Oooh, ooh - I am smart. Here is my answer: people are generally defined nationally by the place (nation) where they were born and thus have citizenship (assuming they were not born somewhere whil their parents were vacationing and such...although that often leads to dual citizenship). If you and your parents were born in the same country, I would say you are a member of that nation. Further, if family births go back to the 19th century I would say that you belong to said "born-in" nation as well. I blow minds for a living.
Because they didn't have a better job offer elsewhere? The same reason immigrants end up washing dishes in restaurants, picking fruits in farms, and work as day laborers or prostitutes. As for immigrants who don't like this country and want to go home... many of them did... and many more stayed... and their kids and progenies are living their lives instead of worrying about how much dad or grandma hated this country. Whatever the world does to you, it's still your choice how you want to live your life. My dad washed dishes for $5 an hour for a few years after coming over from China in his 50s having worked as an engineer most of his life. I have a six figure job coming out of law school... life is a lot easier, whatever burden or history one or one's people bears, when you have resources.
Why are you hedging with the word "generally." That discredits all of your witty banter. I read some of your responses in this thread, and you were almost right when you cited that many black people still remember not being allowed to patron restaurants. But you just didn't take it far enough, and that is because you are not an expert on race. You were just going off the top of your head. Rimmy, I know that your whole identity is tied to being smarter than everybody else in the room. Art History degree right?
Let me guess: you're in your late teens/early twenties, and you just read an introductory text on Foucault.
Not really. I am a writer and am very strongly influenced by Ralph Ellison, William Faulkner, Mark Twain, WEB Dubois, James Baldwin and many others. I have an essay that touches on all of these issues that I have spoken about. I am apprehensive to post it, though, because of all the symbolism that I draw on to make my points.
Okay if you guys really want to know what I think, here it is: Emancipation Proclamation: The Emancipation Proclamation was not the day that black people became themselves free from slavery. For one thing, if the EP did anything at all for black people, it only laid the foundation to end the physical side of slavery. However, slavery was more than just a physical institution. There was also a strong mental aspect to slavery, and indeed the people who endured the physical side of it - and had come through - had often to battle mental oppression for many more years to come. This all very nearly goes without saying. I am not saying anything that profound to anybody who has had a general working knowledge of American history. But if we set aside for a moment the literal interpretation of the end of slavery, and focus instead on the symbolic aspects inherent to the document, the EP does seem to locate the freedom of the slaves to a single moment in time. There are many people, for example, that do regard this document as the day we freed the slaves, if not in a literal sense certainly in a symbolic gesture of good faith. But this I plan to challenge based most heavily on the fact that this surface understanding of the document loses many important ideas about what exactly the document has meant to the slaves it purported to free. First of all, if I am saying that the Emancipation Proclamation was not the symbol of freedom to the slaves as many people believe it to be, then what exactly was it? It's a fair question, and I believe the answer to this question may lie in a term often used in unofficial marriages. The term is called common-law. In a common-law marriage, two people are recognized for what they have purported to be. In this case the slaves would have been recognized as citizen of the of United States by the advent of time and through this presidential mandate. In saying that this was a common-law decision rather than an act of willful intent I am also suggesting, very subtlety, the position the slaves were put in. They were not given a choice in the matter. Freedom was given to them like slavery was before and they had only to accept it on any terms that was given. Of course, the question is why would anybody doubt the fact that slaves desired freedom as against staying slaves, which I am not proposing at all. I am not claiming that black people wanted to continue to be slaves, but they certainly never wanted to become Americans, either. Let me say that again. The slaves never asked to become Americans and this was - and is - the inherent problem with the freedom they were given. It made black people citizens of a country they hated, and what's worse is, they had no way to voice their displeasure about it. At least when they were slaves, people knew exactly how they felt about America without having to hear it from them. It was only when freedom became a reality that this voice became threatened. The issue was like 2 plus 2. If one is free to do what he likes and one chooses to stay in America, then it implies that, as far as slaves are concerned, America must be okay by them, or either slaves must have become satisfied with their situation, which, I can only imagine, was a very uncomfortable position to be put in. It is not that, as slaves, they had some bigger voice. It is only that when they were slaves their status in America was in agreement with how they felt about the country. They felt like an oppressed people because they were. Now that they were supposedly free the issue was how to show their displeasure for America, while at the same time trying to make the very best place to live for their family for generations to come. It is as if your mind and your body are ever at odds with one another in this situation. To get yourself over you must often mask your true feelings about the people and the place you're in close contact with on a daily basis. What I am trying to say is that the slaves never viewed America as their country. They only accepted America in common-law fashion, because they had no where else to go. By then, Africa was a distant memory, and even if they wanted to return to Africa, there were economic reasons why this was an impossibility. However, the issue to return to Africa also had another more important implication. For by only accepting America by default and not as their country, and then not returning to Africa (which was often viewed as the motherland) the slaves became a people without a real place to call their own. This one fact is the reason I believe that racism has not been solved in America yet. As I tried to imply earlier, black people are much more comfortable being seen as slaves who endure America than being seen as full blown American citizens, because this protects their voice of displeasure. But what it also does is, it insures that no reconciliation with white America will ever be possible, and thus racism will never be solved. I think that this very issue has seldom been understood by white people, because they really don't realize that there is no such thing as a black American, or the term black American itself is an oxymoron. Nor do I believe that many black people consciously understand this, either. It is no exaggeration to state that white people and black people have vastly different views of America, and both live mostly in different centuries. White people are always looking towards the present, at how things are, whereas black people have an eye towards the past, at how things were. But while it is never good to either look continually towards the present or towards the past, the issue is more damaging to black people, because by looking back they continue to have to live up to the status of what an oppressed people should be and are often burdened because of that with the rhetoric of not "keeping it real." There is no easy solution to this problem because I would be hard pressed to ask a black person to give up his or her own voice and yet it is that voice which continues to indict the very people that must be a part of any reconciliation, white people.
Oh I love it when people accuse me of trying to be smarter than others by trying to prove they are smarter than I. And, no, my identity has nothing to do with being smarter than everyone in the room. I sometimes say that but I more often talk about how stupid I am. I also seek out people who are smarter than I am...such as my wife and my best friend. Two people who like to make me feel stupid. In any event, I don't take anything far on this bbs because it is a bbs. Further, I send most of my time being stupid (for the record my post was indeed stupid and not witty) and that infomrs all of my posting. It is what I do - nothing. I am a cipher. I am your expert.
Except for the slaves that were brought to America by boat during the slave trade, every other black person living in America was born in America, but none of them had citizenship. Citizenship being defined as a person who has rights and privileges. Thus, in the case I spoke about, your definition was completely off-base, because just being born in America did not grant slaves those rights.
Are you seriously trying to "debate" my post and claim that I had an "argument"? Seems like a waste of your time.
I already know that I know more about this issue than you do. You want me to point out more of your flawed thinking; all you have to do is post what you really think.
Assuming that memory plays a major role is suspect at best. In Sir Charles original post, the age of the people were not mentioned, and indeed black people of all ages have complained about unfair treatment in restaurants. Is that really residual memory, or is it something else? I guess you mean that every black family has a sit down with their kids and tells them about how to spot racism in restaurants. Or is it the news media and the radio shows, movies, political activism, history class, that contributes to your "residual memory." If that is the case, it is something that time will not solve. Because those topics aren't going away any time soon. The way you talk, "residual memory," you must think it is only a matter of time before enlightenment kicks in and blacks all of the sudden know how to EAT in a restaurant. Or am I misreading you again. The very fact that you point away from black responsibility and toward residual memory means that you believe that black people are not in control of their emotions when it comes to racism. What you don't understand is that black people are well capable of following the rules of dining. If they claim racism, it isn't because they have a different sensitivity level that can be triggered by benign actions, but because they have an obligation to stand up for any racism that they see. Do you really think those black patrons thought anymore about that dining experience after they left? They didn't give a rat's ass about that place.
They don't. They know that it is impossible to deduce exactly what any individual will tip, so they play the percentages.
Of course, you agree with this kind of argument. You consider yourself apart of the academic intelligentsia, and thus blacks, and lower class people in general [read: waiters], aren't sophisticated enough to move past "perceptions" to a true understanding of a conflict-free society. Indeed, to nirvana. Your Solution? Remove the conflict. Or get rid of tipping altogether. Because, lord knows, these people can't get solve this issue on their own. Look Rimbaud, isn't it lonely at the top, looking down at all these sad unintelligible people. You know why you'll never do anything in life worthwhile? It is because you don't want to get your hands dirty. It would require you to leave the ivory tower you've work so hard to build.
You are on an awesome mission and I applaud you for that. Just wanted to point out one thing - my thing on "no tips as part of salary" was a general one...that it makes sense regardless of whether patrons are white, black, asian, etc.. I just think people should get decent salaries. As for everything else you are right. What is it they said about Miss Cleo? Oh yeah - "It is like [he] has known me all my life!"
