The Sociological Viewpoint...

A New America

2008-11-06T09:04:00.000-08:00

Forty years after a prophetic speech where a man declared his dream for a nation, November 4, 2008, proved that the dream is becoming a reality. American democracy once again has prevailed and now displays for the world its true definition—government for and by the people.

Americans put aside racial bigotries and political differences for the message of "change" Barack Obama inspired. Americans were not dissuaded by his race, but persuaded by his vision to take the country in a new direction. Irrespective of party affiliation, whether left or right, or our own beliefs, being objective, we saw a man that orchestrated a campaign that will forever change American politics and America. Young people, young and old, black, white and other…have become engaged in the political process in ways that are unprecedented. New records were set for early voting that resulted in lines stretched around corners resembling those at theme parks—the enthusiasm and thrill of the ride spilled-over where few were discouraged by long waits or inclement weather. Even those too young to vote have already been galvanized and impatiently wait their turns. There was also a groundswell of national and international media coverage that recorded history and broadcasted it around the world. America now sits on the precipice of regaining its place as the world's leader.

As a black man who has endured little to no inequality when compared to those who suffered many years before my existence, the election of a black president was hard to fathom. On election night, I, like millions of others, sat in front of the television with tears streaming down my face as a reporter announced, "We project Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States." I was unable to control the emotion sparked by the accomplishment of America. I also watched empathetically as others cried tears of joy. Even as I write these words, tears fall as reality continues to set in. For minutes as the final presidential results rang in, the U.S. class system appeared to be suspended—no one was a celebrity or average citizen, yet everyone was a member of a single party with a single mantra—Change! We were temporarily brought together by the words of our country's leadership from both the left and the right.

In Senator McCain's concession speech, he referenced Obama as being "my president" and delivered a message that conveyed oneness across political parties. He also avowed a sincere willingness to work with the incoming administration to rebuild the country.

President-Elect Obama said in his speech that he would be "president for all." He also spoke of his hope for America reverberating the campaign's catchphrase, "Yes We Can." I have newfound inspiration for this, "A New America."

Barack Obama's victory should serve as an inspiration to young men and women around the world, regardless of race, religion, culture and creed. This is not "A New America" because a black man is our leader, but "A New America" because we have reinvigorated the ability for its people to hope and dream. But even as we have cracked the glass ceiling, crushed many of our own mental limitations, lest we forget, we still have so far to go. Americans have made major steps toward realizing our individual promises while maintaining a unified message—"Change we can believe in."

I admit that my limited thinking and pessimism rested squarely on my own lack of vision that was based solely on my historical view of our society. Although I did not live it, my parents and grandparents have shared stories, I have read books and seen videos of blacks being hosed, beaten and killed because of their opposition to exclusion. There were many before my time that envisioned a reality of equality and others who saw it taking shape. What I saw as a bleak and seemingly irrevocable past helped to shape my view of a perpetual future of privileged white men as our national leaders. Many visionaries saw our past as mere obstacles to realizing America's promise. It had nothing to do with me not believing that a black man could be the leader of the free world, but my limited views of what could be.

In a letter from Nelson Mandela, first black president of South Africa, to Barack Obama shortly after becoming the first black president-elect of the United States, Mandela wrote, "Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place." It is my prayer and belief that our hopes and dreams will continue to spark progressive change in "A New America."

HIV/AIDS: An American Problem

2008-07-31T04:48:00.000-07:00

HIV/AIDS were once known as diagnoses associated with homosexuals. However, in recent years, the reference has morphed into a “black problem” irrespective of sexual orientation. This reference that has been made even by The Black AIDS Institute and accepted by some in the medical community, politicians, and other black leaders, is very dangerous.

It is no secret that HIV/AIDS greatly impact blacks in this country more than any other group. In fact, the HIV/AIDS epidemic among blacks in the U.S. has been compared to the pandemic in parts of Africa. The Centers for Disease Control reported that black women between the ages of 25 and 34 are dying of AIDS more than any other cause of death. It is the second leading cause among black women between the ages of 35 and 44. Blacks represent about 13 percent of the U.S. population, but disproportionately makeup about 47 percent of the HIV cases in the country. Moreover, a black person with HIV is 2.5 times more likely to die.

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief currently spend $15 billion annually in sub-Saharan Africa to provide medical treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS. The U.S. is the world’s leader in monetary support. President Bush recently signed a bill to increase support to $48 billion in 2009. With an obvious epidemic that is inclusive of major disparities, why are tax payers’ dollars being spent in exponential amounts in other countries rather than fighting the problems more aggressively at home? Increasing spending is not a unilateral presidential decision as more than 300 members of the house voted for the increase compared to a little more than 100 who voted against.

It is known that approximately 42 million people around the world are living with HIV or AIDS. In this country alone, there are about 1.2 million people living with HIV and another 40,000 with AIDS. Strikingly, 40,000 new cases are diagnosed each year with 54 percent of those among blacks. Atop of all of those statistics, it is estimated that about 24-27 percent of the HIV cases in the United States are undiagnosed. In other words, people are living with this incurable infection and may be unconsciously spreading it to other sexual partners.

When we start to look at the severity of HIV/AIDS and how Americans (not just blacks) are impacted, then it begins to appear almost surreal. Personally, I have watched many television programs that talk about this problem on the domestic and international levels. I always find myself in sheer amazement. However, I have been most amazed that black organizations and leaders are labeling HIV/AIDS “A black problem.” How often does a problem specific to certain groups yield apathy? A good example is black-on-black crime; what changed after the label? Crime among blacks increased.

HIV/AIDS is NOT a black problem, rather an American problem. Although blacks are hardest hit, other groups, including 34 percent of whites and 19 percent of Hispanics are infected. We cannot succumb to labels when the problem is greater than black, white or other. We need an army united to fight an otherwise losing battle. Quite frankly, if the belief is that blacks, including those who are aware and unaware of their HIV status, are not commingling with whites and other groups, then the problem is greater than we know. © Keydron Guinn 2008

Diminish self-victimization

2008-07-10T11:39:00.001-07:00

With rampant media coverage of crimes in society, it seemed appropriate to provide what I hope will be practical information that may or may not be new to readers. Some may find it hard to believe that we can be the motive behind our own victimization. This is not to imply that when we become victims of crime that we should immediately blame ourselves. On the contrary, it is a plea to get us to better understand how we may be contributors and as a result, potentially ward-off criminal predators.

Victimization is the process by which we become victims of crime. Coupled with that, victims oftentimes feel re-victimized as a result of treatment received in the criminal justice system. For example, rape victims may feel as if they have been raped again by the “system” when they are forced to recall the trauma or are subjected to a multitude of very intrusive medical exams. It has been reported that one of the main reasons that victims do not report crimes is out of fear of being victimized again (by the perpetrator and/or the “system” itself).

The theory of Routine Activities, though somewhat elemental in explanation, is quite dynamic. It discusses everyday behaviors and how they lead to opportunities for crime. Take this scenario for example: Andrea is a single woman who leaves home each morning at 7:25 to get to work by 8. On her way to work she stops at the local Starbucks to get her latte and bagel, which is normally around 7:42. When she leaves her job at 5:00 p.m., she works out at the gym until 6:30 and arrives home around 6:45 each evening. Andrea has breakfast with her mother every Saturday morning at the same coffeehouse. She attends Sunday morning worship service from 9 until 10:30. Are you starting to see a pattern?

Although the above is a fictional depiction, it may surely be someone’s daily activities. What is fascinating is that not only does Andrea know her schedule like the back of her hand, so do others she may not have considered. Neighbors, the clerk at Starbucks, co-workers, the attendant at the gym, and yes, her mother are all aware of her schedule, in whole or in part. The likelihood of any of the abovementioned persons having malicious intent is probably slim. However, this is merely an example of how criminals choose their victims.

Criminologist, John Conklin, posits that criminals select their victims based on the following factors: form of property, value of property and vulnerability of victims. Examples of these may include driving a nice automobile and/or consistently going places alone (particularly women). Given this, criminals are actively engaged in learning the patterns of individuals—their work schedules and other activities.

It is not a bad idea to make subtle changes in daily routines. However, when those subtle changes are not possible, there are many ways to at least give an impression of change. Investing in timers for lamps in various rooms of your home is one of many examples. Inviting a friend or family member along when shopping is never a bad idea. Most importantly, always be aware of your surroundings, be careful what information you share, and consciously make adjustments to your schedule whenever possible.

"What color is he?"

2008-06-26T10:25:00.000-07:00

Don Imus has made another blunder by publically abashing attempts to mend his tainted reputation with what some consider another racist comment. During Imus’ radio broadcast, Warner Wolf, a Washington, D.C. based sportscaster, reported a story on Adam Jones (former Dallas Cowboys defensive back once referred to as Adam “Packman” Jones). Jones has had run-ins with the law and is currently suspended from the National Football League. Wolf reported that Jones had been arrested six times since being drafted by the Tennessee Titans in 2005.

Commenting on the report, Imus stated, “What color is he?” Wolf responded, “He's African-American.” And in what appeared to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, Imus stated, “Well, there you go. Now we know.”

CNN has reported that on a subsequent broadcast, Imus defended his comments positing that Jones was arrested six times because police were “picking on him.” In a seemingly aversive manner, Imus stated, “He's a football player. He is a lovely kid. He was out there having fun. What people should be outraged about is that they arrest blacks for no reason, and I mean there's no reason to arrest this kid six times,” Imus said. “They shoot blacks for no reason.”

Without qualitatively analyzing the comments, there are some obvious red flags flying. Given Imus’ historical charges of being a racist, one might assume that there would be careful steps taken to avoid such claims, particularly if they are not true. It was a little more than a year ago that he referred to the Rutgers women’s basketball players as, “nappy-headed hoes” after they lost their bid at the NCAA Championships. The team was dominated by black players and such a statement was considered racially and culturally offensive.

It is very easy to interpret a person’s words contrastingly to his or her intended meanings. By virtue of being human, we oftentimes straddle our own ethnomethodological (common sense) thinking and award people the benefit of doubt. In the middle rest assumptions of infallibility—“I know what was said” and “I know what was meant.” The way we teeter may depend on who and what was said. Is this not evident in all political campaigns?

My point is simply this, not one of us is perfect, which means we all have and will continue to make statements that will be misinterpreted. It’s how we follow those statements that will determine our master status. In Imus’ case, he has already previously made statements that were, according to him, “misinterpreted.” However, even after those comments resulted in his termination, he followed with other “misinterpreted” comments. At some point, misinterpretations become the speakers’ responsibility.

Let me provide an example of the transference of responsibility. Imus asked the question, “What color is he?” In this most contemporary time in which we live, ask yourself this question, “How long has it been since ‘color’ was used synonymously with race?” Is such a question only asked by racists? That’s not my suggestion. On the contrary, we remain “out of touch” with the evolutions of society, we tend to believe that what was done in the past suffices for the present and future. As a former employee of the NAACP, I have said “colored” is no longer applicable, which means it’s bad for Imus. But that’s only one example. © 2008 Keydron Guinn

Employer response to inflation

2008-06-12T16:00:00.000-07:00

There has been a tremendous amount of commentary on rising prices, not just at the gas pumps, but in every aspect of society. On the one hand, some pundits are blaming congress for a seemingly laissez-faire approach to oil companies. On the other, blame is being placed on oil companies accusing them of price gouging. The economic experts and politicians have all weighed-in on this crisis we all face as Americans, but what have they done as remedies to these problems?

It was only a few weeks ago when I wrote about the national average of gasoline nearing $4.00 per gallon. Well, the $4.00 mark has already been exceeded and is expected to continue the upward pattern in the days, weeks and months to come. Airlines are also being hard hit with the extremely high jet fuel prices that are landing in the wallets of patrons in the form of new fees. Fees include an unprecedented first checked bag fee or a $20 per passenger surcharge. One airline has gone so far as to completely discontinue the in-flight gourmet, two-course meal of peanuts and your beverage choice. Most recently, another airline laid-off 3,000 employees. A thought that continues to nag me is whether the price hikes that affect everyone are as serious as the measures being taken by many major American companies. The answer, though intriguing and obvious, to some degree, is outside the scope of this article.

The contrast to these steadily rising prices in virtually every industry is the fact that few employers are providing employees with cost of living increases. Hardworking Americans who depend on their weekly or monthly paychecks for basic survival are expending greater proportions in simply getting to work as well as putting food on their tables. Budgeting is difficult as prices are so unpredictable that it causes almost daily adjustments.

Granted, some employers are unable to pay increases that equalize employees with the costs of living. It is also true that many companies, particularly small businesses, may not be able to afford even the smallest increases. However, there are other ways that employers can improvise to assist employees. Some companies have devised shorter work schedules in hopes of preventing parents, for example, from paying penalties for extended childcare. A number of colleges and universities around the country have instituted four day (opposed to the traditional five day) weeks with estimates of students and employees saving hundreds of dollars annually on commutes—not to mention the savings for the institutions. These are only two of hundreds of options employers can explore to help ease the hardships faced by many of their best and brightest employees.

Employees have a responsibility to their employers. The same is true in the reverse. These relationships should be of reciprocal dealings to ensure productivity for both parties. There are few exceptions to society’s current woes, but the classes of people depending on their earnings to survive are hardest hit. Not every idea is practicable for all employers, but it is necessary to explore options that can be tweaked to suit a given profile. For example, researchers Kate Lister and Tom Harnish have shown that about 40% of American jobs could be done remotely (telecommuting). However, only 4% are currently using this method. Imagine the savings!

As employees work to make their employers look good, employers should make sacrifices that illustrate a commitment to their employees. © 2008 Keydron Guinn

Predatory Lending? Guilty as Charged

2008-05-23T07:44:00.000-07:00

Contrary to traditional loans, payday loans are far different. Traditional loans have interest rates regulated by the federal government, installment payments, and oftentimes months or even years to pay the principal loan and interest. There are no federally imposed guidelines for payday loan agencies, yet individual states are responsible for their regulations. Currently, 13 states have either banned or limited the amount of interest payday loan agencies are allowed to charge consumers.

It is easy to see how the structure of payday loans are different from traditional loans based in large part on the criterion for borrowers. There are no extensive background or credit checks required by banks when borrowing money. Conversely, in most states, payday loans are restricted to the amount of money they are allowed to lend (usually not more than $1000.00), whereas banks are not restricted depending on the borrower’s credit worthiness and ability to repay, which is certainly not factored in with payday loans. Because of these very loose guidelines, consumers are able to borrow from multiple payday loan agencies simultaneously.

The Center for Responsible Lending estimated that payday loans are costing borrowers approximately $4.2 billion in predatory fees annually. Looking at this social problem on a local level, Louisianans are paying $311 million annually, which is third only to Missouri ($317 million) and California ($365 million). The typical loan amount in Louisiana is $325 with a 560% average percentage rate (APR). Payday loans generally carry APRs between 391 and 443 percent. Some of these loans can exceed more than 700% interest depending on consumer usage.

Unlike traditional loans, payday loans are designed to be renewed. However, loan renewals have been the catalyst for the $28 billion industry. The Center for Responsible Lending posits that the one-time two-week loan that payday loan agencies advance borrowers is virtually nonexistent. Ninety-one percent of payday loans go to borrowers with five or more loan transactions per year. Borrowers oftentimes return only to pay the interest on the original loan to renew it until their next payday. The typical payday borrower pays back $793 for a $325 loan. Ultimately, these agencies make their money on repeat and/or renewed business—not those customers who borrow the small amounts of money needed in emergency situations and completely rid the debt within the next pay period.

According to the Cable News Network (CNN), there are more payday loan agencies located in California than McDonald’s franchises. As of May 2008, Louisiana has approximately 998 payday loan agencies throughout the state that are registered with the Office of Financial Institutions. How that stacks-up against McDonald’s franchises is unknown. We could use Lafayette, Louisiana to paint the picture. To provide some idea of what Lafayette looks like, the US Census reports that as of 2006, there are about 115,500 people within the city’s limits. There are four McDonald’s locations with addresses in Lafayette, with quite a few more outside the city, but within driving range. Conversely, Lafayette has 36 payday loan agencies listed on the state’s registry. Using basic mathematics, there are approximately 28,500 people for every McDonald’s location in Lafayette compared to about 3,200 people for every payday loan location in the same city. Given these nonscientific data, it is assumed that Louisiana and California have something in common, which is probably the case for a number of other states.

Some people may feel forced into borrowing money from these predatory lenders for a number of reasons, such as a last resort to keep the lights on or to put food on the table. As a result, consumers assume a certain level of responsibility with payday loans. These predatory lenders are in business to make money. The more individuals patronize them with continued loan renewals and new loans, the more of a financial trap the consumer builds for him- or herself. Borrowing from one payday loan agency to pay another is simply a bad idea. Use them responsibly or you may become a self-imposed victim of an avoidable predator. © 2008 Keydron Guinn

Gun Totin' Students?

2008-05-16T17:10:00.000-07:00

With all due respect to those who have already weigned-in on Louisiana House Bill 199, I think another perspective is needed—a college faculty perspective (and maybe even staff). Now, I would not for a moment assume that I speak for the masses of faculty and staff. However, I am certain that there are others who share the same or similar views.

House Bill 199 is a piece of legislation that would allow persons holding handgun permits to conceal and carry those weapons on college campuses. If passed, this legislation could assist in setting nationwide precedence. What does this means for our colleges and universities?

Let me paint a picture. As members of the faculty, we are charged with imparting knowledge to students from our respective subject areas. In doing so, it requires us to employ new and existing measures to evaluate students’ understanding and comprehension of what we present. Students oftentimes disagree with faculty on how they have been evaluated and/or the outcome of those evaluations. These disagreements are perfectly acceptable. Part of the college hidden curriculum, particularly in sociology, is to prepare students to ask questions and question the answers. As we have too often seen, some students have misunderstood the premise of this curriculum.

I encourage all of my students to ask questions and when they disagree with my methodologies, they are free to consult others that may assist them in coming to some resolution, such as the chair of the department. Members of the faculty are frequently considered gatekeepers to student success in individual classrooms. Quite honestly, there are only minimal amounts of truth in that. We are awarded certain rights under academic freedom, but students have rights just as faculty. When we employ these various methods of assessing student performance, academic freedom does not require us to bend and break because students disagree.

Having said that, the mere idea of students concealing weapons is far from the bounds of my imagination, especially considering the somewhat hostile environment created on many college campuses. I would not want my safety or the safety of other students threatened. The fact is we work with diverse groups of students with diverse personal issues—we never know what troubles students face throughout the day translating into baggage that is oftentimes brought into the classroom. Their troubles could stem from home, problems with roommates, or even a simple difference of opinion with other students during class discussions. The suggestion is not that all students who face problems are those with handguns. However, how are we to know differently? Likewise, what assurances do we have that “permission slips” to carry handguns will protect us from inappropriate and improper use of these weapons. In this case, should we as faculty carry guns as well?

If we checked the case files of many of recorded school shootings in Louisiana and around the country, we would find that many of the culprits of these violent acts showed little to no evidence of an aggressive past. In fact, some of the offenders excelled academically.

To suggest that violence on college campuses in the past is the result of guns being in the wrong hands is an utter devaluation of the problem. Why would we add guns on campuses rather than doing actively enforcing preexisting policies? Coupled with that, there are trained and sworn officers on campuses with the legal rights to carry guns. Not only are they be charged with protecting the campus and its constituencies, they would potentially face situations resembling the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. © 2008 Keydron Guinn

Is Wright Wrong?

2008-05-02T10:41:00.000-07:00

The Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright has recently launched a pretty extensive media campaign to tell his side of the story surrounding the various sound bites and clips from his very controversial sermons. His campaign is in response to quite a number of punches that he has taken from the public as well as the political arena. Because of the past relationship with Senator Barack Obama, the question that is on the minds of many is whether or not Reverend Wright’s very boisterous and societally offensive comments will have any detriment to the Senator’s bid for the White House. You should find that this article has nothing to do with Reverend Wright’s connection with politics, but is much more focused on the man and his words.

It is imperative to talk about Reverend Wright’s comments as being “societally” offensive in order to add any merit to what he has and probably will continue to say in the public sphere. “Societally” in this context means that as an unsegmented culture, offense was taken in many of the words he spoke behind the pulpit. “Segmentally,” that may not have been the case. Stated differently, those who shared similar experiences with Reverend Wright may not have been offended (or as offended) by his comments.

I cannot speak from any personal experience at the level of hatred and disenfranchisement that I have seen and heard from Reverend Wright on television. However, regardless of the age gap that exists between the two of us, I can say that I sympathize with him. In no way do I condone the comments or the actions he made that “damns” America, blames the U.S. for the attacks on 9/11, or any other direct attack on individuals and the country.

Understanding that Reverend Wright experienced much of this hatred himself, again, I sympathize, but cannot empathize. My sympathy stems from conversations that I have had with my parents, particularly my father, a Vietnam veteran who has been told that he must relinquish his seat (fully dressed in army fatigues) and proceed to the window at the rear of the restaurant to be served. My father entered the restaurants with several other white soldiers that were not at all challenged to do the same. So, he refused to leave and was served at the counter with the other soldiers.

The fact is, society has its problems and many of them can only be verbalized by a minority of people within this country. Oftentimes when opportunities present themselves, the magnitude of experiences—particularly of discrimination and stigmatization—are realized that carries along with it a tendency to say whatever comes to mind despite the consequences. At the moment where there is an opportunity to process what has been said, who heard it, and the ramifications to come of it, realization sets in.

Some will assume this is some sort of defense for Reverend Wright, but that will be left to individual interpretation. Personally, I am not vying for a political office and therefore am ill-concerned with secular judgments that will be passed about my opinions. Much of what Reverend Wright has said is based on his experiences growing up as a child as well as those experienced in adulthood. I would find it hard to believe that any adult that is at least 18 years of age could not have seen any television depiction of the civil rights era. Likewise, I am fairly certain that there have been statements made in our respective religious or spiritual sanctuaries that we did not completely agreement with. As a black man in America, I see the historic images on television and find myself in complete and total disbelief considering I am completely void of any such experience.

Do I consider my father a hero? Absolutely! Has he made comments regarding the abovementioned situation and others in our home that I would not want him to verbalize publically? Absolutely! Would I ever dissociate myself from him for his expression of experiences that I hope to never experience myself? Absolutely Not! As many blacks in this country, particularly the Baby-boomers and earlier generations that still remain with us today, they will continue to have the lived experiences that will invoke a spirit of that time period. Quite honestly, some manage it better than others, but who are we to judge especially those of us who lack the experiences?

Based on television portrayals of Reverend Wright, he is a very animated and uncensored man. There may have been better ways to cope with feelings than those he has displayed in recent times. Some feel as if his public appearances are nothing more than plots to assist in personal gain. A seemingly smaller number believe that Reverend Wright genuinely wants the correct the inaccurate social perceptions that condemn him as an “Anti-American racist”. But to be a man with more than 30 years of service to the community and the collective society laced with his lived experiences of hatred, racial discrimination, disenfranchisement, and other social ails that I may be unaware of, I am in no position to deem him wrong. © Keydron Guinn 2008

What's Going on?

2008-04-04T08:29:00.000-07:00

The war in Iraq has resulted in the death of more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers and nearly 30,000 wounded. According to the Energy Information Administration, today’s average price per gallon of regular grade gasoline is $3.29. Truckers have threatened a massive strike with diesel pricing nearing $4.00 per gallon. The cost of living for Americans continues to rise while income stagnates. In 17 of the 50 largest cities in the US, high school graduation rates are below 50 percent. Coincidentally, Marvin Gaye released the “What’s Going On?” album nearly 37 years ago. The album title as well as the title track poses a contemporarily apt question, “What’s Going On?”

It would be difficult to assume that Mr. Gaye was in some way prophetic given that the societal problems and struggles he lyrically discussed were all present at the time his album was released. “What’s Going On” was released in May of 1971 amid the Vietnam War, a country struggling with extreme poverty, heavy drug abuse, and political corruption. We find that history really does have a way of repeating itself. As much as we would like to think things have gotten better, we end-up with a vacuity of facts to support such an assumption. In fact, one might argue that society is worse today than years ago.

“Mercy Mercy Me”, another track on the album, confessed, “thing ain’t what they used to be…how much more abuse from man can you stand?” These lines help to paint a true picture of a society where people abuse themselves by becoming financially over extended with mortgages they cannot afford. On the other hand, there are those that are abused by predatory lenders offering subprime home loans to people that they know are likely to end in foreclosure. In either case, thousands and thousands of people around the country are losing their homes while banks are continuing to prosper and the housing market continues to decline. Consequently, even those who do not fall prey to predatory lenders, are credit worthy, and are able to make consistent and on-time mortgage payments suffer depreciation of their own homes as a result of foreclosures in their neighborhoods.

It is extremely hard to believe that something discussed in music almost 40 years ago has any application in a society that thrives on technological advances. Forty-years ago, I would assume that even the idea of hybrid automobiles was only a thought shared by a handful of visionary thinkers. Likewise, performing a surgery from Los Angeles on a patient in Toronto using mechanical arms, cameras, and lasers was probably the farthest thing from the minds of medical professionals. Undoubtedly, society has progressed, but it seems that only a privileged few have progressed along with it. We are again at war, we continue to struggle with drug abuse and addictions, political corruption is rampant, and poverty rates are astronomical. We also have nearly 47 million people without health insurance, sharply rising gas prices, and a host of other social problems.

With today marking the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., how might our consistent downward spiral be turned upward so that we may all realize his dream? How might our question of, “What’s Going On?” be one of pleasant surprise rather than hurt and disappointment? © Keydron Guinn 2008

How do we really separate church and state?

2008-03-28T08:30:00.000-07:00

It is probably a pretty fair assessment to say that politicians are trained in politics. Likewise, pastors, reverends, rabbis and other clergy are trained to understand and deliver sermons from their respective religious viewpoints. Should politicians delve into delivering sermons? An even more pressing question that has raised tremendous debate in recent weeks is whether or not clergy should be politickers in the pulpit?

I can recall a number of Sunday worship services during election time where numerous politicians addressed the congregation to explain why he or she would be the best person to represent the people. As I have attended both predominately white and predominately black churches, this has been the case for me irrespective of the congregation. On a number of occasions, I have heard the pastor make very genetic and open statements to parishioners such as, “Be sure to go out to the polls to cast your votes on Tuesday.” Contrastingly, I have also heard politicians opening express religious beliefs.

According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), charities and churches that are deemed 501(c)(3) organizations (not-for-profits) are those “which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition) any candidate for public office.” Interestingly, there is at least one organization, Project Fair Play, whose sole purpose is to “stop illegal church electioneering.” In other words, they want to ensure the separation of church and state. Project Fair Play has a page on their website where individuals can submit suspected violations of law by a church. Immediately noted on the website is a rendering of a statehouse flank by a church.

Discussions have taken place that depicts the blending of church and state as a “black problem”, more or less. The media continues to juxtapose the “black church” with the “black experience” in America. This is firstly an inaccurate depiction. Numerous churches around the country—regardless of predominance in race—are publically and privately supporting politicians in their bids for public offices. Ministers are joining candidates’ “spiritual teams” (also known by other names), not necessarily as a representative of a given church, but as individuals who just so happened to be men and women of the cloth. Simultaneously, they are the pastors and spiritual leaders of the politicians’ churches. Pastors then have the daunting task of keeping separate his or her personal campaign responsibilities, pledges, and viewpoints from that of the church.

Lastly, it is easily understood how these responsibilities may intersect given the enormous pressures placed on pastors by politicians and the community at large. They all want that person to take a stance for right and against wrong. Pastors do far more than deliver sermons—they also lead the church. By that, they are the spiritual advisors to most, if not all of the members of his or her congregation, ensure that financial records are properly maintained, and much, much more. The onus is placed at pastors’ doorsteps when things begin to go awry.

Given the overwhelming, yet tedious jobs of clergymen, I find it difficult to blame them for their positionality. We expect them to be our leaders in the church and in the community. However, we also come to them for advice on our personal lives that are inclusive of politics. Should we blame ourselves as we constitute the congregations? Should we blame the politicians? Conversely, when we are done placing blame, we still have not figured out how to separate church from state. Is it even really possible? © Keydron Guinn 2008

How Free is Free Speech?

2008-03-14T15:01:00.000-07:00

Every remaining candidate vying for the top spot in the White House has found him or herself defending comments that have come from their respective camps. These comments have challenged another candidate’s service record, questioned religious affiliation, debated a candidate’s ability to successfully complete a presidential term because of age, sparked arguments regarding race and gender, and a few comments have led to name-calling. As a result of many of these very controversial comments, some members of these camps have stepped down from their post, which brings about the question, “How free is free speech?”

Some things are often taken out of context or misinterpreted. In other cases, a person’s words are twisted and turned for personal gain. But what about the instances where a person vehemently stands behind what is said? Let me attempt to examine Geraldine Ferraro’s comment about Barack Obama. Ferraro is a former teacher, lawyer and is probably best known for her 1984 vice presidential bid with presidential candidate Walter Mondale. She became the first and only female vice presidential candidate to date. Ferraro worked on Hillary Clinton’s campaign until several days ago when she tendered her resignation amid comments she made that yielded racist allegations.

According to CNN, Ferraro said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman [of any color] he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Whether contextually misunderstood or not, there is something fundamentally inappropriate about such a statement, particularly from a former vice presidential candidate. Quite honestly, I can, to some degree, understand what she could have meant that would probably not be considered racially motivated. Would I have played a race card, probably not, but I’m not the person requiring justification.

On the other side of the coin, Samantha Power, a former Obama advisor commented about Hillary Clinton, “She is a monster, too—that is off the record—she is stooping to anything.” Her comment could have been (and was by some) taken with a great deal of malevolent thought and intent. For a staffer of a presidential candidate to refer to the opposition as a “monster” is incomprehensible. Coincidentally, Power is also an attorney, law professor and Pulitzer Prize winning author. Does this suggest that she should have known not to make such a statement? In her case, maybe, considering her mid-statement point, “…that is off the record”.

Interestingly, these types of derogatory comments are not limited to presidential elections or candidates—it goes on year-round. Black conservatives accused Julian Bond, Chairman of the Board for the NAACP, of referring to Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell as “tokens”; Don Imus, noted syndicated talk show host called the Rutgers Women’s basketball team as “nappy headed hoes”; even Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable (Dr. William “Bill” Cosby) commented about some blacks, where he stated, “Your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day, it's cursing and calling each other [the N-word] as they're walking up and down the street. They think they're hip. They can't read. They can't write. They're laughing and giggling, and they're going nowhere."

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution grants us all freedom of speech by the mere virtue of being U.S. citizens. What this amendment does not state is the simultaneous right to confute any comment, whereby one would use the same constitutional right. In other words, we have the right to make comments and at the same time publically disagree with someone else’s. But where is or should the line be drawn for free speech?

The line to cross in terms of free speech is quite arbitrary making it very difficult for individuals to conform based on their position within society. Anyone making the aforementioned statements would fall under heavy scrutiny. However, those quoted have received even greater scrutinous back lashing simply because of the roles they have been granted within the social structure. Not everyone can and will understand the contexts of statements, even when they are apparently clear.

The bottom line is, when one speaks, he or she must be ready and willing to defend a position. Coupled with that, awareness of place, time, audience and who you are as the actor are of utmost importance. The irony is, free speech is not free at all—we always end-up paying for what we say in one way or another, no matter the cost. © Keydron Guinn 2008

Telling it like it is

2008-02-29T14:45:00.000-08:00

From time to time the fence is straddled on whether I should write about controversial topics or those things that are less attention grabbing. I have found that anyone who writes for public consumption has a purpose. Although it took a while, I have finally come to terms with what my purpose truly is—to incite public discussions and debate issues that we have a tendency to assume are not applicable to our situations or community. My goal is to bring paramount issues to the forefront of people that are affected most.

I have discussed subjects that would make many people uncomfortable. They include race, poverty, heterosexuality and homosexuality, sex, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), education, obesity, and death, just to name a few. Some of articles have received rave reviews, by my standards, and others were not as accepted by the readership. Admittedly, many of the articles were embryonic and did not even scratch the surface. However, they did afford an opportunity for people that were interested (and even those who were not) to investigate the issue and thereby gain additional insight.

By no stretch of the imagination do I assume that I posses the abilities of John McCain, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to articulate my thoughts. This is not to say that I will never have their abilities, but quite frankly, they are remunerated for their verbal articulacy and more than likely are paying someone to outline their thoughts for them. On the contrary, I write because I am personally engrossed in the issues presented, as well as genuinely concerned for the intended audience of my work. In essence, neither the eloquent, public speaker nor the ordinary, unpaid columnist wants to tell it like it is.

As I have already eluded, I too am guilty of not representing the issues in their truest form—hence the bit about "surface scratching". It appears that very few people are willing to accept the responsibility of presenting society's problems without the necessary sugar-coating to avoid the inevitable negative sanctions. Here's my opinion. I believe people, for the most part, are aware of the issues, have heard it all before, but have an unwillingness to accept them. They claim, "It doesn't apply to me, my family, or my community". For example, parents may not want to know that their teenage child is not only sexually active, but also having unprotected sex. These parents may be fully aware of the prevalence of teenage pregnancy and the risk of sexually transmitted infections, but are in some state of denial that their child could engage in such activity. They may also want to avoid the guilt associated with the assumption of failing as parents. What is more important, protecting the child(ren) or your feelings?

People are not willing to "tell it like it is" these days because of the negative stigmas attached to that group. Personally, it is not my intent to become the modern-day Martin Luther King. I not only want people to be aware of the goings-on in society, but shift into action in their homes and communities. It doesn't require an academic, scientist, or other professional to tell it like it is—anyone can do that. The requirements are people willing to hear the messages, make realistic assessments of their applicability, and spring into action. © 2008 Keydron Guinn

Wake up, young people! Wake up!

2008-02-22T01:58:00.000-08:00

I considered writing this with some level of academic aptitude as if I was writing for publication in some peer-reviewed journal. However, I found it unnecessary and felt that I really needed to focus on the message, not the verbiage. For example, the sentences could have read, “I am often flabbergasted by the vernaculars of adolescents in the presence of significant and generalized others, particularly elders. Even more deplorable, indistinguishable deliberations are taking place within these subgroups.”

Rather than some intense scholastic rigidity, I thought the message could be best presented by saying, “I am amazed when overhearing the discussions that take place among some young people. What is even more amazing is the idea that ‘children’ are using certain language and covering topics that are quite explicit.” Now that the foundation has been laid and manner for which this is written is understood, let’s get to it.

I want this to be taken as advice from someone who is not much older than a “young person”. However, through experience I have grown and learned that some of the decisions I made before adulthood have helped to shape who I am even in early adulthood. Trust me, I have made my share of bad decisions, but am continuously learning from them.

My purpose here is to speak to young people. Maybe I should be a bit more precise. By “young people”, I’m referring specifically to those who are not yet adults but may be charged with some level of personal and/or family responsibility such as homework, household chores, or even being big brother or sister. I’m speaking specifically to middle and high schoolers.

Young people cursing, males verbally degrading females and vice versa, as well as talks of sex are just a few of the conversations that I have overheard—with total disregard of adult presence. The assumption is that these are the main topics when there are gatherings among friends. Whatever happened to discussions of homework, television shows, or the like? Young people are having mature conversations well before their time. Quite frankly, some of the discussions I’ve heard are not even appropriate for adults.

Contrary to the subcultural belief, it’s okay to be known for your intellect rather than being the noisiest and most unruly of the group. Focus attentions on more productive things such as community service, allowing your light to shine in a positive way. Show respect for adults, as well as your peers by setting exemplary examples. Tell people who approach you with discussions that are not appropriate, “I’m not interested—my interests are rooted in becoming a better person and getting the best that life has to offer. You’re blocking my path.”

This is a wakeup call—hence the title—for young people to recognize and be accountable for what you say and do. I’m not completely convinced that there is an understanding of how present acts can help shape your future. The very folk you curse at, with, and around or even degrade may well be those needed for recommendations for employment. They may even be those doing the hiring. Yes, that includes your so-called friends. What they know about you now will assist in making decisions about you then. Think about that while I say again, Wake up young people! Wake up! © 2008 Keydron Guinn

Make informed decisions, not just history

2008-02-15T12:10:00.000-08:00

Anyone who has kept abreast of the heavy media coverage surrounding the democratic primary knows that there is a tremendous chance that history will be made as it relates to selecting the next President of the United States of America. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both shared the lime light for about the last year or so leading up to this point in the election. Senator Clinton, if elected would become the first female president, while Senator Obama would become the first black president.

Interestingly, it would seem as if the Democratic Party possesses the only candidates vying for the presidency, given the one-sided media coverage. It would also seem that citizens are primarily interested in the Democrats with the heavy voter turnouts, while ballots cast for Republicans have been minimal, to say the least. Republicans are even crossing party lines to cast votes.

Are we making sound decisions when we cast our votes or are we simply trying to make history? Which is more important? I have engaged in discussions on both sides of the coin. Quite honestly, I find myself a bit taken aback by many of the reasons behind why some have decided to vote for Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, or one of the other not-so-well-known candidates. Few of these discussions have included the platforms for which these candidates stand. Rather, support is being given on the basis of sex, race, party affiliation, or merely voting for the lesser of those who may be considered evil.

For lack of a better phrase, we are in serious trouble if we assume that because she’s a woman, because he’s black, because he’s Democrat or Republican, we are selecting the best candidate as our nation’s highest post. That person becomes our representative for the next 4 years. The person who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office of the White House should be keenly understood in terms of what his or her plans are for this country, particularly as it relates to both the “haves” and the “have nots”.

This commentary is not in support of any candidate. It should serve as a reminder of what a democracy truly is—a government by the people. Voting for a person or people to whom our thoughts and beliefs do not mesh cannot constitute a democracy because the decisions they would make once elected would not and could not be of the people. Truth be told, history will be made regardless—none of the candidates have ever been president before.
So, let us focus on making sound decisions for the presidential race of 2008. Be it Democrat or Republican, Clinton or Obama, McCain or Huckabee, our decisions should be based on the best candidate for the job—not for making history. If that happens, then let it be because he or she has met and exceeded the criterion we have set for them in a presidential capacity. © 2008 Keydron Guinn

Fear not technology

2008-02-01T10:30:00.000-08:00

We live in a society where there are constant advances and modifications in technology. These advances seemingly happen daily. When we think of technology, the computer is probably the first thing that comes to mind. These machines become obsolete, according to some literature, every 6 months. But given our heavy reliance on technology, particularly computers, why do some people have a fear of it?

Webster’s Dictionary defines technology as “a capability given by the practical application of knowledge.” But what does that really mean? Does it really encompass things like the computer? The answer to that question is yes, but is in need of further explanation.

Sociologists define technology in a very similar way. However, they incorporate “human knowledge” as part of the definition. For a better understanding of this, we can continue with the computer as an example. For every one of the thousands of small and large pieces that comes together to make one computer (i.e., screws, cables, monitor, and central processing unit), it is important to understand that “people” had a hand in developing every aspect of the computer.

From the sociological perspective, people are responsible for technology and the constant advances. We often fear the computer because of its complexities and not-so-simple instructions. Yeah, the hundreds of engineers, scientists, professionals, and paraprofessionals that design and build the idea behind a single computer are exceptionally smart and maybe even brilliant. But can you even begin to imagine a computer with only one designer who is also the builder? How much more complex would it be? I would assume that it would take each of us a lot longer to learn its use. We would be forced to learn the intricacies of the computer based on one individual’s thoughts and purposes, rather than hundreds, maybe even thousands that build a single machine today.

Having said this, we should not fear technology understanding that it is merely “human knowledge.” Technology encompasses more than electronics and may even be as simple as forwarding memos on colored paper to capture the attention of recipients. Though this would be considered low-level technological advancement, it is advancement all the same. Consider these low-level advancements gateways to larger, more complex technologies.

Our society will continue to advance and we cannot afford to sit back and allow it to advance without us. We should embrace technology and realize that the large-scale advancements are those that take hundreds of trained scientists and others to build. It may require that we explore computer training courses or software specific workshops, as examples, to help us better cope.

Fear not technology as it is captured best by the slightly altered adage, “We can’t live with it and we certainly can’t live without.” © 2008 Keydron Guinn

Do not cultivate ignorance

2008-01-25T00:30:00.000-08:00

We really cannot be blamed for what we have not been taught or even what we do not know. However, the tides completely turn when we are not willing to learn new things. That would include accepting the advice or opinions of others. Does it mean that we adhere to others advice or opinions? Not by any stretch of the imagination. We cultivate ignorance when we only know what we know and are not willing to understand that what we know can be understood and explained in a multitude of ways.

“Ignorant” or “ignorance” in recent years has adopted new societal meanings and are now seemingly associated with a more negative and insulting innuendo than its original denotation. Particularly among younger audiences, ignorant or ignorance may carry the same or greater weight than terms that are intended to be derogatory. The truth of the matter, to be ignorant is simply not to know. But how do people move from being ignorant to knowledgeable? That is a question with a very simple answer.

The term “cultivate”, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is to “foster the growth of.” If we delimited the title of this article, “Do Not Cultivate Ignorance,” we could use a more simplistic expression basing it on the meanings of the terms by stating, “We do not want to foster the growth of not knowing.” In other words, what we do not know we are ignorant to; what we do not care to learn cultivates our ignorance.

Moving beyond our own ignorance requires change. It requires us to look outside ourselves and outside our own understanding in search of new and different perspectives. As much as we care to always be right, our individual opinions and thoughts are based on our theoretical perspectives. But what does it mean when our perspectives are based on theory? Reverting back to Webster, it defines “theory” as “an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances.” Hypothetical refers to something based on a hypothesis, which are “assumptions” or “interpretations.”

Given this, how could any one person within society assume that his or her “assumption” and/or “interpretation” be held in any higher regard than another? With an understanding of where our opinions, thoughts, judgments, attitudes, and beliefs all originate, we can move towards becoming knowledgeable and thereby retard our growth in ignorance. It is not necessary to accept the ideas and opinions of others, but we should at least acknowledge and respect them knowing that they are all—including our own—based on theory.

Be willing to at least hear from others with differing points-of-views. Respect their differences knowing that those differences are based on their derived theories. But remember what the “relativist fallacy” states, “What may be true for one is not necessarily true for another.” In this way, we are cultivating knowledge, not ignorance. © 2008 Keydron Guinn

The non-heterosexual outcasts

2008-01-17T23:40:00.000-08:00

Sexual orientation is, in many respects, a very sensitive topic for great number of people. Richard McAnulty and M. Michele Burnette (2003) define sexual orientation as “a person’s erotic and romantic attraction to one or both sexes.” As a sociologist, I can say that it has become a lot easier to have discussions, as well as teach students about the subject of sexual orientation.
Having read a considerable amount of the literature, I have found that there are numerous inconsistencies and debates to answer the “why” question. Given the very strong views, quite honestly, there is no easy or maybe even right way to broach such a discussion.

When talking about sexual orientation, I find that it’s important to have somewhat of a knowledge base that allows you to speak intelligently or at least have some verified evidence rather than simply rambling on with unfounded information. There are tons of reading materials surrounding the topic that provides insight into how and why groups exist that do not identify with heteronormative society (simply put, the doctrine that people within the “norm” are attracted to women and vice versa—women are attracted to men). Those groups that are outside the norm (or deviant) include individuals that are homosexual, bisexual, or asexual.

To provide a very general overview, homosexuals are individuals that are romantically and erotically attracted to people of the same sex. Bisexuals are romantically and erotically attracted to both men and women. Asexual refers to the absence of romantic or erotic desires—attracted to neither men nor women. Deliberations continue arguing whether a person is born homosexual, bisexual or asexual or if some traumatic event occurred in their lives that triggered the onset.

Society determines the norm and what is deviant. To be anything other than heterosexual, by society’s standards, is deviant. Sexual orientation is a subject that even government officials as high as the President of the United States has weighed-in on. President Bush has been very candid about beliefs on same-sex marriages. Though it is not directly related to sexual orientation, it is certainly indicative of his attitude and beliefs about non-heterosexuality. This moral entrepreneur has been instrumental in the development of laws related to non-heterosexual cultures.

As a result of society’s extremely negative connotations and views of homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals, these groups are the outcasts of mainstream society simply because of their attractions. Some stay “in the closet” in hopes of avoiding the associated stereotypes and labels. A large portion of parents with non-heterosexual children have disowned them. My question to society and to parents alike is, “Why does it matter?”

I’ve become somewhat immune to some things that should probably be shocking in this country. I’ve driven through the streets of New Orleans and saw tents where people live—not a place where they campout for the night, but where they live. I’ve seen people living under bridges, people actively seeking work and can’t find it, mothers unable to care for their children and can’t get assistance from the government for one reason or another, and children that are physically, mentally, and sexually abused. The poor and elderly die from common illnesses, while many of the insured make full recoveries. A host of other weightier social problems exist that should almost cause us to forget about sexual orientation.

Some people resort to readings in religious doctrines not only to explain the right or wrong of non-heterosexuality, but to justify disowning a child. I say to those people that your reading is incomplete. It isn’t a matter of whether I condone it or not, I simply have things much more important that I want to accomplish, as well as to be known for when I depart this life. Besides, I only have one life to live and deciding how others ought to live theirs…I’m not interested. © 2008 Keydron Guinn

If you could turn back the hands of time...

2008-01-11T14:40:00.000-08:00

If you could turn back the hands of time, would you? Why or why not? What have you already done today that you wish you could take back or do again? There are people who go about their daily lives hoping and wishing that periods of their lives or events in their past never happened. They wish that it was only a bad dream. The reality is that we cannot change the past, yet most of us have the ability to carve out our own futures. Sometimes witnessing the rise and fall of others serve as examples that assist us along the way.

There is something called the “sociological imagination.” C. Wright Mills, a celebrated contemporary sociologist, suggested that in order to understand this sociological imagination, we must understand the connection between history and biography. Mills stated that history is events that shape an entire society’s values and beliefs while, biography is the individual life experiences within a particular society. Sociologists Williams Thomson and Joseph Hickey posit that the link between history and biography is important and often overlooked. It places individual behavior in a larger social context, reminding us that we are products of history, as well as history makers who help produce and change society through our actions.

Imagine some society without many of the historical periods—World Wars, the Civil Rights Movement, 9-11, and many, many others of the far and recent past. What would society be like with them? Just as I vividly remember, many of you know exactly where you were and exactly what you were doing when, for example, the planes made contact with the towers. For many people, the memory is almost like yesterday, yet this year (2008) marks the seventh anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center. Though this particular event is a part of United States and world history, biographically speaking, it is also a part of our individual histories.

To provide additional context for better understanding history and its association with biography, take social problems as an example. One of the major social problems in society today hinges on the mindset of individuals. Many times things are viewed as personal troubles (e.g., being a homeless person) opposed to social issues (e.g., homelessness). What this means is that rather than us seeing social problems and how they affect society, we mentally bracket them and place them within society’s specific strata. In this case, we place the blame on the homeless, for example, and see it as their problem, not ours. But how does homelessness help to shape society’s history? A more reflective question that one could ask of self might be, “How does what I do about homelessness fit into my own biography?”

The things we’ve already said and done, we can never repeat at the exact same moment—that moment has passed never to return again. The successes, misfortunes, highlights, mistakes, and honors we’ve made in the past are instrumental in defining who each one of us are today. Don’t forget the past, but understand that we cannot make changes to it. However, our futures are in the future. Therefore, we have an opportunity to lay the groundwork for what will become of it. Sociology teaches us that we are all history makers. Our histories and biographies may not have the profundity of great leaders like President John F. Kennedy or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but they still serve a purpose in our lives, as well as the future of society. Today’s decisions will help shape tomorrow. Tomorrow’s decisions will be predicated on the decisions of today. © 2008 Keydron Guinn

Violence in intimate relationships

2008-01-04T11:23:00.000-08:00

I call to your attention the November 29th discovery of the body of a murdered Jackson State University student. Latasha Norman was found in a wooded area in the northern most part of Jackson, Mississippi. The 20 year old had been missing since November 13th after leaving the university’s campus with her ex-boyfriend. Many of you may have heard this story—honor student killed by her 24 year old ex-boyfriend.

Admittedly, there was a vested interest in that story as I am an alumnus of Jackson State University. To hear something so heinous is deeply saddening anywhere, but especially when it hits so close to home. I want us all to think about the magnitude of such an act, whether it be in Jackson, Opelousas, or New York. How does this affect significant others of both the victim and the accused? What leads people to take the lives of others, particularly where intimate relationships are or once were involved? And lastly, what could have become of these individuals?

Violence in relationships is something we hear or read about, but often times getting wind of such a story is supervening to a much more sinister act. When we turn on the news, there are generally a number of stories related to women and even men for that matter, that have been the victims of violence in intimate relationships. But what we see is only a smidgen of the actual numbers of cases that are reported and those that are not. We all know it happens, but we never really get a true measure of violent occurrences in these violent acts.

Here are the facts: estimates range from 960,000 to 3,000,000 incidents per year in violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend according to the US Department of Justice. Intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women where they make up about 85 percent of all reported cases leaving the remaining 15 percent of cases to men. The Commonwealth Fund survey reports that about one-third of American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. Women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner. In the US, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day.

As shocking as these data are, they only scratch the surface. If we dichotomized youth and adult violence in intimate relationships, we would notice that approximately one in five female high school students report being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner (Silverman et al.). We would also find that about 40 percent of girls between the age 14 to 17 reports knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend (Kaiser Permanente).

What are we teaching our boys and girls, young men and women at home? More importantly, what are we not teaching them? Just as I indicated in a previous writing, socialization is an all-important part of a person’s growth. Children learn exactly what they are taught and mimic what they see. Interestingly, they do not learn what they are not taught. We have to teach children and our growing young men and women the kindergarten rule to “keep all hands, feet, and objects to oneself.” They should also be taught when and how to get out of abusive relationships, as well as knowing the difference between love and war. Love does not involve constant fighting and bickering—that’s war!

I am hopeful that the information presented here is prevailing enough for every person to sit back and examine what is truly going on and our individual role in fixing this problem of senseless violence. Whether we claim to love someone or not, we cannot change the other person in our intimate relationships by hitting them or verbally abusing them. Abuse among intimates is not associated with a specific race and has no class association. We should know exactly who we are getting involved with before we make commitments. But if we miss the signs only to find out later that we are in an abusive relationship, get out immediately! Don’t wait until the second or third strike because it may be too late. The bottom line is, love shouldn’t hurt. © 2008 Keydron Guinn

Women as a minority group

2007-12-21T16:02:00.000-08:00

In a society where stratification is as common as access to McDonald, there is an additional component that is oftentimes overlooked—that is stratification of the sexes. I’m sure we have all heard the adages “girls are better than boys”, and “men are stronger than women,” but what merit do these really have in today’s society?

If we examined Forbes list of the most powerful women in the world, we’d find that American women hold extremely high-ranking posts, those with the power to change the current structure of this country. They include such positions as US Secretary of State, presidents and CEOs of major domestic and international corporations, chairmen (no pun intended) of boards, Speaker of the House, president of one of the world’s most prestigious universities, lead anchor of internationally broadcasted news, and even president of a major US airline. Interestingly, in 2003, women represented 59 percent of people earning bachelor’s degree and 59 percent of those earning master’s degrees. In the words of Bob Dylan, “Times, They Are A-Changin,” yet there is still much to be done.

The income of women lags behind that of men in this country, even if we juxtaposed experience and education. For all occupations, the median income for women was $28,704.00 compared to $36,140.00 for men in 2004, according to William Thompson and Joseph Hickey (2008). Even in examining top level positions such as chief executive, women had a median income of $64,636.00 compared to the men’s whopping $90,272.00. That difference increases as salaries increase, but may go unnoticed when reaching certain levels. The income gap at one point was narrowing, but now it appears that it once again is widening.

We live in a patriarchal society that is perpetuated by some of the same vices that plague racial stratification. An interesting point that is often disputed is that women are considered a minority group. Depending on the type of feminists one identifies, there are claims that women are not minorities and that this label bears little merit, if any at all. But to apply a sociological definition of “minority,” I would define it as Richard Schaefer has, “a subordinate group whose members have significantly less control or power over their own lives than the members of a dominant or majority group has over theirs.”

One question to answer, what group has the greatest power over women’s reproductive rights? Once this question has been answered, you should then understand, based on the definition, how and why women fall into a minority category. The term minority is often associated with groups that are non-white. But in this case, the reference simply refers to women having less control over their own lives than that of men, more specifically, white men. If we lace a woman with being black, it sheds even more light on the designation of women as a minority group. A woman who is black experiences what sociologists refer to as double jeopardy—where a black woman experiences the trials and tribulations of firstly being black, then those of being a woman.

There are numerous other inequalities that exist between men and women. However, this commentary was simply to provide minimal insight into a persistent problem that almost seems to get swept under the rug—sex inequalities. Being versed regarding these and other inequalities gives us a greater bargaining chip when applying for positions and life in general. Knowledge is power! © 2007 Keydron Guinn

Black or African American?

2007-12-14T09:12:00.000-08:00

You will find that this commentary is not only for those who consider themselves either Black or African American, but for anyone who cares to read it. And rather than have you make assumptions about there being a personal tone here, I’ll simply tell you so that your postulation will be unnecessary—yes, this is somewhat personal in nature.

This debate over being referred to as black or African American has continued since its introduction in the late 1980s. The reference of blacks as African Americans was an attempt by civil rights leaders to shift from race to ethnicity or culture as defining characteristics of the group according to Sigelman, Tuch and Martin (2005). But, has “African American” as a reference really caused us to look at ethnicity or more culturally at blacks? My speculation is that it has not.

What has happened since the creation of this seemingly “new race” is that the waters have been muddied as it relates to race and race relations. Whites and other groups often times find themselves grappling with how to refer to blacks in order to remain politically correct. We never really think about it, but that is also the case for blacks in relation to whites and others—what is the politically correct reference for whites…Caucasian? Or, what is the politically correct reference for Hispanics or Latinos? As much as we think these groups are the same, they are markedly different.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that there were certainly noble intentions on the part of those civil rights leaders in their attempts to get us away from race, but the latent effects of this has exacerbated the problems of something that should never have been created in the first place; that is race. But why do we continue to fuel the fires that burn?

There are people that are offended by specific references such as a black person or an African American. There is also the catchy phrase that I’ve heard, “he or she is a person of African descent,” as I recall a conversation with a white friend of mine that wanted to know if I had any familiarity with someone he knew. The fact is, he, like many others, was unsure of how to describe the person because he felt that I would become offended by a given reference. We are all more confused now than ever before. No one knows how people will react to a particular reference. Even I grapple with referring to a people as white and/or Caucasian. Not all whites are Caucasian. Likewise, not all blacks are African American.

How do we account for Africans from the continent of Africa living and working in these United States? And yes, what about what proponents of the “African American” reference feel is a copout for using the reference—whites from Africa living in the United States? How do we account for these people and how do we reference them? It may sound silly, but it’s a fact of life that was never considered when these references were created. Even at the time race was created, there was no account for the mixing of races or the different ethnicities within each race, hence the one-drop rule.

I think it’s important for everyone to recognize and salute their heritage and ancestry. However, there is and should be limits on how we interlock this recognition into society. My point is that there is no way, for example, I would know that a person I’ve never met before prefers white, black, Caucasian, or African American as a reference.

I’ve been referred to as black and African American, and probably a few others that I’m unaware of. I would never place the responsibility on others to know what I prefer—they would probably get it wrong anyway. But what I’ve never heard is the reference of me as a human being. What’s wrong understanding each others’ humanness, then embracing our unique differences? Bottom line, before black, white, or other, we are all human beings. © 2007 Keydron Guinn

Acting White, Acting Black

2007-12-07T09:42:00.000-08:00

I felt compelled to speak on this subject. Not that this is anything new, but we are assigning attitudes, beliefs, and values on the color of skin through this concept of “Acting White” or “Acting Black”. This refers to a black person acting as a white person or a white person acting as a black person based on standards that have apparently been derived from thin air. Where does this come from? Who decides what is white versus black? And finally, who gives the decision makers authority to differentiate?

I have been told on more than one occasion that I “sound white.” My usual response is something in the neighborhood of, “How is that?” No one has ever been able to give me a response that is worthy of continued discussion. So, I just shrug my shoulders and move on with my day not allowing others to define me by a culturally driven racial standard.

I always find the discussion of race to be interesting, yet ridiculous. The year is 2007 and given the numerous more important challenges Americans face today (e.g., war, healthcare, and unemployment, to name a few), we would assume that something such as race would be an insignificant issue. Not only is it still a hot button issue, but we are putting a spin on it by reinforcing unfounded racial group characteristics. For example, it has been said that a white male who listens to rap music and/or sags his pants is “Acting Black.” On the other side of that, a black male who reads a book and/or plays rugby, is said to be “Acting White.” Without digging deep into my vocabulary to come up with a descriptive word for this, I think it is just stupid.

This is not just peer-to-peer encouragement or discouragement among adolescents of what I’ll call “racial assignments”, but parents may also participate in this limited and unintelligent thinking. Yes, believe it or not, there are parents that encourage their children to be less white, less black, whiter, or blacker. Can you even begin to imagine what this type of socialization does to a child? It is this type of thinking that can aid in preventing children from becoming all that they can be. Rather, they often times become a product of their socialization.

Socialization just so happens to be, in my opinion, the most important process that takes place in the home from the time a child is born until he or she is able to venture off without parents.
Thompson and Hickey (2006) define socialization as the process by which we learn and internalize the attitudes, values, beliefs, and norms of our culture and develop a sense of self. In other words, socialization helps us determine who we are. It is a lifelong process, which means we are continuously learning and being shaped by the people around us and our environment.

To impart “whiteness” or “blackness” on impressionable children is not only wrong, but perpetuates a cycle that should long have been dead. Children only know what they are taught. So, it is our responsibility to ensure they are learning those things necessary to encourage an impenetrable sense of self and a tremendous amount of confidence. After our part is done, then we’ll no longer worry about our children being influenced by rap music, television, or any other potentially negative medium.

It’s past time we transcend our uninformed thinking of things being black or white. If we really sat back and thought about it, we’d better understand that people typically do things because of the way they have been socialized versus the racial assignment. Stated differently, the 10 year old black female that is more likely than not to read a book is because she has been socialized in that manner. The 11 year old white male with the saggy pants has also been socialized to wear them in just that manner. What do we do about it?

An unknown author said, “Our only limits are those we place on ourselves.” Don’t place limits on children by socializing them to think that there are certain ways that blacks or whites should act, dress, or speak. Once we tackle the problem at home, everything else falls in place. © 2007 Keydron Guinn