Does It Still "Take a Village?": Multiple Perspectives on a Chicago Encounter

Updated 10/19/09 at 10:20 a.m. CDT (added Jessie Daniels's response)

We look to our children as promises for the future, to progress beyond previous generations' limitations, failures and injustices. We recognize and dream about "their world" -- the one we'll live in when we are seniors, the one that embodies some of our wishes and the fruits of our labor and energy. But we also know that for these goals to be reached, there must be a context within which our young people can learn, grow and thrive. We agonize over how we can improve conditions for young Americans whose future is so instrumental to ours, and we worry about kids who seem to be heading in a direction that can undermine those aspirations.

THIS WEEK, we have assembled a small panel of thoughtful folks who are thinkers, writers and social justice advocates to discuss a confrontation that Stephen had with three young men who were vandalizing a subway station on Tuesday evening. We offer these perspectives in the spirit (and with the hope) of instigating positive, thoughtful discussion. Stephen's story is below, followed immediately by Charlton's response and then the responses of our guests.

---

Stephen

My wife and I were climbing down into the Harrison Red Line subway station in our neighborhood in Chicago when we happened upon three young Black boys -- maybe 13 years old -- tagging the station walls with spray paint. It was particularly surprising because there are security cameras down there, yet the kids were dancing around and acting as if they didn't care if anyone saw what they were doing. I thought about it for a second or two and decided to let them know that I saw what they did. Rather than express disappointment or anger (I figured at that age, irrespective of race, they wouldn't care -- I wouldn't have!), I simply wanted them to know that they were not as quick or careful as they though they were. Even now, I'm not sure if I was trying to scare them or warn them that they could easily be caught, or if I was trying to discourage them from doing it again. In any case, they all denied having done anything wrong, and as we boarded the train, one of the boys stuck his head in the door before it closed, called me some names, and flipped me his middle finger while another boy spray painted on the window of the train as it pulled out of the station.

I spent the rest of the night thinking about whether there was anything I could have done to meaningfully intervene in those boys' lives. Since I am a White ally, I am very conscious about not wanting to be act like, feel like or be perceived as though I need to "save" (Dangerous Minds-style) persons of color. On the other hand, as an adult who wants to see all children succeed and who knows that sometimes getting in trouble is the best thing that can happen to turn someone's life around, I wonder if I should have tried to call a CTA employee or otherwise "bust" the kids. Further complicating the issue is the fact that with all the youth violence and gang activity in the area, saying anything to kids that age at all -- particularly while they are engaging in an illegal act -- probably isn't a particularly smart thing to do. Would I have felt the same or acted in the same way if I were Black (a man or a woman -- and would that matter) or if the kids were White? Would the kids have reacted to me differently? Did I act appropriately (do enough, do too much)?

---

Charlton

There's no easy answer to this question. I suppose like many people my response to what the kids were doing would fluctuate depending on the day, my mood, and my immediate attitude about the actions these youths were engaged in. On one day, no doubt, I'd be apt to say that I would approach them and say something like, "No wonder why some people see kids like you as nothing more than ignorant thugs." It's the kind of thing that comes to mind when you are looking at someone from your own racial group reinforcing the dark shadow of prejudice on those of us who have tried so hard to overcome those perceptions.

But I've also noticed recently that I seem to be getting older. As I do, I find myself distanced from young Black teens not so much because they are Black, but because they are adolescents -- adolescents who seem to attempt more today than I would have ever thought possible to get away with when I was their age. And I admit part of me would have stood silently with my wife, not uttering a word to the kids -- in fear of their potential volatility and need to remain and keep my loved ones safe from potential harm.

If I were wearing my charitable, racially and socially conscious hat that day, I may have spent a moment not only contemplating acting -- confronting the young men -- but thinking through the implications of my actions. If I report them to the authorities ("authorities" -- I feel like I'm in a 1970s Japanese monster film) then these youth will probably be swept into a criminal justice system likely to impact them more negatively than the subway wall they were tagging. So no, don't report them; they probably deserve a chance that they probably won't get if the cops get a hold of them.

If I were to say anything -- not wanting to incur the wrath of some pent up anger, or send them on a one-way trip through the American criminal and judicial process -- I may have just asked them why. "Hey -- why are you guys doing this?" I've always found that if you ask someone a question he or she will do one of two things. Some will ignore you, and others will answer the question. If they answer the question, you've taken the first step to engaging in some form of meaningful dialogue. This, I think, would be the best possible outcome -- and opportunity -- I could imagine in this situation.

---

Jessie Daniels

The encounter that Stephen describes is a vexing situation for those of us who count ourselves as white allies for racial equality. As he describes the exchange, it is one bound up with white racial privilege (and, one suspects, class privilege). The image of the white professor chastising the young, black grafitti artists (or merely vandals) and their understandably angry response, seems like a reenactment of larger scripts about race and class in the culture.

I think it's also important to bring up the issue of gender and sexuality in the dissecting of this story. If I had been in that situation, and I had seen those young men while I (also a white professor, and a woman) had been with my partner (also a woman), I would not have said anything to a group of adolescent boys - whatever their race - for fear of retaliation that was more aggressive than a raised middle-finger. As lesbian-identified woman, groups of adolescent boys raise the possibility of a different kind of threat for me.

So, for me, the fact that Stephen feels he can call out these young men is completely bound up in his own position of privilege at the intersection of race and class, as well as gender and (hetero)sexuality.

If the underlying issue here is about how to intervene in the lives of young, black youth who may have gone astray on the path toward adulthood, full citizenship and participation in the broader society, I would echo what others have said here about community engagement. I wonder if Stephen knew the names of these young men? He doesn't say, but my guess is that he did not. Did he ever have a conversation with them prior to the exchange around the graffiti? Without a personal connection in which you at least know the young men's names or have had a conversation once before, an encounter such as this one is doomed to replay hierarchies of race and class.

And, just so you know that this not all theoretical for me, I'll close with a story from my own life. I attend a multi-racial, queer church called Metropolitan Community Church of New York (MCCNY). MCCNY has for 8 or so years run a shelter for LGBTQ homeless teens. The shelter is open 365 nights a year, and operates in the basement of the church building. The kids who reside there come from all over, are predominantly black and latino, and are mostly homeless because they have 'come out' to their families and been rejected by them. These young people are struggling - often heroically - to survive in difficult circumstances. They are also teenagers. As such, they not infrequently act out in ways that are just not acceptable. If I see unacceptable behavior by one of the teens and act in ways to correct it, I am in a similar position to the one that Stephen was in. I am white and a professor, and thus have racial and class privilege in relation to these young people. All of our interactions are always going to be inflected by those differences. However, that does not mean that I look the other way when I see a young person putting themselves in harm's way. I intercede when I can, and I'm mostly likely to take action - and to be effective - when I know a young person's name, I've talked with them before in some non-confrontational exchange, and they have a sense that I care about them beyond the interaction in which I'm telling them that they've messed up.

Dr. Jessie Daniels is an Associate Professor at Hunter College. She is cofounder and a frequent blogger at RacismReview; you can follow her on Twitter.

---

Tami Winfrey Harris

It is easy to see the implications of race and class all over an interaction between a white, male, college professor and three, young, black, inner-city males in the city of Chicago. We are trained to think that way, especially those of us who are committed to anti-racism and the exploration of privilege and power. But in this case, I wonder if those things--race and class--are distractions.

Let me explain. Race and class play a tremendous role in the marginalization of young, black males. And there may be no better illustration of that fact than Chicago, where 36 young men of color have died violently this year, and the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" in the highly-segregated city grows ever wider. So, it is safe to say that race and class likely played a significant role in these youths' seeming disaffection. But I am not convinced that it colored their interaction with you, Stephen.

I witnessed similar scenarios play out during my years in the Windy City with similar results. Adults, old enough to remember the time not so long ago when grown ups were expected to chasten ill-behaved young people and the young people generally obliged out of a sense of respect for age and authority, attempting to correct a raucous or anti-social group of teens only to be met with verbal or physical aggression. The races of the adults who embraced the notion of "it takes a village" varied, the infractions did also--loud cursing on the No. 6 bus, jimmying locks to make a short cut through private property--the outcome of their actions usually did not.

What is happening to our children? Well, in the case of black males (and there are certainly many troubled youth of other races, but young black men are particularly at risk), Anti-Racist Parent columnist Liz Dwyer said, in a post about the murder of Derrion Albert, that we are faced with "chickens coming home to roost."

As a society, we have chosen to not uphold desegregation laws. We have chosen to allow low income children of color to receive a substandard education, simply because they live in a different zip code. We have chosen to not pay a living wage so that people can actually have the means to pursue life, liberty and happiness, so they can move out of dangerous neighborhoods if they see fit. And we have chosen to allow gangs and narcotic trafficking to run rampant, as long as it stays controlled on the “bad” side of town.

As for having some sort of moral or spiritual “center” where today’s teens know not to beat one of their peers to death, that sort of center doesn’t just fall out of the sky and infect kids like Swine Flu. Yes, children and teens should know better, but we live in a do-whatever-you-wanna-do culture. Self-control is in no way a part of our world these days.

I’m not saying this to excuse what these teenagers did. But hello, didn’t you read Lord of the Flies as part of your education?

THIS is where race and class come in. Society has surely created an environment where anti-social behavior will fester in disenfranchised youth, including children of color and the poor. And because we broke it, it is our job to fix it. It is good that you intervened, Stephen--not as a white savior, but as a concerned adult. What most of us, including me, are far more likely to do is look away and say nothing, to tsk tsk about the kids and the mamas and daddies who are raising them, to give the children in question up for lost. We look away from the loud and aggressive behavior. We look away from the loitering. We look away from the vandalism. We look away...until a teenaged boy is beaten to death on camera...and then it seems people cannot look away. And we wonder how we got here.

Tami Winfrey Harris blogs at What Tami Said and is the editor of Anti-Racist Parent. Follow her on Twitter.

---

Alvin Herring

It would be all too easy for me as an African American male to categorize the angst my White brother felt over this incident as just another example of the privilege Whites enjoy – as it relates to race - to stand at a distance from the dirty work of confronting the tough realities racism creates and retreat to the sidelines where behaviors, motives and choices can be safely analyzed and timidly dissected. For sure, that is the choice of many White liberals, intending to sound like allies and then losing their voice when situations and circumstances call for a more vigorous assertion of solidarity.

But in the real world of race, no one gets a pass. Racism exists to systematically rob of us our humanity and psychically prepare us for the dirty work of denying to those deemed “less than” or “other than” opportunity, access, power, wealth and the very essentials of life itself. And racism doesn’t ever stand alone as a single issue but pulls in every other societal structure in around it, forcing us to contend with unholy combinations of race and other social dimensions such as class, gender or sexual orientation.

What has to be remembered is that race is the predicate, the root. Indeed, a racist system will never truly let you forget it. In the encounter with the boys making mischief on the train, the scenario is as it seems. No matter of intent, goodwill or progressive racial sentiment can alter the reality that a White man has stepped into foreign territory and entered the world of these Black boys without invitation. Their response is neither novel nor unexpected. They rebuke him and put him “in his place.” His angst is also part of the “script.” Was he right to express his displeasure at the boys or was his behavior based on race? Did they reject his correction because he was an adult censoring youth rebellion or did they interpret his actions as racist?

In a better world a grown-up should be able to confront misbehaving juveniles and have his intent be seen if not as helpful and corrective at least benign. But this is not a better world. It is the world that racism has created. In that world –our world – racism is an idol that must be worshipped and our desire for community is the sacrificial lamb.

How do we ever get past this? How do we meaningfully enter each other’s worlds and build real connections across race lines? The answers are not simple ones but they begin with a need for a universal recognition of what racism is and how it distorts the human heart and mind. It begins with Blacks and Whites each speaking to the ways our lives have been wounded by racism. Whites must summon the courage to acknowledge how they have been privileged by the oppression of people of color and undertake the work of dismantling that privilege by working for justice. Blacks must come to grips with centuries of rage and bitter resentment (much of which has been focused internally) and become earnest partners in forging a more just society.

Real community ought to be our goal, but to get there we are going to have to have the courage to step up to situations such as this and confront how incomplete our lives are in the shadow of structural racism. We’re going to have to finally reach that place where justice demands that we stop business as usual and get down to the real business of confronting racism.

Alvin Herring is the CEO and lead facilitator of Side by Side. Follow him on Twitter.

---

Mikhail Lyubansky

This is a no-win situation. That was my immediate reaction to reading about Stephen’s encounter. But I didn’t want to write that. It was pessimistic and, more importantly, not at all useful, helpful, or constructive. I try to approach my analysis of race and racial dynamics constructively. So, I didn’t write anything, hoping that that something more constructive would come to me. Nothing has.

It’s a no-win situation even without the racial layer, at least from my perspective as a White ally (I’m in full agreement with Stephen’s take on it). That is, I don’t see a productive way to respond to this specific encounter, even if the boys in question are also white. The reason is that, given the situation, the boys are likely to distrust me and, therefore, perceive anything I do or say with suspicion. The remedy – the only remedy, in my opinion – is to earn their trust, to convince them that I had their interests and their needs in mind. As a clinical psychologist, I have some ideas about how to do this: I’d try to guess at their underlying motivations and needs (these might include self-expression, autonomy, fun, and even justice (e.g., payback for perceived systemic oppression) and respond to any expression (even if hostile) of such needs with statements expressing empathy and my desire to understand their motivations and experiences. Not always, but quite often, if it really comes from the heart (true empathy is hard to fake), this method is effective in building trust. But it takes time, sometimes a lot of time, and in this particular situation, the time is just not available. Stephen is waiting to get on a train, which could arrive at any moment, and even if he is willing to talk to forget the train and talk to the boys as long as necessary (unlikely since he is traveling with his wife), it is, at best, doubtful that the boys would be willing to engage with him long enough to be convinced of his good intentions.

And to this, we add the racial layer, because there is no way that this encounter is not, in part, racial in nature. In Spike Lee’s classic Do The Right Thing, the local African American community, furious about Radio Raheem’s needless death at the hands of the police and despondent over the certainty that the city would not care, take out their frustration on Sal’s Famous Pizzeria – not because Sal deserved it but because as a White person in the Black community he represented not just whiteness but white power and oppression. The destruction of Sal’s Famous was not a personal attack on Sal. In some ways, it had nothing to do with Sal the person, who, the incident with Radio’s radio aside, was generally well-liked by most of the people in the neighborhood. I recall Do The Right Thing, because, I think that, on some level (possibly an unconscious one), the boys in the subway station are acting out the same kind of frustration with the (white) “system” as the residents of Bedford-Stuyvesant in Do The Right Thing (or not – they could be middle-class kids just having “fun” – the truth is there is no way to know). As such, until he proves otherwise, Stephen represents the “system” and white oppression. It has nothing to do with Stephen the person. And it may not even be something that the boys have a conscious awareness of. But the moment that Stephen initiates a conversation, this racial history and symbolism come into play. His words and actions become transformed by who he is racially and who he represents on a racial level, pushing the possibility of trust even further out of reach. These racial dynamics can be overcome. In another context, I think Stephen could do it. I’m sure he has done it and will do it again in the future. But in this particular case, I just don’t think the opportunity for establishing a relationship is there. In this case, an engagement with the boys is a no-win situation. Allies need to know when to lead, when to play a supporting role, and when to stay out of the way. It makes me sad to say this, but I think this is a situation we have to stay out of.

Dr. Mikhail Lyubansky is a member of the faculty in the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is a managing editor at the progressive media site OpEdNews.com and blogs at Psychology Today. Follow him on Twitter.

To B or Not to B

Attentive TWIR readers will notice that about a year ago, we started to capitalize the words "White" and "Black" in our posts. We're still not completely comfortable with the decision to do so, but the implications are potentially significant. We are interested in your feedback on this.

Academic journals differ as to whether these shorthand racial classifications should be capitalized. There seems to be unanimous agreement that terms like "Caucasian" and "African American" should always be capitalized (though whether the latter should be hyphenated is another point of contention), but one can open a number of scholarly journals and books and see "White" and "Black" both capitalized and in lower case form. The style guide for the American Psychological Association (APA) -- which communication journals follow and upon which political science formal style [APSA style] is based -- requires capitalization. This is why we made the switch.

On the other hand, Carnegie Mellon University's style guide is clear that these words should not be capitalized. This is consistent with the guidelines of the Associated Press (AP), which drives decisions for most journalistic (as opposed to scholarly) publications.

In a 2000 issue of American Speech, Robert Wachal, professor emeritus of the Department of Linguistics at the University of Iowa, argues that "Black" should be capitalized, as should "White," because they are proper nouns, not color descriptors. Wachal says that failing to capitalize "Black" is "unintended racism" (what we would simply call "racism," since we divorce intent from the concept altogether, leaving terms like "prejudice" and "bigoted" for intention-relevant attitudes and behaviors). To make the issue even more complicated, DiversityInc provides interesting rationale for why "Black" should be capitalized but "white" should not be.

To further the conversation, it is important to consider this exchange about whether it is appropriate to capitalize "Indigenous."

A fundamental assumption of our work through the Race Project, including our weekly offerings here, is that language matters. Those who dismiss gender-neutral language or "politically correct" speech are unappreciative of the ways that language at once reflects and perpetuates power differences in culture. Using "member of Congress" instead of "Congressman," for instance, has real implications for the ability of women to be competitive for public office and to enjoy the respect that men have received "naturally." The critical race scholar bell hooks writes her name in all lower case letters, which reminds us of the arbitrary privilege that some members of society have as a result of their placement (akin to the arbitrary largeness of letters that just happen to come at the front of a word).

So what do you think? Should the terms "White" and "Black" be capitalized or not? In what ways might this matter?

Let us know!

A Bunch of “Shitheads” Who Don’t Get Satire?: What We Can Learn from Them and Ourselves

Charlton has never laughed so hard as he did a year or so ago when his 13-year-old cousin was telling him about the ridiculously absurd names of some of his classmates. There was [AB Seh Duh], spelled "ABCDE," "Alizay" (The name of an alcohol popularized by rappers like Tupac), and our personal, fall-of-our-chairs favorite: "Shithead" (pronounced [shuh HEED] – seriously, see below). After he had his laugh, he thought the show was over. “Nice joke,” he told his cousin. But the cousin wasn't joking.

Unlike earlier TWIR column targets that attempt satirical considerations of race, this article from the (ostensibly and hopefully African American) folks at The Peoples News clearly states at the end (in italics!): "Note: This article is satire, brought to you by the creative minds at The Peoples News. It's not real, but we hope it made you think." Of course, the best satire necessarily feeds on truisms and authentic experiences. Nevertheless, the comment section is full of remarks – both critical and supportive – of a "federal judge's" ruling that poor black women may not have independent naming rights because of the "ridiculous names" they have been giving their children.

As we noted when we reviewed “Black People Love Us,” there is a danger of using satire because it relies on the reader agreeing with the absurdity of the content for the intended message (opposite of that expressed) to be conveyed. But we can often learn more about the thrust of the intended message by examining those who actually do not get it.

In this case, as if the concept of a federal judge dictating naming rights was not absurd enough (many who are concerned about undue governmental interference may not find this very much of a stretch), there are passages that are blatantly Eurocentric (“’Hopefully we can see a lot more black children with sensible names like Jake and Connor,’ Cabrera said.”), racist (“Beginning in one week, at least three white people must agree with the name before a black mother can name her child.”), and seemingly impossible (“Her children are named Daryl, Q’Antity, Uhlleejsha, Cray-Ig, Fellisittee, Tay’Sh’awn and Day’Shawndra”). Still, dozens of commenters believed that the article was factual and responded accordingly. Here are a few of our favorites (no edits have been made):

Ronald Jackson // March 10, 2008 at 7:45 pm

While I agree that the name issue warrants review and has gotten out of control, I do not aggree with the Judges ruling that a parent particularly a black mother does not have the right to name her child simply because others find it chalenging to pronounce the name. I think it is even more apauling for the Judge to make the assumption that three wite people will be able to pick a name foe the child or even agree on the same name. Lastly, I think it is even more rediculus for the Judge to make make black men exempt from the ruling because he has made erroneous conclusion that most black men are not involved in their children’s lives.

donna whitehead // March 11, 2008 at 2:12 am

Ithink someone should, first, verify that Cabrera really did graduate from law school. If he didn’t then obviously get him out right away. If he did graduate from law school, someone needs to request a refund and send him back. This man needs some real work to do.

Minnie E Miller // March 14, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Does U.S. Federal Judge Ryan Cabrera have a law degree? He is amazingly frightening. While the names are outragious, mothers have a right to name their children anything they want (God help us). I am insulted that he feels white people can better handle the naming or Black folks children! The man is stuck slavery. Masters often changed the names of their slaves to blout out their memory of their homeland. My goodness some of us are stuck in the 18th century. He needs help!

mrs.whiteside // March 18, 2008 at 4:57 pm

IT IS AN HONOR TO NAME A CHILD. AND WHAT EVER THAT MAY BE SHOULD BE CHERISHED , ONE MANS TRASH IS ANOTHER MANS TREASURE, no one seem to complain about Beyonce,condelisa,they are all unique… now DICK, BOB,BILL, MARY-KATE ,MILLIE SUE, AND many others as stupitas it may seem they all have a certian meaning naming a child is one of the last rights a mother has dont take that away too,
she already has to raise a child with out disipline, rules and structure all because of the government and now they want to take away the right to name a child too?
WAKE UP PEOPLE

KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT !!!

A MOTHERS RIGHT !!!!!

Ken L. D // April 28, 2008 at 10:41 am

I agree this name thang is outrageous and It realy needs to tone down a notch. Some names (Sha’Queata)you can get away with, but others(Uhlleejsha) are just ridiculas. Most of these kids that have these names are not proud of them; they are embarrased by them. They just grow into them, because they don’t realy have a choice. How do they cope with them? They make nicknames, different names, or tell people just call them by a first letter. If you haven’t had to have to name a child, yet, you might want to think about these statements. Your child is already pretty much born with a strike against him, why give them another one to make it even harder in this world we are living in?

Avis // April 28, 2008 at 5:34 pm

People should be able to name their children what ever they want, whether the whites are able to understand or pronounce it or not. Let the parents give the pronounciation and the system can follow that pronounciation.

Some folks got it right away:

geepee // May 2, 2008 at 9:47 pm

isn’t this article meant to be a JOKE?? Its not real…this was not a real ruling by a judge. We are all aware that there are some people (both Black and non-Black) giving their children some jacked up names and its time we made fun of that.

Juelz // May 8, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Most of you are way too funny! It didn’t even occur to me that someone would think this article was real until one of my girlfriends emailed me back outraged. LOL! Even if common sense didn’t kick in, it does have a disclaimer at the bottom that says, “Note: This article is satire, brought to you by the creative minds at The Peoples News. It’s not real, but we hope it made you think.” Maybe we shouldn’t be allowed to name our kids.

But many folks did not read the entire article (likely because they were so angered by the middle of it), and others did not take the time to read any other comments (which would have alerted them to the fact that it was a joke). There is some interesting ways to look at this. Limiting our analysis to self-proclaimed black commenters, we need to contextualize their reading of the satirical piece. Clearly, for many of them, it is not nearly as outrageous to think that a white judge would make such a ruling. After living through generations of racist policies and attitudes, it is only a short step to such absurdity.

Kwame Brown // March 14, 2008 at 5:29 pm

This sounds a like the days of slavery when masa named us. Yes the names have gone to far, but three white people approving our chikdrens names.

Lets have a conversation about this.

Tina // March 13, 2008 at 11:38 am

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS WORLD COMING TO? You can’t name your child whatever you want? I am sick of the WHITE DEVIL trying to tell us Black folk want to do. AND, then the Judge rules out Black Men because he feels that Black men are not involved in their childrens lives???? And the rule applies to BLACK WOMEN but the judge singles out IMPRVERISHED MOTHERS. I’m SPEACHLESS!!! I have to get up from my desk and go scream!!!

Furthermore, many of the folks who took it to be true and supported it did so for valid reasons. We have addressed the issue of “what’s in a name” in this space. There is both anecdotal and scholarly evidence that Anglo-sounding names are more likely to receive positive attention from prospective employers. A number of commenters addressed this unfortunate reality:

Kanitria (Ka-nee-tree-a) // April 14, 2008 at 3:21 pm

I hate my name. It lets everyone know that I am black even before they give me a chance. I am a very proud black women who wants employers to see me, not my name. With a name like Kanitria, they first make assumptions of who they think I am or what type of person I am before they get to know me. They assume that I am from the ghetto and uneducated because of the name my parents chose for me, which is not true.
When I had my son, I wanted to give him a somewhat simple but unique name… Khalin (Kay-lyn). I gave it a unique spelling, but it is becoming a more common name for boys and girls of all ethic backgrounds.
I do agree with a the early comment of Ishine, “ANYONE WITH THESE NAMES WILL NOT GET HIRED 99% OF THE TIME BY ANY REPUTABLE COMPANY!!!!” I believe we should do as he or she says and “Give yourself a chance and your kids a chance….let these companies take a look at your resume fair and square and see the accomplishments before they look at the name and put the resume in the trash.”

K. Walls // March 18, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Thank the lord for the judge because Black Women are getting or have gotten riduculous in naming there children and it is sad that it is predominatly poor black women. Why yolu would name your child something that will haunt them especially when they are young and trying to adjust to peer pressure. Mercedes,Alize and or Shequanna are names that automatically say black person. Come on Black people it is bad enough you show up for a job interview and the whiteman can already tell you are black by your name. most of the time you will not get the interview because of your name. WAKE UP BLACK PEOPLE!!!

It’s certainly easy to point the finger and laugh at folks who took the article seriously. But there is a substantive difference between whites who took it seriously and non-whites (particularly African Americans) who took it seriously. While we do not know the race of each commenter, it is important to consider that from the perspective of someone who is not used to seeing satire and has lived through racism and racial bigotry that has little restraint, we might at least consider how some might have been easily persuaded of this “next step.”

After all, it’s the fact that our society has seen and tolerated so much institutional racism that this piece was written, that it is funny (to those who “got it”), and that it was able to spark such heated exchanges. It’s perfectly appropriate to criticize those who need to be more attuned to the context (and veracity) of an article, but we must simultaneously examine why so many were vulnerable to the gag. That tells us more about who we are collectively.

And, just to further show that Charlton’s cousin wasn’t joking, consider this comment from someone who recognized the article as satire:

Umm.. Get A Grip People... // March 17, 2008 at 10:56 am

If you don’t know that this is a joke they you really should do some more reading.

One name that should be outlawed is $_H_I_T_H_E_A_D (pronounced shy-thed)! That is a horrible name for a little child. Her parents should be kicked in the butt for naming her that.