Daniel Radcliffe, who will eternally be know for playing “The Boy Who Lived” aka Harry Potter, recently did an interview where he addressed having racist friends and stated that he doesn’t agree with their thoughts but remains friends with these individuals.
It raises the question about privilege and the “white ally” as well as not addressing racism head on.
Personally, I agree with Mr. Potter because you can have all the conversations you want with a person and engage in a dialogue about the issue, but you can’t make them drink the potion to magically fix the issue.
As a white male, I am the definition of privilege and on top of that I grew up in privilege.
I also went to public school and interacted with other students who were less fortunate than I, who came from families different than mine, who lived in areas that were not safe, filled with violence and uncertainty.
These individuals did not want to be products of their environment and welcomed conversation about our differences.
I am also a Jewish American and I do know that anti-Semitism still exists and I have encountered it many times before but instead of getting angry about it or writing a person off, I try to bring about a dialogue to understand where it comes from.
It has been drilled into my head since I was a child the history of my people, my ancestors and those of my heritage who have been slaughtered time and time again because of our beliefs.
It is about the education that comes as a follow up to the racism and anti-Semitism that is what matters.
Don’t be a bystander. Ever.
No one person can ever say they have never made a racist remark in their life because that is a fallacy through and through.
I do believe as a society though we have become so afraid of offending individuals and those who are not considered to be the “norm” that we continue to build the schism that divides our society.
It is entirely possible to remain friends with people who make remarks that may be deemed racist and that can be offensive.
Is there a line that should never be crossed?
Absolutely!
These types of topics should bring about civil discourse and provide learning opportunities for all to engage and be a part of a larger conversation.
I look at Donald Trump as an individual who uses rhetoric that is meant to rule up those he is speaking about, riling up his supporters and those who believe what he has to say, who might not be exposed to those different from them, and it provides opportunity for racism to grow and become a much larger conversation.
The problem I have with the conversation about racism and deeming someone racist is that it often turn them into a target and gives them a stigma.
I have plenty of friends many who I disagree with and many who disagree with my opinion and statements, but we don’t throw away a friendship over that.
It is the understanding that we accept one another’s beliefs that continues our friendship.
It is the role of the parents and educators both at home and in school to teach about acceptance and understanding to give children the proper building blocks to grow and be more well rounded members of society.
It is up to the parents and educators to mold the future generations and teach them right from wrong but to also be understanding of those who don’t align with their views and values.
I look back at the history of this country and the American people have been a people who have longed for their own identity, their freedom and the right to live how they want without the constraints of religion or government.
As a people, we have progressed backwards in my opinion because we let our religion and our politics blind our views of the world, blind our ability to decipher the truth and bring about actual change.
We’ve become a society divided with a very black and white view of many issues.
As a member of the current society I am living in, it is my duty to engage with those who I come in contact with, whether they are coworkers, classmates or peers and learn about them, engage in conversation with them and allow them to share with me their life experiences.
It is up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to continue a relationship of any kind with an individual who may in fact say very racist things.
Together a community, as an educated and progressive society need to bring a better understanding of our differences and do our part to combat the true hate that is experienced by many.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
What Do You Think?
-
Taking The Right Stand By Not Standing
On Friday night, an NFL preseason game that would not have otherwise been of any great consequence played home to a silent political protest which has got the whole nation a-flutter.
San Francisco 49ers QB Colin Kaepernick chose not to stand during the playing of the national anthem before the game.
In explanation, Kaepernick said,”I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
The last sentence is of course in reference to the numerous cases concerning the alleged use of excessive force by police officers in dealing with citizens of racial or ethnic minorities.
The 49ers made their stance quite clear in the immediate media wake of the event, releasing a statement which read, “The national anthem is and always will be a special part of the pregame ceremony. It is an opportunity to honor our country and reflect on the great liberties we are afforded as its citizens. In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose to participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem.”
Quite frankly, that should be the end of the story.
Kaepernick expressed his constitutional right of free speech to silently protest for a stance that he believes in.
Unfortunately, as with most statements made in the name of racial or other hot-button questions, this was thrown out the window in the eyes of many who fell back on the out-dated notions of “national pride” and “patriotism”.
In just the last two days, there has been a mountain of criticism thrown onto the gesture.
The three arguments that have most often been made against Kaepernick’s actions are: un-American, disrespectful, and negative.
First, the use of ones constitutional rights is about as American as it gets.
The founding principle of this country is that every citizen has certain rights and freedoms which are universal (“unalienable rights”).
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression, both covered by the First Amendment to the Constitution, are the exact rights Kaepernick is taking full advantage of here.
If a fan in the stadium for the same football game chose not to stand, nothing would be made of it. A figure in the public light has the exact same freedoms.
Secondly, a national flag or national anthem should not be respected by default. A country is nothing more than artificially-drawn lines built and altered as it suits the needs of people or environment.
A flag is nothing more than a piece of cloth which is marked with certain colors and patterns which are recognized as “representing” a particular country or region.
Respect for these ideas are not earned, but instead demanded and coerced by tradition and peer pressure.
It is not disrespectful, as there is no inherent respect which comes with the flag or anthem.
Furthermore, declining to stand for the anthem, or declining to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school, is not disrespectful to the service men and women who fought and died for this country.
Those soldiers and civilians gave their lives not to protect the rights of the many, or powerful, but to protect the rights of all citizens.
The disrespect here is insinuating that these sacrifices were made to promote your personal way of life.
Lastly, this idea that what Kaepernick did was “publicity stunt” or shines a poor light on those who Kaepernick is supporting (read: minorities) is dripping in white privilege.
It is easy for current and former players to deride Kaepernick’s actions when they are not personally affected by the circumstances which the man is protesting.
I have also heard someone say that Kaepernick “should be doing positive things”, in other words, that he should be working in his community to bring about positive change.
While this is a good thought, it does not take into account that this is not a problem restricted to a single community.
It is a national issue and deserves national attention.
This man is choosing to put his public persona and, perhaps, money on the line to defend his beliefs.
That is not “negativity”.
That is making a choice and living with the consequences of that choice.
Question: was it negative when NBA star Dwyane Wade appeared on a panel for ESPN’s The Undefeated to talk about gun violence in Chicago one day before his cousin was shot and killed by a stray bullet only a few blocks away?
Of course not.
Just as Wade witnessed first-hand the violence of the inner city growing up, so too has every person in this country borne witness to the very thing that Kaepernick was protesting.
In fact, it is imperative that people in the limelight, celebrities and the like, do their part in showing solidarity with those whose voices have so long and often have been shouted down.
They should do just as Kaepernick has done, use a gesture, whether in silent protest or in grandiose discourse to bring these issues to the forefront.
Personally, I hope that Kaepernick continues to observe his constitutional rights.
More than that, I hope that people come to understand that gestures like this are not made to get the media talking about the person who made the gesture, but instead about what that gesture represents.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Mike Morbeck/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Don’t Expect A Realignment Of Politics. Expect Something Much More Dramatic
As everyone can see, the world has undoubtedly changed in the past year or so.
From the Trump victory to Brexit to the resilience of right-wing parties in Europe, there remains a certain level of chaos in the world order.
There seems to be an aura of the past which we will never regain, for better or worse.
A space in time so close in a textbook but eons away from the society we inhabit today.
These sweeping changes to the status quo leave many of us asking, what’s next?
Lying ahead there must be some fundamental shift away from the political alignment of years past; a transformation that will reset our society after the obliteration of previous norms.
I’m not going to pretend that I know what type of realignment we can expect, nor am I advocating for any or all of those below.
Nonetheless, here are a few which I see, at least partially, as possible.
The first is the battle between big government and small government.
After a fiery American election cycle and two hotly contested primary challenges, the Democratic and Republican parties have taken a beating.
With civil strife bludgeoning both establishments we may see a revolt against the major parties and a new system of simple ideological differences emerging- not the traditional party labels being the great divide.
The new reality could be a more principled approach to worldviews instead of the patchwork we see in the main parties today.
A poll conducted in May of 2016 shows that only 13% Americans surveyed believe the two party system works, and 38% say it is “seriously broken”.
One would imagine a rise in those who consider themselves Independents would be in order if that many seem fed up with the current system.
On the contrary, according to Gallup poll results which accumulated over the course of 2016, registration among Independents is at a six-year low.
To further complicate this entanglement between and within both parties, Republicans and Democrats see this divide in vastly different ways, according to Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins who describe their investigation into this question in their book Asymmetric Politics: Ideology Republicans and Group Interest Democrats.
They wrote about their theory in the Washington Post:
“…the Republican Party defines itself in ideological terms as the vehicle of symbolic conservatism. The Democratic Party, in contrast, is organized as a social group coalition”.
However, their research finds that even Republican voters who consider themselves as having strong conservative principles depart from such “orthodoxy” on specific policy questions.
A more obvious example of this is in their support for then-candidate Donald Trump, someone who strays from ideological consistency much of the time.
For me, I see no clear direction for the conventional two-party system except to continue on in the confusing and muddied path it’s on now.
To suggest that an ideological realignment is likely to occur here, at least in American politics, would be inappropriate at this time.
The next is the continuation of the divide between the elites and everyone else.
In Europe and in America, disenchantment and the desire to throw out those in power are moving full speed ahead.
Concerns over immigration, political correctness, cultural ambiguity, and long-term economic prosperity are major factors in this anti-establishment wave the western world is currently riding.
People, on a large scale, no longer believe those in charge are inherently better at their jobs than people from completely outside of that system.
Photo Credit: Beshef/flickr (CC BY 2.0).
In comes the torch to burn it all down: voting.
This would be a different conversation if the United Kingdom had remained in the European Union and both candidacies of Senator Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump had inevitably failed.
That would have put a scare into the old order but their influence would have braved the storm.
But they didn’t.
The anti-establishment movement has gained real power.
It could fail miserably, or it could provide the footing for this anger to wipe out every remaining piece of the old system for the near future.
Insert the electoral chances of right-wing parties in France, Germany, and the Netherlands — to name a few — and Europe then makes the Trump revolution look like a dress rehearsal.
Now, elections could forever be won by who we think hates the elite most, not policy differences.
We may, as many of us already do, watch press briefings and tally not the legislation being announced but the number of coded messages sent to the holders of power in Washington, New York, Brussels, and Paris.
A candidate’s success may be determined by how many CEOs, seasoned politicians, TV anchors, and university professors are forced to face those who feel forgotten on bended knee. Those isolated and cold from globalization in the Bible Belt, Rust Belt, and Stoke-on-Trent.
Recent events have shown us just how disconnected these people are.
They all told us none of these political movements would get off the ground, and we have seen very few self-reflections once they all realized they had been fooled by the very people they were supposed to understand.
As a 21-year old, this was the first time I saw this strong of a vilification of the politics-as-usual attitude.
These exchanges could be typical every few years as elections and referendums come around.
But for me, I can’t imagine these frustrations going away.
The battle lines may have forever been redrawn.
The final is the chasm between multiculturalism and assimilation.
This is the most politically charged of the realignments I see possible.
Multiculturalism is the existence and preservation of distinct cultures within a community or society-at-large.
Assimilation, on the other hand, is the adaptation and conforming of different groups into a unified culture in a given community.
As different groups have become scrambled together in the modern world, people are trying to decide which of these they believe is best for society.
An interesting phenomenon I noticed through the election cycle was the proud flying of other nation’s flags on the streets of America.
If you were to watch a nominal protest of then-candidate Donald Trump you would have seen Mexican flags next to Cuban flags slightly behind Palestinian flags, all whose holders desire a more multicultural society.
The interior of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. It features great works of literature and art from all around the world, symbolizing America’s welcoming spirit. Photo Credit: m01229/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
Many view this as a beautiful sign of toleration.
However, many others view this as one more stratification of American society.
Instead of coalescing under one banner, we all have different ones that make us take yet another step away from our neighbors.
The situation in Europe is slightly different than the one in America.
As a steady flow of migrants and asylum seekers from terror-stricken, war-torn areas of Africa and the Middle East have continued throughout 2016, this question revolves around the rapid changes to European culture and identity.
As the majority of refugees flee Muslim-majority nations, some European governments have welcomed them.
However, many Europeans are pessimistic about these changes.
Pew Research can help us understand this.
In a survey of 9 out of 10 European nations, at least half of individuals believe that Muslims want to maintain a “distinct” culture and not integrate into the customs of their new European communities.
A separate report shows that a majority of Europeans surveyed believe refugees increase the likelihood of terrorism, and no more than 4 out of 10 citizens in any EU country feel an increase in diversity is good for their country, compared to 58% of Americans who think diversity makes the U.S. a better place to live.
In Greece and Italy, a majority of citizens feel more diversity makes their country worse off.
Issues such as gender equality, acceptance of homosexuality, and secularism are a few instances where the two cultures just do not see eye to eye.
Right-wing European parties have become the vehicle for these frustrations.
Marine Le Pen, the head of the French National Front Party, is leading in the polls (as of the time of my writing this) to win the first round of the French Presidential race.
She also has more support from those aged 18-34 than any other candidate in France, which may come as a surprise to many.
The central issues which run through these populist, right-wing parties are immigration and a distaste for international agreements that reduce national sovereignty.
Many are calling for a total shutdown of Muslim immigration, something that an average of 55% of Europeans surveyed agree with, and making a Brexit-like move from the EU or other foreign obligations.
The multicultural attitude Europe is known for is being challenged strongly on many fronts.
As popular movements are seemingly rejecting the openness the continent has historically praised, the concept of assimilation seems to be a dire turn many are hoping to see.
As hordes of people around the globe chant for multiculturalism, for the elimination of border walls and even, in some cases, for the abolition of sovereign states completely, there is a powerful camp that believes different cultural groups living together is an ideal scenario.
On the other hand, there are millions of individuals who see a lack of a unified culture as a ticking-time bomb for social strife. People who feel the palpable modifications to their culture too large of a pill to swallow.
This possible realignment would be ugly, it would be a knock-down drag-out brawl of the most nativist sort, but it is undoubtedly an element that drove many to the polls in recent history.
In the end, no one really knows what will arise from this grinder the western political system has been thrown in.
Anyone that suggests they know for a certainty should be viewed with some degree of skepticism.
The possibilities I have just laid out are merely avenues our society may take as we move forward.
And only one thing is certain, whether we like it or not- we will experience this together.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Lorie Shaull/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
North Carolina Is On The Road To Theocracy
By Ziyi Mai
Since the embarrassing “bathroom bill”(House Bill 2), the state of North Carolina once again has received national attention as the dominating Republicans in the General Assembly called a special legislative session in December introducing bills that could significantly strip executive power from the incoming Democratic governor.
According to The New York Times, Republicans that dominate both chambers of the legislature hastily convened a special session passing bills that require State Senate confirmation of cabinet appointments; sharply cut the number of employees who report to the governor from 1,500 to 300; and shifting the appointing power of the Board of Elections from the governor to the legislature, aiming to keep Republicans in power even if they have lost the gubernatorial race.
Politics in North Carolina has degenerated into a trend of purer partisan battle than serving the public as the end goal.
As Karen L. Cox pointed out in a New York Times op-ed, politics in the state wasn’t always a fierce partisan war.
It used to have civility in both side of the ales and the two parties cooperated toward the same goal for the good of the public.
The rotunda in the North Carolina state capital in Raleigh. Photo Credit: Jim Bowen/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
The Old North State has been dubbed as the leading progressive force in the south, which is a blessing given the racial history in the south.
Slow but steady pace of progressive policies have been interrupted since 2010, when Republicans took control of the legislature, and two years later, the governorship.
It is not uncommon in a state that power shifts between parties from time to time.
But the performance of the NC Republicans from the past several years has clearly shown that they tried to move away from a secular government and establish rules of ideology and even religion.
The cumulative effect of all these changes is that our state is moving to a direction of theocracy.
The ideals of Republicans, to a large extent, are more driven by briefs rather than empirics that reflect the reality of the conflicts and problems in a society.
There’s no doubt that some of the ideals are beneficial to the society, such pro-business economic policy and limited the size of government.
Yet these policies are inevitably distorted when it comes to implementation. In social issues, the NC Republicans propose bills that are grounded on Christian beliefs in the name of protecting North Carolinians from liberal influence.
This is the reason that the NCGA has consistently passed eerie laws on which Americans out of the state might not get a clue.
Contrary to what liberals despise, many Christian principles are essentially good moral standards for a civil society, and the foundation of liberty to some extent.
Yet, these principles only work conditioned on individual believers. Christians usually wholeheartedly follow those principles without mandates.
However, any religious principles, no matter how good they are, would become tyrannical once a government implements them and require all citizens to follow.
From this standpoint, it is not difficult to understand why Republicans have a prolong resistance to issues such as gay marriage, abortion and gender equality.
The Republican government in North Carolina has already spent tremendous money and time in defending its effort changing the geopolitical environment and the state’s institutions.
In November, 2016, a three-judge panel of the District Court of North Carolina ruled that the Republican-drawn legislative map were unconstitutional, citing that it is racial gerrymanders that purposefully separated African-American and Hispanic voters into a few districts.
This is one of many examples that the state has been facing legal challenges from civil group and federal government as a result of its peculiar legislature serving not the public interest but the party’s.
The latest move of stripping the incoming governor’s power is the continuation of this direction, that NC Republicans are desperate to exert its religious influence on all North Carolinians.
Conservatives always scoff at liberals so called “overreaction” on such matters.
David French of National Review wrote “… bipartisan election boards and senate approval for gubernatorial appointments are hardly the stuff of which tyrannies are built. ”
It is true that these measures aren’t.
But the due process of making these changes should be questioned.
According to the state Constitution and the general principle of check and balances, the executive and legislature are both branches of state government in which their weight of power should be equal and separate.
Any rearrangement of power between branches is a matter of constitutionality and should proceed with the change of the state constitution.
If the legislation has become all-powerful to strip rights from the executive and the judiciary as lawmakers wish, a state would become a collective tyranny. And this is exactly the situation that the founding fathers want to avoid.
Putting bigotry pieces of legislation such as HB2 should be worrisome, but what is even more troubling is the damage that NC Republicans have done to our state’s democratic institutions that ensure stability and serve the public’s interest regardless of rule from either party.
Unfortunately, the deterioration of these institutions seems unstoppable as the NC Republicans continue to undermine all branches of the state government and the Board of Elections.
Ziyi Mai is a Teaching Assistant at North Carolina State University and a Young Leader columnist.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Gerry Dincher/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?