You Just Didn't Understand!

The caller on the other end of the line was apoplectic. "Why won't you let us run the ad supporting you?"

"You don't understand," I said, "I just. . . ."

In the background in my office, my boss waved for my attention: "I didn't make myself clear," he coached. I had to take responsibility for the misunderstanding.

That very important lesson is one columnist Phillip Morris might want to take to heart. His earlier column claimed it was time to do away with Black History Month now that Barack Obama has been elected President. His follow-up column asserts: "Black history (let's get used to just calling it history) should be studied and celebrated contextually 12 months out of the year -- not just in February."

I agree 100 percent that American history should be taught in a way that incorporates the contributions of all the groups making up this country. However, I also think that Americans aren't to the point that each major group will get its just due quite yet. For that reason, I'm still for the special emphases we put on different groups.

I don't want less black history scholarship. I want more. Just don't call it black history. Don't confine it to February. . . .

Many argue that America's greatest strength is its freedom and diversity. If that's true, then it's time we perfect the embrace of the diversity by studying it intensely and understanding its historical and contemporary connectives.

Our global standing and our children's fortunes depend on it.

I'm with you there, Phillip, but you lose me when you continue,

Perhaps it's time that we choose a month for reflection and simply call it, "Thank God I'm an American" month.

Let's stop squeezing our past into convenient historical ghettos.

That sounds strangely like jingoism [Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism] and is not what we need. We may be proud to be Americans (despite what has recently been a disastrous foreign policy), but we also need to understand the entire world and our place in it.

“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’

But the tax collector, standing far off, would beat his breast saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.” -- Luke 18: 9-14

Our prayer (for those who believe in prayer) might be better if it is thanksgiving for our luck at being born in a developed country and having the advantages we have, then asking forgiveness for what we permit our country to do to other countries in our names.

Is Black History Month Still Needed?

Just because a person is black, it doesn't mean he sees the world as do other blacks. It also does not mean s/he shares the same experience of others. That's the same as a person of any race/gender/religion/sexual orientation/age/profession or any other category.

Phillip Morris' column this morning in the Plain Dealer might provide some evidence to support those statements. He opines that it's time to cancel Black History Month. Now that the US has "the courage and conviction" to elect a black man, "are we mature enough as a nation to accept as fact that our histories really are one. . .?"

Just because Morris is African-American, some people might assume he is speaking for all African-Americans. That'd be as likely as people believing I speak for all Ohioans. Or all educators. Or all women, or whatever. If one person, such as Obama, achieves a certain status, it in no way indicates that others of his racial status have equal access to education or other stair steps to achievement.

In the same newspaper edition, a headline reports "Blacks denied more loans despite higher income."

Higher-income blacks in Ohio were denied home loans in 2007 at a rate higher than lower-income whites, numbers that point to a continuing trend of racial bias in mortgage lending, a study by the Cleveland-based Housing Research & Advocacy Center concludes. …

Statewide, nearly 33 percent of higher-income blacks had applications for home-purchase loans denied in 2007 compared with 28 percent of lower-income whites. Higher-income blacks were denied refinance loans 54 percent of the time compared with 53 percent for lower-income whites.

And when upper-income blacks were approved for home loans, they were far more likely than lower-income whites to receive subprime mortgages that carry higher interest rates and higher fees.

The Cleveland metropolitan statistical area, which includes Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina counties, had some of the biggest disparities compared with other state regions. Forty percent of upper-income blacks in the Cleveland area had applications for home-purchase loans denied in 2007, compared with 23 percent of lower-income whites.

Median income in the Cleveland region in 2007 was $60,700. The study defined upper income as being 120 percent greater than the median. Low-income was defined as being less than half the median.

I found it interesting that some who commented on Cleveland.com ASSUMED that the data had ignored other factors such as income-debt ratio or credit score. Why can we assume that blacks would have a less favorable ratio or credit? If we go to the study referenced, we find that a National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) found “wide differences in lending by race, even when accounting for income levels, suggests that more minorities are receiving high-cost loans than is justified based on creditworthiness.”

I grew up in an era when an employer could (and did) look me in the eye and say, "We've never had a woman do this job before. If you do well, we'll consider hiring others. If you don't like it or don't do well, we won't." Women who succeeded in that era frequently became "Queen Bees" who assumed that, because they made it, any woman could do it without any special consideration. That wasn't true then, and it isn't now.

Similarly, just because one American with a black father has been elected President or an African American has a newspaper column, it does not mean that racism no longer exists.

When we lived in China, we university women were bused to a huge rally every year for "Women's Day." I felt that, anytime there is a special "day" or "month," it means the authorities can continue to discriminate the rest of the year.

Until the day comes that we can show that nearly all racial discrimination is historical, not current, we should make certain, through the special month, that we are still striving for greater equality.