http://whattamisaid.blogspot.com/2008/04/dear-america-few-things-this-black.html

The “but” in there implies an opposite is coming in the next phrase. When that opposite is a negative like “they will face discrimination and racism”, the first phrase draws scrutiny for its implied positive message. That phrase is “Certainly the child will not have the same experience as a child raised by a black family”. So, to me, it sounds like you are saying that the experiences of a black child not being raised by a black family are a positive thing. It’s a quick jump to say that you will give this child a better experience than a black family.

Rick, I don’t think it is correct to say that the word “but” automatically implies opposite, which might change how you read the continually debated sentence written by Kevin.

I can say things like “You can have candy, but only one piece” or “The sun will come out tomorrow, but it is going to be cold” or “I like the rain, but I don’t like getting wet” and the “buts” do not mean opposite – they mean an exception or a caveat to a rule.

You’re right the words discrimination and racism have a negative connotation, but that does not mean that the words before the “but” in the sentence are positive and therefore better. It is true to say that an African-American child raised by a white family will have a different experience than a child raised by an African-American family. It is also true to say that I had a different experience being raised in Montana than you did by being raised in Michigan. Neither is better -they are just different.

Discrimination is a horrible thing and Kevin and Abby’s child will not be free from it because he/she is being raised by white parents. Unfortunately, their child may face more discrimination because their parents are white – not black. It seems Kevin and Abby are aware of this challenge and are willing to accept raising a child who will face discrimination and racism because they believe they can offer love to a child who does not have a home.

This in no way makes them better than a black family who raises a child. I think the difference is the black parents of a black child have a different understanding of discrimination and racism because they have likely experienced discrimination first hand vs. Kevin and Abby who may have not been the victims of discrimination racial or not. Kevin’s statement seems to mean that he is aware of the fact that his life will change because his child will face discrimination.

My question is, is this something you are settling with and it’s more of an “oh well, that’s how the world works”? or is it something you agree with and it’s more of a declarative statement -”That’s how the world works.”?

If it’s something you are settling for, than my question is “how can we change the world”? I’m not saying you have to solve all the world’s problems but there are small steps that can be made to help change the way the world works.

“But why should you be held responsible for words spoken by someone else, even if that someone else is a person you work with or share a bed with? I frequently say things that make my wife cringe, but whatever blame attaches to my utterances certainly should not be extended to her, and it would be entirely inappropriate to ask her to denounce me or to fault her if she didn’t.”

I think it’s a good response to your ‘guilty by association’ argument, Rick. What do you think?

So ‘how the world works’ is a valid reason for believing something? But a lot of bad stuff happens in the world and that’s just how it works. It doesn’t follow that I should just accept it.

And from a Christian viewpoint, that definitely doesn’t follow. Christians are told to not conform to the world’s pattern, because it’s messed up and broken. Christians are supposed to be a redeeming force in the world (though we often suck at it [but it's worth noting that we'll never fully redeem the world on our own, because we're just as messed up]). And that redemption often happens by hanging out and interacting with thoroughly messed up people, whether it’s my neighbor or Louis Farrakhan.

What I think Abby is getting at is that everybody is messed up to some extent. Where do you draw the line and not associate with them? Christianity says you don’t draw a line, you still love them. It sounds like you draw a line somewhere–how do you decide where?

3. So the length of time determines whether or not it’s OK to rescue a POW? I’m just not seeing how this peace mission is such a bad thing, much less condemn the guy for it. (and if you want to condemn Wright for associating with Louis Farrakhan, that’s one thing [which we seem to disagree on, see #2], but for rescuing a captured pilot?)

1. Rick: “‘Fewer choices’ doesn’t mean ‘no choices’. How is that an injustice?”

So if an outside force you have no control over limits your choices that’s not an injustice?

Rick: “The crime rate among black men may be higher due to factors surrounding historical systemic racism, but not to an existing systemic racism.”

But if historical systemic racism is still having an impact today, isn’t that a problem? Isn’t that an injustice?

But besides that, are you saying systemic racism doesn’t exist today?

And what about things that I find offensive? You say that you make every effort to avoid things that you find offensive so that you are not guilty of those thing by association, correct? Well, what if the things you do chose to associate yourself with are offensive to me? Does that make you guilty by association?

What about future actions? If you have been friends with someone/worked along side someone for years and one day they say or do something you find offensive does that make you guilty by association?

And where is the line? Are you guilty if your friend tells off-color jokes in public and you just laugh and don’t say anything or are you not guilty until the same friend is holding meetings/rallies supporting his viewpoint?

And what happens if/when you distance yourself from said friend? Are you still guilty because you were friends in the past?

What I am saying is that, while black men may have “limited choices”, they still make the choice to commit crime and then go to prison. “Fewer choices” doesn’t mean “no choices”. How is that an injustice? There is always right and wrong, good and bad, lawful and unlawful.

This is true. Everyone always has a choice. However, the fact that there are more black men in jail tells me that somewhere along the way there is a piece missing. I’m not sure exactly where the flaw is. Why do black men feel that their only choice is to commit a crime? At what point in their lives did they decide that and what made them decide that?

Why don’t more white kids make that same decision?

I’m assuming that all parents (black, white, whatever) have the hope that their children will grow-up to happy, healthy, productive adults. I doubt there are many families sitting around encouraging their sons to join gangs, rob stores, etc. But where in the system to black kids hear the message that they don’t have the same chance as the white kids so they need to go and do something drastic to survive?

And as far as systemic racism goes – it’s not just a higher number of black men in jail. It’s also a higher number of black kids (boys & girls) that are singled out for special education testing and placed into the remedial classes in schools.

3. According to Wikipedia (and we all know how fallible that can be-but I bet the dates could be checked with daily newspaper reports), the airman was shot down in Lebanon about December 4, 1983 and was returned on January 4, 1984. Not very long, really (though don’t ask him that).

What I am saying is that, while black men may have “limited choices”, they still make the choice to commit crime and then go to prison. “Fewer choices” doesn’t mean “no choices”. How is that an injustice? There is always right and wrong, good and bad, lawful and unlawful.

The crime rate among black men may be higher due to factors surrounding historical systemic racism, but not to an existing systemic racism.

TPY,
In the light of Kevin’s prior paragraphs, I thought that the wording of that one was interesting. So, yes, I was looking for clarification.
My specific question of word choice revolves around the following sentence:
“Certainly the child will not have the same experience as a child raised by a black family, but they will face discrimination and racism.”

The “but” in there implies an opposite is coming in the next phrase. When that opposite is a negative like “they will face discrimination and racism”, the first phrase draws scrutiny for its implied positive message. That phrase is “Certainly the child will not have the same experience as a child raised by a black family”. So, to me, it sounds like you are saying that the experiences of a black child not being raised by a black family are a positive thing. It’s a quick jump to say that you will give this child a better experience than a black family.

A while back I talked about the challenges of transracial adoption, and I said that being colorblind doesn’t help. You can’t just ignore race and pretend it doesn’t matter. Instead of ignoring differences, we should celebrate them. We also need to be aware of the differences so we can deal with the accompanying challenges (and I think that goes far beyond race–religion, culture, etc.).

That was challenging for me in our adoption classes, but I think it holds true. My child may be discriminated against, but not preparing them for that isn’t helping them. They need to be taught how to respond.

Since being colorblind doesn’t help us solve racial issues, I think that’s why it applies to this discussion, because there is something racial going on: a disproportionate number of black men are in jail.

Again, I don’t know if that’s where you’re going at all, but I find it helpful.

2. Like I’ve said before, I don’t think Wright is a saint, but I don’t think these two encounters in his lifetime equate to endorsement of all that Farrakhan believes. I don’t agree with guilt by association.

3. Sure the U.S. gov’t has a policy on releasing prisoners, but it apparently wasn’t working (I’m assuming that, like I said, I haven’t found much info on it). So do we just give up on the guy? Or should we try another method? Doesn’t seem wrong to me to try another approach.

(and now to the more heated debate–everybody breathe, remember to be nice, OK here we go…) ;-)

1. I think Tim clearly explained what I was saying. I never said black men in those situations have no choice (or that they have less self control than white people), they have fewer choices. It’s not like growing up in upper-middleclass white suburbia where you have nearly unlimited choices. And the fact that their choices are limited because of race, that’s a problem. Though it doesn’t justify making the wrong choice.

And I am clearly not saying that I can raise a black child better than a black family. I said the child would have a different experience. Different, not better (there’s rarely a ‘better’ in adoption). That’s a basic fact from our adoption classes and the books we’re reading. A child adopted transracially will have it especially tough because they’re not fully accepted in the white culture or the black culture. They get it from both sides. They’re straddling the fence and it makes them outsiders. That’s going beyond the scope of this discussion, but that’s what I was getting at.

Rick: “Why are you worried about black men in jail? Why don’t you worry about finding a way to reduce the number of criminals period? Why does it have to be racial?”

Reducing the numbers of criminals in jail period would be great. But I’m making it a racial because the numbers show something is going on racially. Do you think a disproportionate number of black men in jail is just the way it is and we shouldn’t be worried about it?

If any group is disproportionately singled out, it seems worth investigating to make sure it’s not an injustice against that group. In this case I think there’s clearly something racial at the root of society causing it. I don’t see any other explanation for it.