Problem: Morbid Curiousity

Perhaps we, as humans, want to see the accident on the side of the freeway because it makes us appreciate that we're not the ones now completely screwed, or worse, dead. Perhaps it's that we have spent the last hour in standstill traffic with nothing to do and now that the accident is finally in front of us, we want to see what we were waiting for. Perhaps, deep down, the carnal, vulgar side of us is interested in gore and death and people having their brains blown out on film isn't enough; we want to see the blood-smatterings on the freeway piling.

We don't get enough, in movies, do we? That question is rhetorical; it's already been answered by Hollywood's fulfilling of our expectations: I watched 3:10 to Yuma recently, (which was bloody enough,) and the previews were equally as bloody. War (with Jet Li) stands out as a stunt-heavy blood film. Now, before you criticize me for watching an R-rated movie, allow me briefly to defend myself: there's no sex, one lady's bare bum, a handful of swear words, and a bunch of Old West gun battles where we see, among other deaths, a young man have a hole blown into his neck by a six-shooter at point-blank range. Yeah, yeah...I'm desensitized. It's not High Noon...it's today's film for today's audience (as evidenced by the appearance of Luke Wilson, Angel from X-Men 3, and the Notorious Bettie Paige). Both 3:10 to Yuma and High Noon were well written, with similar story lines, or at least ideas. (No such thing as a new idea.) One of the two is a classic, and the other is a well-written, bloody-heavy modern production. 50 years ago, no one wanted to see a main character's chest shot half a dozen times so that as he slid sideways against a train car a blood trail was left behind, but times have changed. If we can't see the bullet being wrenched from the Pinkerton's stomach, we're not interested. It's not real enough.

Sometimes, however, it's too real. FAR too real. Take young Heath Ledger's death two days ago; I heard from my mother that he had died and, in utter shock at our generation's new River Phoenix, ran to the computer to access cnn.com. Listed on the right-hand side of the screen were half a dozen news report videos, one of which disturbed me terribly: it was a 45-second long video entitled "Ledger's Body Removed from Building" and the photo accompanying the title and video length was of a black body bag strapped to a stretcher headed for a van amidst a veritable horde of newsmen and paparazzi shooting video and snapping pictures. It was OBSCENE.

I did not watch the video. A man younger than myself, the father of a 2 year-old girl, and a well-respected and popular actor is dead from an overdose, whether intentional or unintentional, it makes no difference. But do you remember the last time a celebrity, politician, or other famous type had a mass of people standing around eager for a photo or a video of a body bag? I don't.

What is it about us human beings that makes such grizzly "reporting" profitable to the newsmen? They wouldn't be filming 28 year-olds in body bags if people weren't eager to share in the spectacle. Can we not hear the report on the news without perusing photos and videos of bodies being loaded into vans? Have we, as a people, descended so far into our morbid curiousity that we now promote and pay for the opportunity to examine morbid atrocity?
I believe that, because we can safely access emotionally pornographic news material on the internet as we sit solitarily in front of our computers, we feel we can escape judgement for that curiousity. After all, it's there for the viewing. It's not nudity, we argue...not the gunshot, not a coke snort, not even the body itself. Imagine for a moment what the stations would have paid for a photo of young Ledger's reportedly naked, face-down body, the pill bottle in the background. And now imagine how many people would pull it up on their computers in the privacy of their own homes. Would you be one of them? Were you one of the thousands of people who did a Youtube search for the still-and-thankfully-unreleased video of Ledger's fellow Aussie Steve Irwin's death? Perhaps you're not one to look at or watch "physical" porn, but examine yourself closely: do you seek out emotional or mental pornography? Do you take the time to examine the automobile crash as you drive by? And to what end?

Consider the grieving former fiancee, wondering what she could have done differently. The daughter left behind who will never know her father but by his films. The housekeeper, who will undoubtedly be in therapy for some time to come. The doctor who blames himself for the prescription. Ledger's parents and family, now devastated. Ledger himself, entirely robbed of the dignity in death he tried so hard to give the characters he played in life. How about Irwin's wife and daughter, associates, crew, zoo, and even an entire country of devotees? How about the lives affected by the roadside crash? Everyone from those involved directly to their families, friends, fellow church goers, business partners, and neighbors all the way down to the children of the police who arrived on the scene, receiving an extra, emotional hug from a saddened and reflective parent on the eve of the accident. Right now, though, think of Ledger: the young mother of Heath Ledger's baby will inevitably be exposed to a photo or video of his 28 year-old body in a black bag surrounded by eager photo-takers. If I were her, the sight would make me vomit.

What is the solution to the problem of our morbid curiousity? Well, under some circumstances, it's difficult to curb, particularly when we drive down the freeway and thank our form of God that we were not the ones involved in what we witness. But the porn-addiction aspect? We must treat our morbid curiosity the same way we would treat an addiction to drugs. Avoidance. Complete, total, and comprehensive. Therapy, if necessary. But a conference with God, repentance, and a change of heart that includes total avoidance of the addiction in the future is imperative. Don't believe in God? You can still repent, which means to feel bad, make reparations, change your mode of operation, and move on.

Why do most of my solutions to problems we, as a world community, face generally come back to personal responsibility? Because personal responsibility is the foundation for all things right -- or wrong -- in society. It is our refusal to accept responsibility, and sometimes the denial of our own need to take responsibility, that prevents us from growing into the people we have the potential to become. If we cannot become the people we are meant to be, our society can never grow into the kind of healthy, idyllc society we all envision. However, if we start with us -- each of us, individually -- we cannot possibly fail.

Don't watch films and television shows (I won't, either!) that desensitize you. (I'm guilty as anyone, here!) Grieve along with the people whose car is overturned in the left lane, but do not gape. And don't believe for one second that clicking on a video of Heath Ledger's body bag doesn't condemn you and isn't additional motivation for the newspeople to keep filming and posting their footage. You can still watch the news without entertaining its more vulgar aspects. You can still help Ledger's little girl grieve without watching the body being removed. Be responsible for what you see -- and what you let your kids see -- and conscious of how what you see affects others. Be careful...for your sake, and everyone else's.

Problem solved,

Mommy

Problem: "Go Back Where You Came From" Attitudes

Almost a century ago now, my family found themselves immigrants headed for America, a land of freedom, and a land of promise. Some of them "Americanized" their names, and some moved into large communities comprised of people of their own heritage. Some spoke their native language in the home but insisted their children learn English, and others abandoned their native language altogether. Some continued to make homemade ravioli, and others passed up sauerkraut and wiener schnitzel for hot dogs at baseball games. Regardless, they loved their old homes and were faithful to their new. Some relinquished their former identities as citizens of other countries while others saw fit to blend their heritage with the culture of their new country, but all willingly became citizens of the United States of America, bringing to the proverbial table new ideas and even new ways of thinking...or at least new dishes.

Today things are different. People still pour into these United States, whether legally or illegally, but the prevailing attitude has changed. They are coming not because they want to -- because they are thrilled to pitch themselves headlong into a new way of life -- but because America is still a land of freedom and promise, and they feel they have no choice. Let me make this clear: they do not want to be here. If they could support their families in their native lands, if they had the potential there to attain what they can here, they would not come. One might be inclined to argue that a hundred years ago, immigrants came for the same reason: they had more opportunity here. That may be true, but back then, they wanted to be here. They loved America -- the IDEA of America -- and looked forward to taking full advantage of everything America had to offer them, intent on becoming Americans.

Today they resent us. We, as Americans, are incredibly oblivious to the fact that most other countries and peoples not only don't like us, they despise us. So imagine being from the war-torn Middle East, loathing and abhorring Americans, and then, in order to feed your family and take advantage of opportunities to worship and live as you see fit, being forced to move to America and live amongst those you loathe. I'm not talking about Mexicans jumping the border here...I'm talking about your East Indian neighbor who attempts to be friendly when you patronize their store...but doesn't quite manage to hide their disgust.

The problem, then, is not necessarily those who come seeking opportunity, though I'm the first to say that if they want to live among us, they'd better learn to find the good in us. The problem is instead, well, us. How often do we hear our people say, "If you don't like it, go back where you came from," when instead we could be saying, "Welcome to America. Those movies you see? We're not all bad, really." Rather than reinforcing their negative opinions, perhaps we could, I don't know...change them?

We are an incredibly prosperous nation. To those less prosperous than us, we are tyrants, and to those more prosperous, we are a joke. (See "Problem: We Aren't as Smart as 5th Graders".) The general view of the Typical American, for those painfully unaware, is as follows: we are uncouth, vulgar, egotistical, self-centered, uneducated, unrefined, uncultured, wealthy, spoiled, Bible-thumping white trash. Imagine the worst possible stereotype of a Texas oil baron visiting Paris in tourist attire, telling the French why Kraft Singles are so much better than their heathen stinky stuff. Then multiply it. Americans.

We have a wonderful land, some spectacular people, and some amazing minds in the good old US of A...and we seldom take advantage of any of it, let alone share it with other nations. We do not educate ourselves, and those that do are forced into 80 hour workweeks without the opportunity to develop their minds and their interests. We are not cultured, and those that are, again, prefer to spend their time abroad or amongst the wealthy upper crust rather than sharing their wealth of experience. Religion falls into extremes: you're not a _________, so you're going to burn in hell vs. I'm offended that you believe in God, so get that cross off my city's seal! We do not speak from understanding...we spit out the first things that come to mind, and often have things to say when we should just listen. (Ask anyone who knows me...I'm guilty as charged.) We have more money than we know what to do with, but complain that it's never enough, and those of us that are starving put iPods before food storage and expect the government to allot us our "entitlements."

Americans have got it good; many, many others do not, and those others are forced (by virtue of their situation and the inability of their own countries to provide opportunities for them to sustain themselves) often to seek refuge and opportunity in a land that can -- and does -- provide...a land inhabited by hosts of happily, comfortably ill-mannered, ill-tempered, ill-informed people. Would you be thrilled by the idea of coming here if it meant that the only way you could feed, clothe, and shelter your children were to (legally) become part of a place and a people you hate?

Solution: Don't tell the whiner at WalMart to go back where he came from. Don't suggest to the Eurosnob on Rodeo Drive that if they don't like it here, they don't have to patronize our BCBG and they can return to the stores in Paris. Instead, look in the mirror and figure out to which of the ugly stereotypes you help contribute. Then change it.

I say "He's like...she's all...they're like..." She's like what? I should have outgrown it a decade or more ago. I am content to not watch the news "because I don't like how ugly the world has become." What? If I don't watch, it's going to go away? I have neither taken a class (basket weaving, anyone?) nor read a classic novel (been meaning to read some Austin) in years now. And perhaps it is time to skip the next Harry Potter flick in favor of a play at UCI, which these days are pretty comparable in price. (Okay, maybe I won't skip HARRY POTTER, but...)

What can you do to change the stereotypes? First, understand where the rest of the world is coming from. Then...take a long hard look at yourself and start with something small. Drop a pebble in the pond and watch those ripples. If we all do it, it'll make a difference...but mostly, it'll make a difference for us, and we can be proud not only of our flag, our founders, and our constitution, but of our people -- today's people -- as well.

Problem solved,

Mommy

Problem: Prison for Life vs. Death Penalty

Another controversial one! Feel free to blast, but be prepared to discuss!

A dozen years ago and more now, a young man named Robert beat another young man to death with a baseball bat and, at 17 years old, was charged with murder and sentenced to life in prison. He claimed to have had connections to the Chinese mafia and the black market sales of some computer parts allowed him an introduction to the boy he murdered; he promised the youth a gun, and when he came to retrieve it, Robert stuffed an alcohol-soaked rag into his mouth, beat him severely with a baseball bat, and buried him, still semi-conscious, in another teen's backyard. He aspirated his own vomit and died of that and his injuries; whether or not he lived through the terror of burial was not ever, to my knowledge, able to be ascertained. Other teens were involved, but Robert "masterminded" the murder and was treated as an adult in court.

This week a 35 year-old named David, separated from his wife and recently informed that she sought divorce, shot his wife numerous times at point-blank range in front of her mother and various other adults and children arriving for church. His wife had just climbed out of her car and was headed into her house of worship on that, her 30th birthday, when he murdered the mother of his two children, 3 years and 18 months, respectively. He has just yesterday been charged with murder and is currently in residence at the Utah County Jail waiting for further proceedings. His tiny children are with family. Sentencing will not occur for some time -- perhaps years.

As a Christian, it is my belief that recompense must be made for sin. As a citizen of these United States, it is my conviction that those who break the law owe a debt to society. In both of the above-mentioned cases, and in both the aforementioned realms of my personal credo, penance is required and reparations must be made. Biblically, there are a few ways to make amends for the shedding of innocent blood (and both an Old and New Testament method of so doing) and all are required from the guilty: monetary compensation, sincere apology made before God and those offended or injured by the loss, and the sacrifice of one's own life as partial atonement. Even then, complete reparations cannot be made, but these things -- if entirely sincere and offered willingly -- qualify the murderer for at least a semblance of "forgiveness" in the life to come. According to the laws of the land, reparations are similar: often a fine is involved, an admission of guilt is made (with the opportunity offered for the guilty to speak, requesting forgiveness as they desire), and time is served in a penitentiary, or the life of the guilty is required, both principles being the same -- that the guilty is removed from normal life and the possibility of that person endangering others is nullified.

In both cases discussed above, witnesses to the murders were present. People were at the scene and watched as these men murdered their victims, albeit in one case those watching were active or passive participants, and in the other were innocent bystanders. There are, however, in both cases, individuals who can attest to the circumstances of the murders as firsthand witnesses. There is no question that these two men are the very individuals who ended the lives of their victims. Whether, as in Robert's case, the defense blames an existentialist novel by Camus as the reason for Robert's skewed line of thinking or, as will potentially be the case with David, the defense questions David's sanity, both men extinguished human lives. They did not kill as a matter of self-defense; they did not take lives of wartime foes. Robert killed a fellow teen, and David a mother of two.

In situations such as these it is my belief that sanity, that mental state, that reason is always a moot point. These people -- people who have witnesses to their murders who can confirm that they are indeed at fault -- owe a debt both to God and to society. Other religious individuals would generally agree, thanks to scripturally-based beliefs, that the guilty must give their own life to repay, at least in part, their debt to God. The most effective way to pay one's debt to society, on the other hand, is not to create for John Q. Taxpayer any further debt. Google the cost of life in prison; you'll find all sorts of things, but generally speaking, authorities agree that 50 years in a high security prison costs us $805,000.00 per criminal. True, capital crimes cost into the millions, thanks to court costs, but we're not talking about just any old murder cases. We're talking about cases were there are witnesses to the murders proving that the accused is truly guilty. And outside of the costs associated with needing to hold a brief trial to confirm that, "yes, he's guilty," the cost of half a dozen men for a firing squad paid for 15 minutes of their time and the cost of bullets for the guns they own, plus a bit more for the use of their weapons, and even the cost of funeral services for the executed...we'll still come in WELL under over 3/4's of a million dollars. Why the prolonged court cases? Fine, so-and-so is insane. They should be removed from society. For what? For me to feed 3 squares a day, dress in regs, house and provide utilities and mattresses and toilets? How about we empty our prisons of these particular criminals, allow them to pay their debt to God and remove their burden on society and just execute them?

Am I being cruel? Am I calling for execution as revenge? No. Don't believe me?

Robert is my old best friend's elder brother. I spent time in his home and with his parents, and have many happy memories of my friendship with her. David's family is also good. I have known his family as long as I can remember, and was quite fond of his younger brother. I feel no malice or hatred toward either of these men, and have the greatest of sympathy for their families, who did not, as people would leap to claim, raise them poorly. Quite the opposite: we as parents are required to teach our children correct principles and allow them to govern themselves. There are, then, consequences to their self-governance, but we cannot inflict our ideals and standards on them, only teach those standards to our children and the reasons behind those standards and watch as they are accepted or declined, the consequences of either following closely. This is just as true for my 3 year-old as it is for a 30 year-old; I teach my son not to hit his sister and do my best to protect my little girl, but when my 3 year-old, who has been taught not to hit his sister then decides to do so anyway then does, consequences follow and he is sent to time out and required to make reparations. Time out for a 30 year-old who is a confirmed murderer is, in turn, permanent removal from the situation: the death penalty. The punishment fits the crime, society is spared the cost of housing and caring for one who does not belong to and cannot be part of society, and God receives home the spirit of one with whom He can then do as He sees fit.

This is not revenge. I am not suggesting that Robert be dragged into an executioner's back yard and disposed of in the same fashion he disposed of another young man. I am not requesting that David be shot repeatedly with a 9mm handgun in the parking lot of a church until dead. I request instead that they be given the opportunity to make proper recompense for their sins and lawlessness: require that their lives be sacrificed in turn. For those who are atheist and argue morality (or for those who are religious and argue Christ's doctrine of forgiveness) as reason not to institute the death penalty, visit http://www.theologyonline.com/DEATH.HTML. Though long, this treatise is quite brilliant from a Biblical perspective, and answers the moral atheist argument, as well.

What is the solution? When there are three or more witnesses to the crime of murder and guilt has been proven in a court of law, the sentence must be death, and must be carried out within 24 hours with no possibility of reversal. Possibility of rehabilitation or no, these individuals have proved an inability to live as part of society, and society should not be required to furnish their living arrangements at our expense. Execution must be immediate and inexpensively performed. Those who without a shadow of a doubt are guilty must receive the consequences of their actions, and that consequence must be death.

So, what can we do? Write to your senators! Call up your house reps! Make your opinion known: ask that those convicted of murder in the 1st degree by the testimony of three or more witnesses be sentenced to immediate execution. Period, the end, no questions asked, no possibility of appeals. It seems harsh to some, I'm sure, but when we consider the circumstances -- a cold-blooded murderer of an innocent victim repaying a debt to God and man by sacrificing their own lives as penance -- it is the reasonable, logical, charitable thing to do.

Problem solved,
Mommy

Problem: Racism from Minorities

Some months ago I was flipping channels, marveling at the vast array and sheer number of Black sitcoms in relative proportion to the number of Blacks in the US, when I paused on one nameless and, as sitcoms always prove, pointless example to explore the merits of a minority-oriented sitcom. I was a BIG fan of The Cosby Show, and it never occurred to me, until I took the time to peruse today's Black sitcoms, that I enjoyed The Cosby Show not because it was a Black sitcom, but because it was a FAMILY sitcom.

So I'm watching this random Black sitcom -- I still don't know what it was, and for all I know, it's off the air now, gone the way of most sitcoms -- and am utterly and completely shocked at the scene I'm watching. Three women, two Black and one White, are in a kitchen making pie. The White woman is apparently dating a Black friend of the other two women, and reminds the two women that her significant other prefers graham cracker crusts to traditional pie crusts. One Black woman looks at the other and says, very significantly, "Yeah, we KNOW he likes his crackers."

Now, I'm sorry, but if the tables were turned, and the women were in a restaurant, and the White-turned-Black woman was to say to the two Black-turned-White women that when it comes to giving a waiter a tip, her boyfriend is a bit niggardly, and if the two Black-turned-White women were to look at each other and say, "Yeah, we KNOW he likes being niggard," ALL HELL WOULD BREAK LOOSE. The writers, actors, producers, director, EVERYONE involved would be black-balled. There would be a supreme court hearing. Jesse Jackson would scream Armageddon. Heck, you're having a heart attack just reading the word niggard!

Go to dictionary.com. According to them, the noun means "an excessively parsimonious, miserly, or stingy person," and so, in the above-referenced scenario, makes perfect sense. It is the play on words, as it is with the "cracker" comment, that make it so offensive. In fact, the word "niggard" is so often associated with the offensive word "nigger" that people fear to use it...and for excellent reason. I'll provide 2 examples, the first of which can be found on dictionary.com when you scroll a bit further down the page. One Christopher Hitchens relates a story about a speech he gave in DC: "It was while giving a speech in Washington, to a very international audience, about the British theft of the Elgin marbles from the Parthenon. I described the attitude of the current British authorities as 'niggardly.' Nobody said anything, but I privately resolved—having felt the word hanging in the air a bit—to say 'parsimonious' from then on." Mr. Hitchens was lucky. David Howard, aide to the BLACK mayor of D.C. Anthony Williams, used the word during a budget discussion...and was asked to tender his resignation. Of course, this particular story had a happy ending: Mr. Howard is gay, and the gay community pressured the mayor to perform an internal review. Howard was offered his job back, and he declined, accepting a different position in the mayor's office instead. Amazingly enough, the NAACP spoke with intelligence about the issue (rather than follow its standard modus operandi by screaming hate and intolerance): Julian Bond, NAACP's chairman at the time, stated "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people’s lack of understanding." He also acknowledged, "We have a hair-trigger sensibility, and I think that is particularly true of racial minorities."

But back to my point. I'm baffled by the black women's reference to "cracker" during a sitcom. I can't think of many racial slurs for whites, but cracker, honky, and ghost are up at the top of the list. And I'm offended. But I'm equally offended by nigger, kike, wap, fob, spic, towel head, gook, jap, and any number of Polish jokes. That I even know these words makes me sick to my stomach, and I'd never use any of them...even in jest. However, the use of "cracker" by a black woman is supposed to be not only fine but amusing, and I am supposed to laugh at the racial slur because it is directed at the majority rather than at a minority.

By the way, according to our government, as of 2020, whites will no longer by the majority in the US. The majority will be Hispanic...some born in the US, some entering illegally. But that's another blog.

Speaking of Hispanics, a few months back, my little town of Anaheim, CA had a festival at a local park. A Hispanic/Latino festival. Shouldn't surprise me...according to the 2000 census -- SEVEN years ago! -- 47% of Anaheim's population was Hispanic. (Whites made up 36%.) Anaheim also hosts a Hispanic Heritage Month, has a League of Latin Americans, holds occasional Latin "Concerts in the Park," and has a massive Cinco de Mayo celebration yearly. I don't necessarily feel excluded from any of these things based on MY heritage, but I certainly don't feel welcome when I appear at a Latin cultural festival...nor do I generally feel welcome when I walk into Gigante, the (virtually next-door) grocery store where I buy my produce, tortillas, masa, etc. My favorite Latino Anaheim story, though, comes from an old friend of mine who was eager to be involved with the PTA at her daughter's school: she attended the first meeting and was forced to discontinue her attendance because the meetings were conducted in Spanish. It seems that the VAST majority of parents party to the PTA at that particular elementary school were Hispanic and did not (or would not) speak English, so my friend was precluded from serving her daughter's classroom and elementary based on her inability to speak Spanish. In the USA, people.

It's not just the grocery store or the PTA...I PAY to be belittled! About 18 months ago I was very pregnant with my daughter and I took my son to Chuck E. Cheese to play. I spent some money on tokens, watched him bounce up and down on the most inane "rides," and as he dismounted one and ran toward another, he collided with an equally excited little girl. It happens. But this little girl was Hispanic, and her mother immediately began to yell at my son, accusing him of pushing her daughter and being a vicious "white kid." Now, if my son pushes, hits, kicks, or in any way injures anyway else, I'm the first to attend to the situation. But this was an accident -- a midair collision between two eager kids -- and I attempted to explain just that. Within seconds, she retorted with swear words, yelling at the top of her lungs that I was a "white b***h", and had to be dragged out by three of her friends, all their kids in tow, to prevent the woman from trying to attack me bodily. I did not insult her, I did not once reference her ethnicity, I never raised my voice, except after her racial slur, when I asked very loudly what her problem was. Maybe she got up on the wrong side of the bed that morning, I don't know, but whatever it was, my skin pigment upset her that day.

But I digress. In the United States, my sweet husband is among the most hated people alive: his is 30, he is white, he is male, he is a college-educated white-collar worker, he is Mormon, and he is a registered Republican. Short of working for the IRS, he could not be MORE hated by the general population. Automatically, his very existence is "unfair" to minorities. Because his is young and white and male, he is responsible for the repression of EVERYONE else: minorities, all age-ranges, and women. Because he is college-educated and a white-collar employee, he has taken away jobs and opportunities from others. Because he is both religious and conservative, he has ruined the lives of non-believers, BELIEVERS, (remember, he's Mormon!) and liberals, as well as all those that the foundation of liberal thought is intended to "protect." I am here, however, to focus on his being white.

White. My husband, I myself, my children...we are identified by the word used to describe an absence of color. Not by my husband's half-Polish heritage, not by my quarter-Italian heritage, not even by our children's European conglomerate heritage. Not by our heritage at all. Our hot dog-loving, baseball-watching (except we don't fancy baseball, honestly), church-attending, English-speaking culture is not recognized as a culture at all. We -- we white people -- are discriminated against. Because others think we believe ourselves to be better than are they, we, in turn, are loathed for their skewed perceptions of our thought processes. And that angers me.

A friend of mine brought up racism lately, and commented that there was no such thing as "reverse racism." I started to get a little worked up, considering some of the things I've experienced, when she explained her meaning: racism is racism, no matter who it comes from. It's not "reverse," as though the only people who could possibly be racist are white. It's just plain racism. Blacks are racist, Koreans are racist, East Indians are racist...there's nothing reverse about it. Everyone has the potential to be racist, myself included, but I do make an active attempt to NOT be.

Why is it so surprising that I DON'T think in terms of skin pigment? Why is it surprising that I buy masa and make and steam and eat tamales? Why are people surprised when my 3 year-old son doesn't bat an eye at his uncle Victor's "tan", a second-generation American-born man of Hispanic heritage? Yes, my sister's husband is Hispanic, and the only people who ever thought twice about her marrying a man of Mexican heritage was her husband's family!

Perhaps this is a problem that can never be solved...maybe minorities, even when they become majorities, will continue to exhibit racist tendencies toward "white folk." But from my point of view, anything we can do as individuals will help. You see, we as a people think in terms of race. What race? There is only one race that I know of, and that's the human race. Mexicans are from Mexico, or they have a family heritage from Mexico as descendants of those who once lived there. Poles are from Poland, as was my husband's grandmother who emigrated here as a young woman, and my husband is half Polish as a result. I am of mixed European descent (though my mother mostly recognizes her half-Italian heritage). White is not a race, contrary to Hitler's beliefs. Black is not a race. Asian is not a race. We are not skin pigments. We are ethnicities. We are PEOPLE. None are superior or inferior unless, by their individual behaviors, they make themselves so. My husband is no better than our black next door neighbor. He is no better than the elderly white guy across the courtyard in our apartment complex. Perhaps he makes more money than the black man. Perhaps he is better-educated than the elderly gent. Perhaps he is a more faithful saint than a fellow church-goer, but as a son of God, he is neither better nor more favored than anyone else. He has only chosen a specific path for his life, and it includes eating grilled hot dogs and watching football with friends. It includes supporting a family as an accountant and serving his God via voluntary administrative assistance to his ecclesiastical leader. And he is, above all, an individual member of the human race.

Now, some of you are saying, "but the Blacks were repressed! We were enslaved! We were denied the right to vote, segregated, lynched!" That's true, and I'm not debating that fact. In some areas today blacks are victimized, as are so many other cultures and ethnicities and peoples. But I didn't do it. I don't do it. My ancestors didn't do it. And even if they had, why am I, a 29 year-old woman, being held responsible for the sins of those who came before me? Again, am I not, too, an individual member of the human race, capable of making my own judgements and content to treat people with the respect that they, as individuals, deserve? Then don't treat me like I'm a racist by default, and don't treat me like I deserve less because I happened to be born to more. I won't treat you like a racist or like you deserve anything other than the simple and earnest respect I offer everyone else, either...unless you prove otherwise. But not until then.

The solution? If you're a racist, grow up. Make a special visit to the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, if you have to, but do something to help yourself understand that people are part of ONE race -- the HUMAN race -- and that different ethnic heritages have different things to offer, not the least of which is food...yum. If you're inclined to believe that people must earn respect before you offer it to them, no matter who they are, grow up. It's time to be an adult. People are people, and are innocent until proven guilty, as it were...deserving of respect until they prove otherwise. Celebrate the upcoming MLK Jr. Day by teaching your children to respect...teach them that skin pigment does not a person make. Talk to your family, friends, church members, coworkers...and expect nothing less from them than appropriate respect. Let them know your expectation that they abstain from expecting behaviors from an individual based on that individual's ethnic background. And do not yield, or you condone.

Problem solved,
Mommy