mischeif managed
I don't really feel like ranting tonight, but there is one thought bugging me that I'd like to get off of my chest. It stems from this quote I found on my starbucks cup on wednesday:
"Today our schools are just as segregated as they were in 1969, the year after Dr. King died. Race is the biggest challenge we face and we have proven unequal to facing it." (Julian Bond)
ok so my question stems more from the broader claim that he makes about race than from his focus on schools. this is my question, if civil liberties groups parade around declaring race as a social construct and saying it does not exist, then why do they fall back on it the second something goes wrong? ok now i know i sound like some little white redneck chick from the boondocks, but im not. i just dont understand how claiming something isnt true then basing an entire argument on the assumption that it is, is either right or logical. it makes me angry not because im racist, but because i feel it weakens our arguments for further civil action. i feel like it makes us look like idiots who want to take take take, when what we really want is equality and fairness. pushing the blame onto others and holding grudges, while all very human, is not neccessarily the best way to solve a problem. I just feel like our argument is so good, that we should have a comparable response, and not just, "its because im (insert ethnicity) isn't it?" Rather than arguing for the sake of one group of people we should be arguing for the sake of all, and if that means that it will take longer for us to be heard? so be it. I'll keep screaming until that time comes.
"Today our schools are just as segregated as they were in 1969, the year after Dr. King died. Race is the biggest challenge we face and we have proven unequal to facing it." (Julian Bond)
ok so my question stems more from the broader claim that he makes about race than from his focus on schools. this is my question, if civil liberties groups parade around declaring race as a social construct and saying it does not exist, then why do they fall back on it the second something goes wrong? ok now i know i sound like some little white redneck chick from the boondocks, but im not. i just dont understand how claiming something isnt true then basing an entire argument on the assumption that it is, is either right or logical. it makes me angry not because im racist, but because i feel it weakens our arguments for further civil action. i feel like it makes us look like idiots who want to take take take, when what we really want is equality and fairness. pushing the blame onto others and holding grudges, while all very human, is not neccessarily the best way to solve a problem. I just feel like our argument is so good, that we should have a comparable response, and not just, "its because im (insert ethnicity) isn't it?" Rather than arguing for the sake of one group of people we should be arguing for the sake of all, and if that means that it will take longer for us to be heard? so be it. I'll keep screaming until that time comes.
posted by the dork at 1:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home