You don't follow because you're not understanding the context. You pick out the sliver of information you seek and disregard anything else. You find one line that you think is some sort of statement about her feelings towards all white, yet it is a pretty mild reflection and, as she notes, only a reflection of her small sample size at Princeton. You see it, again, only from your perspective. You see "I hate white people. I hate white people. I hate white people. I hate white people.", instead of a young black woman trying to discover her own identity and how to fit in. Why do you only assume that concept is about hating white people? What makes it all about you, or white people, in general?
You think your interpretation of that one line she wrote 30 years ago defines her entire life? You really make too much of this silliness. And, what evidence do you have that she is obsessed with this issue today? Because she told some story about a lady in Target? I picture people obsessed with an issue being a little more, well, obsessive.
was she writing about fellow black people only looking at her race? was she saying fellow black people thought she was some sort of worker at target or thought her husband parked cars? she brought up race. not I. how you can say this isn't about white people I have no idea. what you are really saying is it's ok for her to be a racist. to assume all white people think the same and only see her by her race. fine. that's an argument you can make. but don't tell me race has nothing to do with a diatribe about racism.
interpretation? how is this an interpretation? it's her own words. you think you stop seeing the racist boogieman 30 years later? please. she and her husband have a long history of pulling the victim card. this is hardly the first example. she also followed it up with: "Those kinds of things happen in life. So it isn't anything new," if she's telling me this happens all the time, why should I believe you that this is some sort of isolated interpretation by her? you know better than she does?
The paper isn't about white people, it's about black people. She's not assuming all white people are acting the same, either, as I noted above. The reason you think it's a diatribe about racism is because the only possible perspective you can discern is the one commenting on white people. Racism is an ancillary, or supporting, detail to the main framework of the paper, as she clearly defines.
you can't be serious. It is possible that Black individuals either chose to or felt pressured to come together with other Blacks on campus because of the belief that Blacks must join in solidarity to combat a White oppressor After Princeton, one may speculate that respondents were also in predominately White work environments or attending graduate or professional schools that were also predominate- ly White. Thus, a discussion of the differences between these experiences in predominately White environments and Princeton experiences that prevented Pre and Post environ- ments from changing their attitudes will be interesting.
No, it's not her own words, it's the words you think she's saying and devoid of the context you ignore.
I've quoted her own words over and over again. you may think her racism is justified, but that's another topic.
You serious? You miss the "because of the belief" part in the first paragraph? I'm missing the issue with the second part, especially in connection with the question the paper is asking.
Because it's about black people and their identity. Why do you assume that anything written about race or includes white people has to be primarily about white people and racism?
I'm not sure how many excuses about context we need to make in deciding this topic is at the core of this couple - except for Barry's golf and Michele's food programs.
