[JRutledge]

Originally posted by M&M Guy


What, or who is a "person of privilege"? Who gets to make that determination? Is it strictly based on skin color? I'm not asking these things to be confrontational, but to try and understand the overall picture, because I'm a relatively simplistic person. Do you see me, as a white, middle-aged guy, as a person of privilege? From what I've read, you have a sales position, which the odds are you make more money than me, and you hold some positions in both your local official's associations and the IHSA. Doesn't that put you in a position of privilege over me? So, if I feel uncomfortable by your words and actions based on my skin color, would you feel comfortable taking your own advice and saying, "my bad"?

Actually no I am not. There is only one of me in most of the positions I sit. I am usually the only African-American in many of the association positions or even in the IHSA Committee position I hold. There is only one prominent African-American in the IHSA office. When I received a high assignment in baseball, one of the first things people claimed was I got their only because I was an African-American. So did all the white males get their high level assignments because they were white males? Even in IACAO I am pretty much the only African-American speaking at clinics or playing a prominent role. Of course everything is not about race, but when it comes to opportunity and those that seem to get those opportunities in many areas, officiating in our state it is not a secret who gets those opportunities on a large scale. It is not a secret that many women are getting and opportunity in basketball in our state and around the country in basketball. But for some reason when they get those opportunities, most of the officials question their "qualifications" but seem to rarely make that same claim about the many white males that work the sport. I just find that interesting when the tables are turned how many react to who got a shot at the State Finals or to go deep into the playoffs.

Originally posted by M&M Guy
Remember, I'm a simplistic person in a complicated world. When I grew up, racism was the intentional putting down of a person or group based on their heritage or skin color. It seems as though racism has evolved, however, from intent to perception. The intent to put someone down no longer is the sole criteria for racism, but whether someone feels put down or held back. That's the basic idea behind the Chief Illiniwek issue here at Illinois. The Chief supporters fell the intent of the symbol is a positive portrayal of an honored tradition. The Chief opponents feel ashamed the mascot uses a religious dance in a way that degrades Indians and their traditions. The reason this issue continues is both sides are right, to some extent. The Chief supporters' intent is positive, but the Chief opponents' perception is negative. So, who's more right?

Racism is not always intentional or openly condoned. Racism is often not simple and easy. The problem with racism in this country is we all think it is about the KKK, and the south. Well some of the biggest race riots in this countries history happen in northern and urban cities throughout this country. Racism is not about lynching and burning crosses either. Racism and discrimination is also about institutional structure and policies. I am not Native American and I cannot tell you why or why not specifically the Chief Illiniwek is a good symbol or not. This is not my culture. But if someone says that it is offensive to them and that the images of a white kid in red face running around with a dance that is a stereotypical, I think I would tend to take their point of view over my point of view.

Originally posted by M&M Guy
I went to a funeral this weekend for a neighbor of mine who was also the father of one of my daughter's friends. We were one of the few white families at this all-black Baptist church. I felt a little uncomfortable, which (I know I'm making an assumption) is probably not much different than what JRut feels going to ref at an all-white suburban school. Uncomfortable because I was not around people "like me". So, it got me wondering: how come people didn't come up and talk to us? Were they ignoring us because we were different than them? The more I thought about it though, the more I wondered if it was because I was a little over-sensitive. After all, if I had been in the same situation in an all-white church, no one would've come up and talked to us simply because we didn't know anyone there, except the immediate family. I could take my experience and feel slighted and perhaps a victim of racisim, or perhaps look at it in a more realistic light and not feel victimized, because there was no clear and obvious intent to ignore us or put us down.

Here is the myth that most people do not understand. I grew up around mostly white people my entire life. I am very used to being the "only one" in most circles I used to run with in HS. Actually there are many African-Americans all over this country that work, socialize and deal with people that do not look just like them on a regular basis. The difference is many white people can completely avoid a Black community. If I wanted to officiate a Black school, I personally would have to go out of my way to do so. When most of the time I officiate (drive somewhere, go to a restaurant or go to the store) I am surrounded by people that are not of color. So Black people (I have more than one friend) of us are used to that fact. I also understand that in many cases I will get looks and get asked "stupid questions" based on what my race is. It comes with the territory of being who I am. White people remind me every day what race I am. I do not have to worry about it; someone that is white will make a comment or say something that clearly signifies my race. That does not mean that is a bad thing, it just means that it clearly seems that most white people I come in contact with assume I live in a certain place or that I know certain people.

Originally posted by M&M Guy
I with Chuck for the most part - if you feel like a victim, you are a victim. And that is the trend in society today. But it seems that is as though if you take away a lot of the victim mentality, a lot of the so-called racism will go away. That's not to say it's gone, but I wonder how much is victim-mentality and how much is genuine, ugly intent? Isn't intent the main issue?

Here is my problem with your point of view and Chuck's point of view. Why do you have to be a victim to be against a stereotype that you feel is inaccurate or should not be perpetuated? I listen to a Catholic radio station every now and then and I hear all these comments about how the media portrays Catholics and they way people of faith are treated in the media. Considering that most people in this country that call themselves Catholic are not people of color, I do not hear anyone talking about that they should "get over it" about what offends them. You make a joke about a Catholic Priest and mostly white people come out of the woodworks and talk about how offended they are. I do not see anyone telling Catholics to "get over it." Maybe you do not see that feeling because the issue is not about race and the issue might affect them. So when we bring this back to how stereotypes affect people, I think that any stereotype is very bad and we should get beyond them. As I stated I make a huge distinction between the Seminoles and the Utes than I do when it comes to Chief Illinawek. If tribes sign off on their culture being used, especially when the tribe is used and has regional significance, I can agree with FSU and Utah for their position. Illinois is not endorsed by any regional tribe or group to use that image. There is a big difference in my mind. It would be no different if some school decided to use the Zulu Tribe as a mascot. If there were some Zulu tribal members that lived in a particular region and the images used were accurate to the tribe, I personally would not have a problem with that imagery. I would have a problem if they took some very stereotypical images and did not represent the culture or tribe accurately. The problem is in America there is no such area and there would not apply to specifically the Zulu Tribe.

"Everyone has their own truth"--Peter Jennings

Peace