Dean's World

One of the things that Cobb noted in his response to me the other day was this:

"The root of my problem devolves to one essential fact - whites are too popular. In short, no matter what you choose to make of it, there are white owned and operated blogs that will continue to be more effective in disseminating information about blackfolks and black culture than those which are black owned and operated. This unfortunate fact is not, however, racist."

Now this was in the context of Kanye West, but even in isolation this statement is very worth considering. It's brought up a lot of thoughts in me the last few days, and now I'm finally getting around to writing them down.

Honestly, I just don't know what the racial background of most of the bloggers I read is. For example, I don't know what Rusty Shackleford's racial background is. I do know Michelle Malkin's. I haven't the faintest idea what Michael Yon's is, although if I had to guess I'd assume he's some sort of southeast asian descent just because of his last name. At least two of the Dean's World current co-bloggers are "people of color" (I hate that term by the way, but that's a quixotic fight and I got better things to do), and another one comes from a thoroughly mixed-race family of adopted kids. Of the rest, I've never even seen photos.

That said, I've lived in mostly-black neighborhoods, and worked in mostly-black neighborhoods. I used to repo cars out of the city of Detroit, so I'm no fool: anyone who thinks there isn't a distinct and identifiable black culture thriving in the US is fooling himself. Nor, despite the stereotypes, is it a completely broken or dysfunctional culture, even if it's got some issues it's struggling with. The problem is that when you have a people who have their own language (and the existence and expressiveness of Black Vernacular English, aka "ebonics" is uncontroversial among linguists), modes of dress, music, and distinct cultural habits, you will always have people who tend to congregate together and to view the wider, more dominant culture with suspicion. That's not a strictly American phenomenon by any means; if you look at how the Scots were once in the United Kingdom, for example, you'll see the same thing. You saw it reach truly horrendous levels when the about a million Tutsis were murdered by the Hutu majority in Rwanda, which was primarily a cultural and religious massacre. But that is not to say that when two separate cultures rub against each other, they necessarily clash; India is a stable multi-ethnic, multi-lingual society--not without its problems of course, but by any measure it's a success as a nation. The Swiss manage to get by with four different official languages and even more ethnicities, and have for centuries.

Still, one of the politically incorrect things (among many) attributed to Malcolm X in his amazing autobiography was that even in areas of the world where you see lots of different racial and ethnic groups mix, people of the same ethnicity tended to congregate together. Even among muslims undergoing the Hajj, black tended to congregate with other blacks, arabs with arabs, white with white, and so on. The difference was that when things were healthy and functioning properly, people of various ethnicities weren't afraid of each other, would befriend each other, do business with each other, worship together, etc. But the urge to "be with people like yourself" is a simple human urge, and not by itself a bad thing.

Still, one of the causes of racial misunderstanding in America that the dominant culture--what some would call "white culture"--seeks to welcome new members into its club. However that comes at a price: speaking (and writing) mainstream English, dressing in certain ways, comporting oneself in certain ways. The dominant culture is happy to adopt some of the lingo and customs of newcomers, but feels spurned when some choose to live here and yet stay completely apart. Meanwhile, those of the non-mainstream cultures tend to view the mainstream culture with mistrust, as arrogant and pushy. They also tend to view those in their number who fully embrace the mainstream culture as sellouts and traitors.

Note again that nothing I've said here is unique to black vs. white relationships. I'm talking about things that happen in all societies with multiple ethnic groups that experience ongoing friction.

One of the more interesting observations I've seen about black people in America is that they today tend to most closely resemble an immigrant group that arrived here not hundreds of years ago, but rather, an immigrant group that arrived in the 1960s. Until then they were denied basic civil rights as Americans and were kept forcibly apart by segregation, almost a separate nation unto themselves. Once they were fully granted their proper rights, they suddenly began assimilating like other ethnic groups into the American melting pot. Typically, other major immigrant groups--italians, irish, asian, hispanic, etc.--have taken an average of three generations to fully integrate with the mainstream culture in the US. The first generation has the most difficulty, the second generation tends to go through an identity crisis, and the third generation usually finds a way to become fully mainstream. If that line of thinking is accurate, then America's probably got less than 20 years to go before viewing black folks as completely assimilated (we're almost there but still not quite).

Of course the word "assimilated" is a curse for some, who see it as a way of destroying what is unique and valuable about their own culture. The thing is that it doesn't have to be so--in many socities, distinct sub-cultures can exist for many centuries, still keeping their identity, and still be assimilated into a wider culture that they have contributed to. American mainstream culture would not, could not be what it is without the contributions of black Americans. Black people don't have to disappear completely into that mainstream culture (like I said, the Swiss are a great lesson in a functional multi-cultural society) but it does mean that there's a certain uncomfortable shifting that's still going on between both groups until finally everyone finds boundaries that work.

Most conservatives look with suspicion if not outright revulsion at the notion of multi-culturalism. For a while there I thought they were right, but now I think they're only half-right. "Multiculturalism" is wrong when it's a reactionary instinct, or when it excuses obscene behavior (witness the racist jerks over at Daily Kos who were recently trying to rationalize looting TVs and shooting at cops in New Orleans on racial grounds). But when it's a matter of simply respecting and appreciating the things that make us different as well as the things we have in common, it's a fine thing. America's got room for Texas cowboys, Louisiana Cajuns and coon-asses, Georgia belles, Bronx Italians and Manhattan Jews, Puerto Ricans, Miami Cubans, San Francisco artsy fartsy types, and black folks from the 'hood (or out of the 'hood and into the suburbs).

A complicating issue I have noticed in black-white relations in today's America is that white kids who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s — my generation — were taught a very specific set of racial values. We were taught that racism is bad, morally completely unacceptable, and that we should completely welcome black people into our midsts. We took that to heart--and then a lot of us were shocked (and sometimes angered) to realize that a goodly amount of black folks had no interest in that at all. What we didn't (and often still don't) understand is that this rejection is sometimes due to animosity, but much of it is simply a sense of identity threatened: a unique and valued culture and way of life looking like it's going to be absorbed by a big massive white obliterating blob. That's something that I find a lot of black people understand instinctively, and that a lot of white people are utterly baffled by because no one's explained it to them.

What's funny is that none of this is all that unusual, and none is impossible to overcome with a little more understanding on both sides.

So when you say that whites tend to disproportionately dominate the high-traffic blogs, I have to admit that you're right, they probably do. I can't prove it because so many bloggers are faceless, but it's obviously dominated by people who clearly write in standard, mainstream English by default, and express themselves in ways widely understood by the mainstream culture--"talking white," to be crass about it. Those bloggers who pepper in a lot of unfamiliar lingo and modes of expression are not going to not be read as much because people will find them harder to read.

To pick a recent post by T-Steele, he recently wrote:

"...we all took the sure shot to the ass for this one. SOOOOO... Time for fix'er, up'er talk. And since I own this piece of bling-bling blog real estate, that's all I'm going to allow in the comments..."

There is honestly not a thing wrong with that. He's one of my lovely wife's favorite bloggers too. Thing is, she grew up in Detroit, and went to High School as one of the only white kids there (got her ass beat for that more than once too, but that's another subject). So we both got it, and I'm gonna be runnin' around talking about my own bling bling blog for at least another week. (Though my blog don't bling so much as it blung, but what the hell.)

Only thing is, a lot of other people would read that, scratch their heads and concentrate, and figure it mostly out--but would feel uncomfortable because they weren't really sure they completely grasped it.

This is not a criticism. T-Steel should write like T-Steel. If people don't like it too damned bad. I merely make the observation: talk a certain way and some white folks just ain't gonna know what you're saying. Sometimes, that's part of the fun--but it does make some white people think you're making fun of them (which, let's face it, sometimes y'all are).

I have read many African American bloggers who pepper all sorts of soul talk into their writing. That's not wrong, but whether they're aware of it or not the more they do that, the more they send a signal to white readers: "you aren't really welcome 'less you're in the club."

I think the best example of a person who can handle both that I've ever seen is Oprah Winfrey. She speaks absolutely perfect mainstream midwestern English. Some call it "talkin' white" but it's not, it's just the mainstream tongue most universally understood by all groups. In fact it's a pretty cool lingo that's picked up many things from many other languages. But Oprah, she can turn and talk like a sistah on a dime--she been had that always. She's also the wealthiest and best-loved woman in America. She's our real First Lady, not Laura Bush. People don't love her because she's black, nor do they love her in spite of it. They love her because she connects with them, and part of the reason for that is she knows how to speak in a way most of them understand. It's not pandering, it's not parroting, it's just knowing how to be understood.

So, I seem to have wandered far afield. But my original point was that while you can't prove it--too many bloggers have no photo online--it is probably safe to assume that white bloggers dominate even in excess of their numbers in the general population. But I believe that what really dominates is well-written mainstream English. If you add that in with the normal intercultural mistrust and misunderstandings--black mistrust of whites, whites being completely baffled by certain black attitudes--and it should not be surprising that a lot of black bloggers link each other and sort of form their own little club in the blogosphere and don't break out of it much. A thing to realize is that that's a choice--conscious or unconscious, it is one.

Am I making sense or am I just rambling here?