The slippery slope

[PCM]

This excellent column by Wendy McElroy provides terrific insight on the true meaning of "cultural diversity" and its ultimate goals.

A White Oppressor? Who Me?

Your daughter is enrolled at a major university that has well-defined policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race. She decides to attend a campus event. The organizers forbid her entry because of her skin color: white.

"I welcomed her anyway, in addition to telling the audience to conduct themselves with integrity even though the presence of a white woman was unwelcome," she said.

Nevertheless, I've heard the charge of "white privilege" so often that I've numbed to its meaning and implications. That is a mistake. The accusation is too often a racial attack, and those who hurl it are too often oppressors in sheep's clothing.

This is the ultimate result of people who want to open or close a public door based solely on skin color. They force you to think in racial categories, and that process can become a slippery slope into racism. It is a slide I refuse to make.

[mikejm]

A part of me (the black-helicopters-over-the-horizon part) believes that there is a political move afoot through which our American citizenry is rounded up into little sub-categories (racial, socioeconomic, etc.) with the express objective to disintergrate the republic.

I remember when we were all "Americans". Heck, I'm a mutt; my people were tossed out of most of western Europe and came here with their tails tucked between their tails. Yes, they were Germans and Irish and English and whatnot. But once they came here they were feircely proud Americans.

I think we all were that way. But in the last 20 or maybe even 30 years, I've seen us start to unravel a bit: now we're German-Americans and Irish-Americans and Anglo-Americans. It is really subtle, but there's a crack opening in the weave of the national fabric.

Once we're all divided up, we start seeing how maybe those damn Krauts got a little better deal than the Micks, and all of a sudden we're upset and we want our's too. And we start bellyaching, and crying nationalism or racism or whatever.

And maybe some politician comes along and agrees with us and says we can do you better if we only get rid of "them" or what they're doing to us. We start thinking in terms of "me" instead of "we"; and the republic frays a little more.

I don't know if this is making any sense, but its alarming to me.

[Sioux-cia]

I apologise if this is a repeat. I'm having trouble with sending messages tonight.

I have made it known to all here that I am a woman of color, I am a bleeding heart liberal, I am a Catholic, I am a single parent, I am pro-Fighting Sioux, I am most things that would make most conservatives 'shutter at the thought'. BUT I am here to tell you that the Northeastern University of Boston's actions in this instance are NOT acceptable in my world. Before anyone takes off on this article, this is NOT the action of Liberals, this is the action of a racist organization who should lose all their federal funding. WAY TO GO NW, GREAT WAY TO EDUCATE AND BRIDGE THE 'DIFFERENCES.'

I agree with you mikejm, this is very scary.

[new2sioux2]

what a shame! It was a very interesting article. I wonder though, if I would have ever read it if it weren't for PCM again coming through with some insightful article...it also makes me wonder that if it would have been a reverse situation where a white group was trying to keep anyone out based on skin color (which is totally unacceptable too) if we would have seen it on the national news! She makes excellent points. This Chandler woman should be out of a job! I'm all for keeping with the "Great Melting Pot"

[PCM]

I don't know if this is making any sense, but its alarming to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It makes perfect sense to me. I once worked with a man from the former Yugoslavia who told me in great detail how the situation in that country quickly went to hell when when each faction decided that it needed its own country which excluded others not like them.

If you happened to be a Serb living in Croatia or Bosnia, you were suddenly a second-class citizen with no rights and, often times, no property and no job. When the Serbs responded in kind, they were accused of ethnic cleaning, which they were doing. But the same types of things the Serbs were doing to Bosnians and Croats in Serbia were also being done to Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia.

That's why it turned into such a bloody mess. Each faction was working so hard to rid its own little piece of the world of people who didn't share the same religion or ethnic background.

My friend knew this for a fact because his father, mother and sister who were from Montenego (not Serbs) were trapped in Croatia. His father's job, apartment and car were taken away and given to Croats. My friend was once given permission to visit his relatives in Croatia. When he came back, he said that the TV and radio broadcasts there were nothing but hate-filled rants against the Serbs.

[HockeyMom]

I don't think this nation will crumble.

It was pretty divided after the election of 2000. Then on September 11th, 2001, someone tried to crush our country. Look what happened. EVERYONE stood up together and no one can deny that the patriotism that emerged in the aftermath was something to behold.

The United States is not perfect, but I'll be dammed if someone's going to try and take it from us.

[PCM]

I don't think this nation will crumble.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn't suggesting that what happened in Yugoslavia could happen here. People in that part of the world had major problems before Tito forced them to cooperate at the point of a gun. As soon as communism crumbled, it was back to business as usual.

[Diggler]

So we don't need to discuss the socio-political ramifications that Kupchella has on the Yanomano people of Brazil?

[Bacardio]

I don't think this nation will crumble.

It was pretty divided after the election of 2000.

[dagies]

Amen, Bacardio.

[new2sioux2]

This topic really hits me hard. For years I have asked, why can you have an all-black fraternity/sorority on campus, but an all-white one is considered racist, how come you can have a college that is all women, but you can not have an all-male military academy, how come you can have an an all-black (or hispanic) magaizine, but an all-white one is called propaganda for the KKK.

Because...as the author of the article said....for whites...racial pride is taboo. More political correctness. All in all...this is still the best country in the world. We have our problems, but hey...GOD BLESS AMERICA

[PCM]

I didn't mean for this to turn into a discussion about national politics. I brought up the civil war in Yugoslavia to illustrate an extreme example of what can happen when people choose to continually emphasize their differences and segregate themselves from those who aren't like them.

I understand what mikejm and Bacardio are saying. The Sioux name issue is a microcosm of a larger problem.

[redwing77]

I'm at work so this will be brief (gotta go pick up the kids from gym in like... 5 minutes).

Bacardio- You didn't go too far for my tastes, but probably for Knowthefacts/GK's tastes. No one likes to be told that changing the way we think demands a bit of conformity, a scary word these groups don't seem to understand. Right now, NA people think "YOu have to be us to understand us so if you are not, don't try, you're racist if you do."

Sioux-cia- The removal of funding wouldn't put them on their pedestal. They'd be forced to compete with the whites and blacks and asians for everything. Their entitlement beliefs prevent their success in this. But this may be the only way to help them understand. And doing this because of the nickname would be wrong.

Short, sorta confusing, and incomplete. I'll try to explain better later.

[MafiaMan]

I have made it known to all here that I am a woman of color, I am a bleeding heart liberal, I am a Catholic, I am a single parent, I am pro-Fighting Sioux, I am most things that would make most conservatives 'shutter at the thought'.

[engelbunny]

... I am a bleeding heart liberal, ..., I am most things that would make most conservatives 'shutter at the thought'. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find this to be quite interesting and something of a disconnect for me. I enjoy reading your posts and if it were not for you proclaiming your liberalness, I wouldn't think to put you in that category.

With having never met you, my opinion from your posts is that you are an advocate for personal responsibility, you feel that respect is to be earned by ones actions towards themselves and others, you put your family first, are God-fearing, love your country, and can form a coherent and well-reasoned argument based upon facts and logic rather than emotion.

Those are not traits that I connect with liberalism. Maybe because in my mind, the word "liberal" has been hijacked by the very far left extremists and doesn't mean what it used to anymore.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass or anything, I'm just kind of scratching my head.

[Sioux-cia]

[MafiaMan]

Further proving that extremists on either side of the aisle are no good, Sioux-cia. However, I don't think conservatives alone are responsible for the slandering of the word "liberal". It would seem the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party has done a good job of that all by itself (Charlie Rangel, Ward Churchill, etc.).

[engelbunny]

As for social reform, I throw this in because I do not believe that regardless of the way the Fighting Sioux logo ends, I do not believe that the American Indian programs should be discontinued or no longer supported by the University.  The reasons are obvious to all on this forum as the 'plight' of the American Indian has been discussed in many posts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am in complete agreement with the above statement. You don't punish the whole for the sins of a few. Yet, I would have a hard time labeling myself as a liberal.

[PCM]

You simply can't pigeonhole people based on which party they belong to or whether they call themselves liberal or conservative.

My mother has been a card-carrying Republican for most of her life, but also considers herself a pro-abortion feminist. My sister is liberal, but is also a firm believer in a strong military and national security. My brother is very conservative, but hates Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. When I refer to myself as a conservative, some seem to think that means I march in lock-step with Rush Limbaugh and believe every word of the Bible, neither of which is true.

There are probably a lot of issues on which Sioux-cia and I would disagree, but based on what she's written here, we'd probably also find common ground on other issues. And that's fine. It's what America's supposed to be about. If your viewpoint isn't shared by the majority, then you do what you can to convince, persuade, cajole and influence people to agree with you.

You don't accuse anyone who disagrees with you of engaging in "hate speech." You don't claim that disagreement is the same as disrepect. You don't label people you don't even know as "hostile and abusive" for not sharing your opinion. And you don't cry "racism!" when you can't even convince the majority of members of your own race to agree with you.

I'm often frustrated with the editorial positions of the Grand Forks Herald, but on Sunday, editorial writer Tom Dennis made some very astute observations about the Sioux name issue. He wrote:

By trying to coerce UND into making such a hot-button change, the NCAA inspired not cooperation but backlash, by nickname supporters and the university alike.

The NCAA made them dig in their heels. In fact, there's a good chance that the association now has made a nickname change less likely at UND. The university feels it hasn't been given a fair hearing and seems willing to fight all the way to the courts. If UND wins one of those appeals - an outcome that's quite possible - the prospect of the school changing its nickname willingly will have been set back by years.

Can the association ease the hostile and abusive climate that its own heavy-handed actions helped create?

Dennis is exactly right. The NCAA has only polarized North Dakotans more and made the situation worse by engaging in coercion instead of persuasion. He also said:

North Dakotans always have chafed at distant powers deciding what's best for the state. So, the sooner the association (NCAA) can stop proclaiming and start listening, the better.

This is a unique aspect of North Dakota heritage that the NCAA obviously doesn't understand. Moving here from South Dakota, it took me several years of living in this state before I really understood how North Dakota's history continues to influence the thinking of North Dakotans today. The NCAA had no idea what it was in for when it decided to issue demands to us rubes out here in flyover country. They'll get more of a fight than they ever expected.

Until that fight is over, I'm glad to have someone with Sioux-cia's perspective and eloquence as an ally.

[MafiaMan]

You simply can't pigeonhole people based on which party they belong to or whether they call themselves liberal or conservative.

My mother has been a card-carrying Republican for most of her life, but also considers herself a pro-abortion feminist. My sister is liberal, but is also a firm believer in a strong military and national security. My brother is very conservative, but hates Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. When I refer to myself as a conservative, some seem to think that means I march in lock-step with Rush Limbaugh and believe every word of the Bible, neither of which is true.

There are probably a lot of issues on which Sioux-cia and I would disagree, but based on what she's written here, we'd probably also find common ground on other issues. And that's fine. It's what America's supposed to be about. If your viewpoint isn't shared by the majority, then you do what you can to convince, persuade, cajole and influence people to agree with you.

You don't accuse anyone who disagrees with you of engaging in "hate speech." You don't claim that disagreement is the same as disrepect. You don't label people you don't even know as "hostile and abusive" for not sharing your opinion.  And you don't cry "racism!" when you can't even convince the majority of members of your own race to agree with you.

I'm often frustrated with the editorial positions of the Grand Forks Herald, but on Sunday, editorial writer Tom Dennis made some very astute observations about the Sioux name issue. He wrote:

Dennis is exactly right. The NCAA has only polarized North Dakotans more and made the situation worse by engaging in coercion instead of persuasion. He also said:

This is a unique aspect of North Dakota heritage that the NCAA obviously doesn't understand. Moving here from South Dakota, it took me several years of living in this state before I really understood how North Dakota's history continues to influence the thinking of North Dakotans today. The NCAA had no idea what it was in for when it decided to issue demands to us rubes out here in flyover country. They'll get more of a fight than they ever expected.

Until that fight is over, I'm glad to have someone with Sioux-cia's perspective and eloquence as an ally.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well put, PCM. I agree. Finding common ground is what it's all about.

[redwing77]

I agree, PCM.

However, Sioux-cia, I will have to agree to disagree with your perception of what a liberal is. It is true that the word 'liberal' wasn't always a term best used to describe the wackos like Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan, etc. However, words in time change. Democrats have stayed the same but everyone has moved to the left.

Howard "The Scream" Dean, during his campaign, had insinuated that what the NCAA ended up doing would have been supported by him. And now he leads the DNC.

I used to be a 'liberal' or, at best, an Independent with liberal leanings. Now, I find that I'm more of a Centerist than anything mainly because of the acts of the Democratic Party as of late and the fact that there are ideas that Republicans have done currently and in the past that just make sense. Also, the farther left you get, the closer to socialism you get. Socialism=Demise of USA, IMO.

You can call yourself a liberal if you wish, I'm not going to judge you for it, but IMO, you definitely come across far more right on the spectrum than you'd think.

P.S. FYI- Did you know that the person who presented Roe v Wade was Republican? Justice Blackmun was actually a conservative republican. Didnt know that. It's nice having a friend who is a judge on the Appellate Courts.

[The Sicatoka]

We try to slap a label on something and claim we understand it. The world is much more complex than labels.

You can interact with the world one of two ways:

- You can open your mind and enjoy and embrace the naturally occuring diversity of everything around you accepting that some things may be novel and some common, some good and some bad, some miserable and some enjoyable

or

- You can put labels on everything as an attempt to pigeon-hole everything around you into simple little conformist containers that your brain can wrap itself around so you never have to think about and understand the complexity that is everything.

[Sioux-cia]

I'm just glad that we're all on the same side of the Fighting Sioux logo.

Wouldn't it be boring if we were all on the same side of everything? I love not being a Vikings or Twins fan in North Dakota. It makes watching the games more fun. My best friend is married to a Packer fan and we have a wonderful rivalry which includes my sticking pins into a Packer doll I have Voodoo style before they play the Bears and mailing him a tiny coffin with a Packer doll in it before the BIG games. But I will cheer for the Pack when they play the Vikings especially when surrounded by Viking fans. Lots of fun!!

As PCM so eloquently writes, none of us is really all one thing or the other. I cross the line when I vote because I vote for the person not the party. I don't align myself with liars like Churchill who clearly are not really for an issue as much as they are publicity hounds whose real goals are notoriety and probably financial gain. I have much more familiar and, likely unpopular, liberal views that are not appropriate to bring to this forum. Those that I did present are IMHO liberal views while many of you believe they lean more to the right; see, we're not so far apart.