NYT: Can my Children be friends with white people

[Dill]

(11-15-2017, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Quote:My …This summer’s images of violence in Charlottesville, Va., prompted an array of questions. “Some people hate others because they are different,” I offer, lamely. A childish but distinct panic enters his voice. “But I’m not different.”
 
This first paragraph starts with a 4 year old child trying to clarify how many people he can consider his best friend. The father responds with images of Charlottesville and tells his 4-year old child that some folks hate others just because they are different. He even admits to causing his 4 year old son to go into a panic.

As I read the passage, the father is not responding WITH images of Charlottesville. Rather he says the images, possibly from the tv, have prompted the child’s questions.  The father’s “lame” response  to the questions induces the panic—“Some people hate others because they are different.”  So far, I don’t see a problem. The riot did occur for the reason given. What is the proper option for a black father in this case? No tv until the child is 7, or 9? At some point his black child will have to learn about the history of racism in the US. And he will learn why the history, reality, and perception of racism affect most whites very differently than most blacks in the US.

If the father were responding to a question about friendship with “images” of Charlottesville, then yes, that could be construed as conjuring racial anxiety out of nothing.  If the images came from elsewhere to prompt questions, then it is ultimately the riots and the people hating others for difference that create the anxiety.

(11-15-2017, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He then points to Trump getting elected is why he must teach his sons caution, distrust and suspicion. And this caution, distrust and suspicion must be directed at Whitey.

He does a bit more than “point” in the remaining essay. And there is no blanket “whitey.” He explains why it is neither Trump, nor the white nationalists in Charlottesville who have generated his distrust. He explains why he thinks lessons taught to black children decades ago, long unnecessary and almost forgotten, must now be remembered and adapted to the current situation. Seems like he is taking a page from MLK and addressing the “white moderates” who were “of course” against racism and so forth but couldn’t be troubled to actually stand by their friends. 

That is why Yankah says it’s easy for white and black people to “like” one another, to “watch the game” together. But the distrust enters in as he is now unsure of which friends would have his back, which not. That is what he will discuss with his boys. He has and will continue to have genuine white friends. But he feels cannot know which of the "likeable" white people he meets every day would return that deep trust which is his criterion of friendship. Do you think the reasons he gives for distrust are insufficient? Can people really be "friends" without the deep trust he speaks of?

(11-15-2017, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In this paragraph he implies that whitey desires to maintain power over blacks and then provides a analogy about MLK’s speech and why it is impossible for blacks and whites to be friends in Alabama.

I agree with Yankah’s claim about King and the racial power differential. In Alabama in 1963, conditions of white dominance made real friendship there impossible. But neither Yankah nor King doubts friendship is possible with at least some whites—e.g., those who put their bodies on the line in civil rights demonstrations, thereby SHOWING that the well being of fellow black citizens was important to them. 

(11-15-2017, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is the paragraph that broke the Camel’s back. He first indicates that America is focused on a white problem and it is solely a white problem because Doctor’s discriminate based on race.

The first question here is, does he have his facts straight about the differential response to community problems? Do you say no, he does not?  If you agree he does, would you acknowledge the discrimination thereby evidenced?  If you so acknowledge, do you think he should not point this out, or address it in an OpEd?

(11-15-2017, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The purpose of this race-baiting Op-ed was to widen the divide not lessen it and anyone that reads it and gives it any merit looks to do nothing more than fan the flames of racism.

There are a lot easier ways to “race bait” than pulling together a lengthy, elegantly-written OpEd, concluding with calls for blacks and whites to stand beside one another "against cheap attack and devaluation" and to "live together and not simply beside one another." That’s a very poor job of “fanning the flames of racism” for anyone who makes it to the end.  

So overall, I see that you disagree with Yankah's conclusions. I am curious as to whether you disagree with his reasons for them. Seems to me has offered some plausible evidence that racism is still a concern for blacks. But you seem to be holding his evidence/reasons separate from his conclusions by not addressing them. That might be one reason why you and I see him coming to different conclusions, and so come to different conclusions about what he is saying.