I don't teach my kids to be racist

So there I was, with my wife and kids, in the living room one afternoon just hanging out. The television was on the Disney Channel as I'm sure many of you with small children and cable tv can relate. One show which gets its fair share of playback in our house is "The Suite Life on Deck". It is one of Disney's many sitcoms and is based on two, twin brothers and the hijinks which ensue on a cruise ship with school age kids. An episode began like so many others with the brothers, Zack and Cody, along with co-stars, getting involved in some mischief and having to work through it. This particular episode, titled "The Swede Life", as I've come to find out entails Zack and Cody's adventures in Sweden as they try to clear their family's ancestral name. Sounds like so many other television plots doesn't it? But something about it started to feel a bit off...

I suppose I could have began subconsciously pondering how the writers of the show arrived at the decision to make an episode based on Zack and Cody (Dylan and Cole Sprouse respectively) re-visiting their ancestors in Sweden. I mean, they are both white and have blonde hair right? So they fit the stereotype. And Disney felt no regret in applying that stereotype to the majority of the cast of "locals" for this episode.

I think it really got my attention when two of the co-stars, London Tipton and Bailey Pickett (Brenda Song and Debby Ryan respectively), tried to pass themselves off to some of the "locals" as being "one of them" by putting on blonde wigs, complete with braids no less, donning what looked to be a milk maids costume and speaking with what I'm certain everyone thought were very funny Swedish accents. (Sarcasm noted)

By now, I'm asking myself "Am I really seeing this?". So I sat and contemplated how no one at Disney caught this, seeing as how the company surely must be aware of their reputation for having produced other pieces with racist undertones that have been brought to light.

Regardless, the show continued. At the end, I was left wondering whether the folks at Disney had any idea about the message they were sending. More than that, however, is the question as to what kind of message my kids got out of the show. Honestly, I don't know yet. What I do know is that, next to family, media sources like television are the most influential in shaping the values of children who then carry those values with them as they grow into adults. And that started me thinking...

See, I don't teach my kids to be racists. Why would I? I want my children to be responsible members of society and to treat people fairly without regard to their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. I think there are plenty of people in society who feel the same as I do. But here's the issue. I have never sat any of my kids down and said to them, "You can't trust [fill in the blank]. They're lazy, good for nothing, and just want to be given everything." I don't have to. There are plenty of other sources of influence that will do that for me. If I fail to talk to my children about these sources, about how they can make racism or sexism seem like just "good, clean, fun" where "nobody gets hurt", then I am not part of the solution. William Blake (1757-1827) said "Active evil is better than passive good". I believe that in order to make progress toward a society in which people are treated fairly, with dignity and respect, we have to be active and good.

I'm pretty sure by now, at least one person is scratching their head saying to themselves "I don't get this guy. It's a tv show. People have been doing comedy bits like this for years. What's the big deal?" So check it out, here is a little test that I often rely upon to determine whether the behavior in question (in this case, people using stereotypes to make fun of a Swedes) is what I claim it to be. Take our example of the two cast members using stereotypes for laughs as seen in the picture above. Now replace the category of people whom they are stereotyping with another category. Let's say, instead of stereotyping Swedes, they were stereotyping Latinos. What do you think the reaction would be if people of non-Hispanic ancestry, dressed up in stereotypical Latino/Latina clothing and did a comedy sketch using overtly fake accents? In case you're having difficulty imagining such a thing, or if you happen to be in denial that people would ever do such a thing, allow me to share the following images with you:

 The photos above were taken from a party held off campus by students of Clemson University in South Carolina the day before Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday observance in 2007. After the party drew considerable unfavorable attention, some of the students issued an apology stating they didn't mean any harm. Last year (2010), at the University of California at San Diego, another group of students thought it would be a good idea to commemorate Black History month by having a party called a "Compton Cookout". There are no photos, but you can read the invitation below or at this link:

"February marks a very important month in American society. No, i'm not referring to Valentines day or Presidents day. I'm talking about Black History month. As a time to celebrate and in hopes of showing respect, the Regents community cordially invites you to its very first Compton Cookout.

For guys: I expect all males to be rockin Jersey's, stuntin' up in ya White T (XXXL smallest size acceptable), anything FUBU, Ecko, Rockawear, High/low top Jordans or Dunks, Chains, Jorts, stunner shades, 59 50 hats, Tats, etc.

For girls: For those of you who are unfamiliar with ghetto chicks-Ghetto chicks usually have gold teeth, start fights and drama, and wear cheap clothes - they consider Baby Phat to be high class and expensive couture. They also have short, nappy hair, and usually wear cheap weave, usually in bad colors, such as purple or bright red. They look and act similar to Shenaynay, and speak very loudly, while rolling their neck, and waving their finger in your face. 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.

Several of the regents condos will be teaming up to house this monstrosity, so travel house to house and experience the various elements of life in the ghetto.We will be serving 40's, Kegs of Natty, dat Purple Drank- which consists of sugar, water, and the color purple , chicken, coolade, and of course Watermelon.

So come one and come all, make ya self before we break ya self, keep strapped, get yo shine on, and join us for a day party to be remembered- or not."

Do you think maybe Disney might think twice before approving that for release onto the air? So what's the difference? Is it alright to make fun of one group of people but not another? Is racism against black or brown folks only wrong because they're the center of so much focus regarding racism? I hardly think so, but here's my larger point: Where do you suppose these kids got the bright idea that it was acceptable to do this sort of thing in the first place? No, I am not placing the blame on Disney, although in my opinion they do have to take ownership for their share of the problem. And if I don't teach my children otherwise, then so do I.

The Fear of Losing Control

I've spoken with many people about the link between power and discrimination. I came across an article today which touches on one of the replies I'm often presented with when I speak to some folks about race and inequality in the United States. It goes something like this: Well, it won't be long until we're [read: White folks] are the minority in this country anyway, so...

I often hear comments like this after someone is presented with information about the state of inequality that exists between Whites and people of color in this country. If the information being presented isn't something they can readily discount or rationalize, statements like the one above are used as if to say, "Well, that may be true, but it's too late now, so it doesn't really matter".

The article published in the Associated Press, which can be found here, doesn't present this argument explicitly, but it doesn't take much insight to see the privilege and bias hiding behind the veil.

Let's take a closer look...

Census shows whites lose US majority among babies

[Well, we haven't gotten past the title yet and one might already notice how White Americans have 'lost' the majority]

The article continues...

"We're moving toward an acknowledgment that we're living in a different world than the 1950s, where married or two-parent heterosexual couples are now no longer the norm for a lot of kids, especially kids of color," said Laura Speer, coordinator of the Kids Count project for the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation.

[Are we really not yet able to acknowledge that the world in which we are living is different than the 1950s? Some pretty momentous social changes have occurred in the past 50 years. I think most folks realize that. In fact, I'm pretty sure that realization is the impetus for the comment which follows regarding the parental 'norm' in U.S. households. Some may readily accept that because LGBT are more widely represented at present, that means there are more LGBT people. If it weren't for the fact that the U.S. population has almost doubled since the 1960 census, I would be much more than skeptical, especially since even the 2010 census doesn't solicit information about sexual orientation. If you'd like a more detailed explanation of the Availability Heuristic, click on this link.]

"It's clear the younger generation is very demographically different from the elderly, something to keep in mind as politics plays out on how programs for the elderly get supported," she said. "It's critical that children are able to grow to compete internationally and keep state economies rolling."

[So what I hear Ms. Speer saying is: there are a lot more children of color today than before. White folks have to be mindful of this because eventually, those children will be in charge of the social programs that will take care of White folks. Children of color are not getting the same education as White children. We have to do better if children of color are going to be in charge.]

The remainder of the article does not quote Ms. Speer. But it continues...

"Twelve states and the District of Columbia now have white populations below 50 percent among children under age 5 - Hawaii, California, New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Florida, Maryland, Georgia, New Jersey, New York and Mississippi. That's up from six states and the District of Columbia in 2000."

[It is probably not surprising that some of these states have also proposed, or already enacted, some of the toughest anti-immigration laws in the country. Arizona - Florida - Georgia - Mississippi]

"Among African-Americans, U.S. households headed by women - mostly single mothers but also adult women living with siblings or elderly parents - represented roughly 30 percent of all African-American households, compared with the 28 percent share of married-couple African-American households. It was the first time the number of female-headed households surpassed those of married couples among any race group, according to census records reviewed by Frey dating back to 1950."  [I'm not sure how this statistic ties in with the larger context of the article, but since the author brought it up perhaps we could address the U.S. criminal justice system that imprisons significantly more people of color than whites. I believe this would have a significant impact on whether a Black or Latino man is present in the household.]

 

http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=115

 The article concludes with this...

"Tony Perkins, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, a conservative interest group, emphasized the economic impact of the decline of traditional families, noting that single-parent families are often the most dependent on government assistance."
"The decline of the traditional family will have to correct itself if we are to continue as a society," Perkins said, citing a responsibility of individuals and churches. "We don't need another dose of big government, but a new Hippocratic oath of 'do no harm' that doesn't interfere with family formation or seek to redefine family.

[So what I hear Mr. Perkins saying is that even though the institutional systems, which are at the heart of much of the inequality experienced by people of color in the United States, are at fault, we're going to blame the victim. What I hear Mr. Perkins saying is that people of color are going to have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps because they're costing us too much money. What I hear Mr. Perkins saying is that the government should step aside and let "individuals and churches" fulfill their responsibility by "correcting" the problem of non-traditional families because those "non-traditional" families don't fit into his 'do no harm' philosophy.]

What this article comes down to, in my opinion, is that there are many White folks in the United States that are afraid. They are afraid of losing control. They have been living with privilege for so long, that the idea of losing that privilege is more than a little frightening. I believe that many white people are coming to terms with the fact that institutional racism does exist and has perpetuated an imbalanced and unfair playing field for people of color in this country. The idea that those who traditionally have not benefited from privilege will be able to affect enough change to make things more even disturbs some white folks because they're afraid some people of color will tip the scale in favor of themselves.