(Dedicated to my Heroine Rose Maldonado)
She should've called the police. After all, this supposed to be a democracy, right? But when the dedicated activist, thinking she could learn from and contribute to a publicly-advertised forum - and although she had attended previous programs presented by the same organization, "they" wouldn't let her in! All of her remonstrating, her "...but you guys know me!..." were to no avail. She left, crushed, confused, perplexed, sad and understandably angry. She had been, for many years, 'active in the civil and human rights struggle.' Now to be summarily treated as one of 'the other," was almost too much to bear. Given no answer as to why she wasn't allowed entry, she could only assume that the 'issue' was her color: she knw that she had not done anything or said anything against the organization, so the only barrier left, was her color.
The organization did have an unwritten, understood policy of not admitting whites - although many of the 'people of color' who attended the decade-old weekly forums did not openly disagree with the 'Blacks only' policy,' (nor did she openly object) - they had not voiced their objections fearing that they'd be labeled as "sellouts" to their "race." (even though we know 'they' do not have 'their own' "race" - there's only one hueman race!) So, she thought, "It must be because of my color!" (For the record, she is a Puerto Rican - if you can tell her 'color' from that!)
It is instructive that she did not file suit against the organization or its Chief Officer, with the City's Human Rights Commission, as had another woman, Minoo Southgate, an Iranian teacher from Baruch College in previous years who was barred because of her color - although she was of darker hue and couldn't really be called 'white' - (If we must always use 'white' as the norm)
This unfortunate situation lies like a festering not-so-public sore on the community's body - divisive surely, although not yet publicized by the scandal-hungry media, and raises several critical issues for hueman beings, especially in these perilous times of worldwide color confrontation and subsequent life-threatening strife.
1. Who has issued a call for color discrimination here in the middle of our 'supposed' democracy? (or is it "dey-mock-us-you-see?")
2. Why were whites excluded?
3. Who is 'white' and who isn't 'white?' (Ha-ironic-Ha! Have you seen the recent idiot Census Board's division of THE hueman 'race' into ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN 'RACES?' Divide and conquer tactics)*
4. Where's the at-the-door Color Chart to enable such a decision to be made?
5. What directions/orders had been given to the 'guardians/bouncers' at the door?
6. If the public advertisements for assemblies are indeed "public," how can members of that public be barred from entering?
7. Conseqently, is barring members of the public illegal?
8. If this practice is illegal, why aren't authorities enforcing the law?
9. If the (presumably) Blacks in charge of the organization are complaining about being discriminated against by whites, how are their discrimination acts againt whites (or any other color) credibly explained?
10. As this practice is revealed to the regular attendees, doesn't the apparent other way "reverse discrimination" cause an uneasiness, a sense of guilt, a corresponding divisiveness, indeed, crack in their loyalty to the organization's 'cause' and their leaders?
11. Why not?
12. If barring huemans from public assemblies by color is wrong, do two wrongs make a right?
13. How can Blacks assemble, organize as Blacks, act as an all-Black entity to establish and carry out specific-to-Black goals and aspirations?
It is my opinion that denying entry to a publicly-advertised forum on the basis of someone's perception of someone else's 'color' is morally and legally wrong and I have heard of no logical or moral argument which can support such discrimination.
I, as an individual who, all my life have suffered discrimination on several bases - color, gender, class, age and financial status - can certainly understand and identify with, on an intellectual basis, the continuous angst others experience upon being discriminated against. However, I also feel that to employ the same discriminatory methods to achieve whatever stated or unstated goals, is not only counterproductive, it is disingenuous, hypocritical and morally offensive to those who aspire to and take action for a quid pro quo, an equity between the earth's inhabitants.
One cannot, in good conscience, forever quote the U.S.A.'s Constitution whenever it suits her/him, in efforts to achieve equity for one set of hueman 'colors' and then turn around and attempt to deny others of different colors, the same constitutional coverage because "they did it to us first!"
The only places Color Charts should be used is in hospitals (for purposes of diagnosing disorders) and in a Census count (to allow for doing away with bogus, meaningless terms such as "multiracial," - there's only one race - no 's' at the end of the word 'race') - for accurate accounting for, if "we" must, what 'colors' are in which districts. (However, incredibly, the 2000 CensusFolk have displayed their deep-seated, untreated racism/colorism by dividing the hueman race into ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN 'RACES;* woefully perpetuating the colorist conditioning of the U.S.A., ensuring that white supremacy is maintained and that their illegally-collected income tax dollars from the people's wages are viciously diverted from people of color.
Furthermore, the idea that Black people and other 'people of color' are automatically different from 'lighter' or 'white' people, caused the wars (invasions) we have read about and the wars (invasions) we experience today. It is ironic that all of the countries which the U.S.A. has attacked with violence and armaments, have been countries of color. The U.S.A. is supposed to be a country of 'diversity,' a country which affords equal treatment to all colors - it has never lived up to these espousals, unfortunately, but because the country is still 'on the road' to recovery from its oppression and discrimination against people of color, is in no way to be used as an excuse for anyone, of any color, to engage in what they say they've started: an organization to fight against such discrimination in the first place! Oi!
What makes the thorny issue of color so abysmally complex is that dominant, eurocentric education systems including current ones for the most part, have failed utterly to acknowledge that there is only one race, the hueman race (spelled with an 'e' because the majority is 'of color' - hence 'hue') - which originated on the continent of Africa, and was Blue-Black in color - hue. The systems also, shortsightedly, refrain from teaching the truth that all of us huemans are African (and we can't seem to stop 'going back' in history to claim various bits of euralien land-and-folk ancestry at the drop of a hat!) All huemans could 'go back' far enough to find, in their genetic history, a Blue-Black ancestor even though some of us are more 'rinsed out' than others.
It would seem to me, if indeed 'Peace on Earth' is the wished-for consensus of sane folk and war/invasions are not desirable, the exclusion of, discrimination against, and targetting-for-death-and-destruction of huemans on the basis of color, all of it, has to be stopped. (And so should discrimination on the bais of cultural differences, national origin, ethnic background, age, gender, perceived or stated sexual proclivities, class or level of income)
I'm for 94 degrees of TOGETHERNESS, not "Six Degrees of Separation!" And the only reason I'm (temporarily - 'the Worm Turns kinda' thing' - forgive me) delighted that the majority in this world is people of color, is that all my life I've been lied to: people telling me and mine that we people of color are "minority!" HorsePucky!
TRUTH CRUSHED TO EARTH WILL RISE AGAIN!
The only way for evil to flourish - is for people of goodwill to do nothing in the face of it.