let go

of course, making us "cultured" portlanders look so wonderful, someone from the city of roses had to do it.

that's the thing with portland. a lot of the white people like to tell themselves that they're not racist (for lack of a better word....partial maybe?), but really it's just undercover. you know, in the south, people are very up front about what type of people they don't like. but portland, people pride themselves on being liberal, and progressive, yadda yadda. actually for the people who moved into the inner city, it's more about feeling "cultured" while at the same time not truly wanting anything to do with black people.

from what i see, the white people who have flocked to the inner city want to be surrounded by other white people. yet they'll talk all day about how portland has so much culture. it's pretty interesting.

i totally digress.

back to the news article.

i don't understand why so many white people can't seem to just let go. let go of the fact that black people have and will continue to overcome the past oppression. some just refuse to let racism die. why?? it's as though they're still hoping to benefit from black oppresssion and refuse to accept the "possibility" of total equality.

that's not racist

it's taken me a while to become more motivated to write, and yes, here in "white" portland, oregon of course there is always some nonsense to write about.

why is it that white people always feel the need to tell black people what is racist and what's not?
note to white people: if a black person is offended by a (what they consider to be) racial remark, do not attempt to tell them WHY it is NOT racist.

i see this all the time and recently experienced it. my husband and i have a friend who lives nearby, a white woman who we've known for not very long down the block (some of my readers may know that we recently bought a house in the beaumont/alameda neighborhood). she's a great person, she means well, but cannot catch a clue to save her life. she's one of those italians with the really thick, tightly curled hair. i've heard her complain that her hair is 'nappy'. okay, that's fine, maybe so. that doesn't offend me. shoot, it probably is nappy. but she had the nerve to call one of my kids, 'nappyhead'.

that's where i draw the line. i told her that that was racist, that i didn't appreciate it, and she went on to tell me that it 'was not a racist remark' because she too had nappy hair. so that made it okay.

but people in portland somehow feel so open and so "progressive" and so cultural even though it's not really diverse at all. there's the FEELING of diversity because they pass by a black person while jogging, or walking down alberta street. so i think white people think that they can define or determine what is racist talk and what is not.

cesar chavez

i think we all know the real reason why no one wants any streets renamed "cesar chavez blvd". they can claim all they want that money is the issue. mmmmm....that may be part of it. but i guarantee you that even if it didn't cost a thing, people would still be outraged.

there was a segment on the news last night about store owners on broadway street upset about the proposal, arguing that they'd have to rename their stores. yeah right! since when does the name of a business always reflect the street it's on? never! how many "laurelhurst dental" or "rose city this or that" businesses exist outside the heart of that neighborhood?

white people just don't want to admit that they don't want to give "some mexican" any props. they want to keep the negative stigma about mexicans, the same way they like to do with black people. to change a street name to reflect cesar chavez to them would be just....wrong. (eyeroll)

who really cares what the name of a street is??

seriously?

this is a bit off-topic as i like to post about issues surrounding portland oregon, something got under my skin bigtime tonight. so i must post about it.

as i flipped through the channels i stumbled upon CNN'S "Black in America" hosted by Soledad O'brien.
first of all, the title suggests it encompases black people as a whole-as if all black people are experiencing what they're reporting on. and if you don't agree, think about if it were called "White in America". one would assume that this is a show reporting on what it's like to be white in america. and if they constantly aired trailer park trash, pot smoking, uneducated white people, it wouldn't sit well with viewers because it's inherently understood that the entire white race doesn't live that way. even the most ignorant uneducated black person living in the projects watching that would know that. but flip it for a minute. what happens when some white hick redneck living in the sticks of texas watches the show "black in america"? i bet they believe that almost all (if not all) black people act the way they see portrayed on the show.

haven't we overcome? i personally felt like once obama had been elected, we had. sure, there will always be the low class, trashy, gang-banging, etc. black folk, but there are many, many successful, educated, articulate and hardworking black people in america. yet this show, in all the 3 times i stumbled upon it consistently reports on the downtrodden, gang-banging, poverty stricken, high-school dropout, single welfare mama-type black people.

why not report on the upper class black people in america? isn't that being "black in america"? in my cynical mind it appears to be some type of conspiracy to focus on the negative, to keep the bigots and racists believing that all black people live in the slums, uneducated, and so on. maybe it's just more interesting to report on black people like that. maybe a show on the upper-class wealthy black doctors, lawyers, and professionals living life like everyone else doesn't "sell". maybe cnn knows that people like to see negative reporting on black americans. maybe they want to keep the stereotyping alive and well.

you might argue there there are a lot of black people living poorly, lazy and ghetto. perhaps it's true. but how come the show, being called "black in america" only focuses on the negative? if that is what sells and they must do it, why not rename the show something to the effect of "poor black america" so that we know which blacks they're reporting on. Black in america. if we're black, we must be like the struggling people on the show. why must we all be lumped in that title? i know way too many black people who aren't even close to the type of people they report on.
Soledad is such a tool.

cursed

first of all....yay obama!

but, i think black people are a cursed people. i told my mother this and she simply rolled her eyes and started preaching to me about how of course we're not cursed. i don't say 'cursed' in a way to mean that we are some substandard nonhumans. we are of course just like everyone else. i even took a black history class in college which addressed this subject due to the myth that some racist people feel black people are cursed. the class of course 'dispelled the myth'. we talked about where the myth came from.... the cain and abel story, how god told cain he would be a wanderer and cursed, etc., etc. we talked about the fact that that did not apply to the black race.

but what if it does? seriously. the way black people have always been oppressed, mistreated, judged and on and on. we've always had such a hard time. so different from other races. our hair is nappy---yes, we've learned to love it, we've risen above the oppression but throughout history, we've been so hated. why are we the only ones in the world with nappy hair? again black people have learned to deal with it, but it wouldn't be my first choice if it were somehow possible to scientifically change my hair type.

i don't mean in any way to say that black people-that we are bad people. but the fact that we've always had so much to overcome and still have a ways to go makes me think that we've been cursed.

and no, despite my blog, i don't hate myself or my race. i'm just looking at the black experience objectively.