as 

inferior and isolated into discrimination.

    

     We cannot make a class system through the judgment of someone's 

biological make up. One example we see today is our police force; if they 

only relied on arresting people with dark skin then there would be a 

countless number of innocent people going to jail while a "typical white 

Canadian" could commit crimes and bring no attention. A common term 

related to when police officers judge someone based on their skin color is 

DWB (Driving While Black) this term has been coined after an increase in 

racial profiling. The police force has taken much heat over the controversy 

of a preconceived notion based on someones skin color.You cannot know 

someone's race just though biology it is important to look deeper into 

their social, political and ideological functions of race. 

     Races do not exist in isolation or in any objective reality, but are part 

of the social and political life of nations. You cannot know someone or 

judge someone solely on the pigment of their skin or what they look like. 

Whoever it is whatever their skin color it is more important to realize you 

don't know someone until you know their actions, culture, ideology and 

social values. 

Rex Murphy: Enough With The Race Card Morgan Freeman

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/01/rex-murphy-enough-with-the-race-card-morgan-freeman/

It’s hard to say bad things about Morgan Freeman. He once played Nelson Mandela, for lord’s sake. Can anybody think of a sweeter countenance than his, when that signature slow smile lights up his features? And who can resist the voice?

But after reading his comments made to Larry King’s CNN replacement, Piers Morgan, I am disappointed. He says the current backlash against Barack Obama, most particularly as that backlash is represented by the Tea Party faction of the American public, is “a racist thing.”

“Stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term,” he said. “What … underlines that? Screw the country. We’re going to do whatever we do to get this black man … outta here. … It just shows the weak, dark, underside of America. We’re supposed to be better than that.”

Now, such a statement coming from one of the professional race-mongers and grievance-collectors in the United States – say, Al Sharpton – would hardly raise an eyebrow. For such as he, the race card is the only one in the deck. But in the case of someone as apparently reasonable as Morgan Freeman (we’ve all seen him in interviews on other topics, and he appears to be everything pleasant and decent), it’s more disturbing. We can wonder if he has given up thinking altogether.

Freeman’s performance suggests the observation that those who choose to see the world through a racist prism are more interested in their precious prism than the world. There must be some sort of deep comfort in being able to hold a fixed mindset on so charged a subject, and to hold it in defiance of all the changes and improvements that have marked relations between blacks and whites over the last 50 years.

It may be a comfort but it is very wrong.

Listening to this star, a lot of Americans might raise the question: “Just what do we as individuals and as a nation have to do to discard this weary presumption of racism?” Obviously, there is no need to go back as far as the Civil War to point out the terrible costs the young country had endured to place slavery behind it. The nation made war with itself to correct its fundamental moral imbalance.

It would be fair to ask Morgan Freeman: Has he been paying attention to America since the days of Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson? Has there ever been a country so dedicated to eliminating not just overt racism, but what it sees as the legacy of racism, the outcrops and tracings of racism built up over time?

Was the legislation of the Great Society not, in large part, an effort to uplift those most left behind and facing the highest hurdles? What has been the meaning of the now generations-old policy of affirmative action? What has been the meaning of the vast educational programs combating racism, which have resulted in a population that – correctly – sees even a hint of actual racist practice or language as something to be abhorred, the great sin of our times?

Has Freeman, finally, ignored all those great Hollywood films, from To Kill A Mockingbird on, that have set out to educate America on the virtues of a race-blind society? A racist country doesn’t yield the producers who make those kind of films. I don’t give Hollywood much credit usually, but it has been anti-racist to its core.

But fly past all the history, and the change of social attitude of the last 50 or so years. Was not Freeman watching when Obama and his team knocked out Hillary Clinton – the strongest white (it’s necessary in this context to point that out) candidate the Democratic party has had in decades? Was he not watching when a man with the exotic name — a feature Obama himself delights to point out — of Barack Hussein Obama trounced a white war hero, and ever so easily, for President? Does a “racist” society elect a black man President?

Obama’s winning — and his subsequent trials as President — seem to have made America more racist in Morgan’s eyes. I tremble to think the interpretation he would have put on Obama losing.

Freeman has done much disservice with his observations. By attempting to paint genuine opposition to Obama’s policies as racism, he has shown himself blind to how much Americans beset by economic anxieties have fair reason to be dissatisfied with the Obama administration. Tea Party or no Tea Party, they’d be on Hillary Clinton’s case just the same if she were similarly presiding over a wrecked economy and a high unemployment rate.

The core of haters, like Christ said of the poor, will always be with us. It is massively unfair though, as Morgan Freeman has done, to try and paint America of 2011 as little to be distinguished from those deplorable days when Rosa Parks had to assert her simple right to a seat on a bus.

There are many issues I have the the writer (Rex Murphy) of this article. The fist point is that he is "disappointed" in Freeman for expressing the way he feels about Obama's position as president. Freeman expresses his concerns with the belief that Obama will be thrown out of his presidency after one term due to the backlash of the public. This backlash is fueled by the fact that Obama is the first black president. Rex Murphy calls Freeman's statements disturbing and "wonders if he has given up thinking altogether". In my opinion Rex Murphy is out of his mind to make a comment like this is he blind to all of the racist statements and protests against Obama?