Similar, but not the Same.

So my lab space is in another building; believe it or not, it's essentially an office on the floor that houses African American Studies. I haven't had the opportunity to introduce myself over there, as I'm generally in and out like a hermit. Today, I go over there and pass by this pic. (Please take the time to view it; excuse the crappy quality, it's a cell phone pic.)

Yeah, I've got comments. And, undoubtedly, they will be racist. Whatever "racism" is.

So yeah--I'll bite. There's a whole hell of a lot "wrong" with this picture. First off--the pictures have no date-stamp indication. So don't try your hezbollah tricks on me; your internal validity is suspect. Second--what is the poster (i.e., a fellow faculty member) trying to say? Well, that's not hard to deduce: that the dogs of white owners received better treatment than people of color. Stated differently, the mass'ahs dogs get better care and treatment than the forgotten ex-slaves. And that is antithetical to what is morally right.

Please allow me to offer an alternative account. In the military, there are self-deploying assets. Problems in Kosavo? No worries, Clinton can tell a B-2 bomber crew to fly from Kansas to Kosovo and back, dropping targeted bombs in the process. The plane can self-deploy to nearly anywhere in the world. Similarly, humans are self-deploying assets. They have the God-given sense of self-sustainment, organization, and mobility--regardless of skin pigmentation. "Lower" animals, such as pets, may not have this cognitive luxury.

Having lived through a number of hurricanes myself, and some that were epic in severity, self-reliance is expected. First and foremost, people prepare for natural disasters, and they take care of themselves and their immediate families. They then venture outside and organize with neighbors for community repair efforts. The Micro gains momentum into the Macro. In no hurricane in which I experienced did I stop everything and think about black people across town that may not have prepared themselves, organized themselves, or subsequently help themselves and their neighborhoods. Sorry. I guess that makes me a bad and racist person. Come to think of it, my wife did volunteer with PAWS--so she's a part of the problem too.

Yet, the PhD poster may think that the disparity or perceived inequity is somehow a reflection on (white) society. That indefinable words like "racism" and "discrimination" continue to have painfully negative effects on the black culture. I have an alternate explanation. White people, from a white neighborhood, saw a problem and executed a successful rescue strategy relative to their local issue. (They probably assumed that others were doing the same in their localities.) In reality, other people apparently lacked the preparation, organization, and successful implementation to do so for themselves.

So I ask--who is the racist? Me--wondering why it's the white man's responsibility to ensure that minorities are evacuated? Or is it the disgruntled minority who seems to deductively presume that those within their own minority are ultimately incapable of basic skills. What's wrong with this picture is the perpetuation of the myth suggesting that certain people or racial groups are incapable of preparing, organizing and executing successful self-sustainence sans (government) aid.

Racism is formally defined as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. I believe that everyone is capable of self-reliance. I also have a sister of color and I sang in a black gospel choir; ipso facto, I am not racist. Based on this definition, the one that is racist is the one that limits a race based on a prejudice. In this case, I suggest that it is the poster, and not whitie.