I have read over 55 academic papers to groups of professors over the years and let me tell you, one of the things that is most important to learn is when to quit when you're behind. No, not ahead....behind.

If a member of the audience asks a question, try to respond. If that is continually not satisfactory and/or the person wishes to say you're a crackpot, fine. Take the person's name and number and promise to get back with them. Then take the next questioner. Do not stay on the podium and try to verbally duke it out.

That attitude has suited me well here at Interracial Voice. But there is yet another, deeper reason that I should be relatively non-combative:

I shouldn't represent anyone. Not even multiracial people. And I certainly should not be offended if a Latino, or "black" or multiracial (I have been included in all three of these groups) person or collection of persons does something stupid or has an on-going practice of continually doing something stupid. Why should I?

This country is in need of a serious dialogue among all of us -- to try to work out ways in which we can begin to respect each other. A good deal of this calls for the ability to see things from the other fellow's perspective. If a "white" says, "Latinos are coming into this country taking jobs from decent Americans," what's the best response? Instant attack against someone who is talking against the Latino group? Or an attempt to understand the reason behind the statement itself? If a "black" woman says, "Interracial marriage which includes 'blacks' is bad. The white women are taking our men away from us," what's the best response? Is it more productive to have a multiracial chip on one's shoulder and castigate the woman or is it better to try to open a dialogue to find out why she feels this way?

Because each of us can claim to be part of one conflict group or another we all can make a justifiable claim to have a very thin skin. With thin skins abounding, We are not in a position to turn the critical eye to the Latino and ask him, for example, how he proposes to claim "white" status and minority status simultaneously. We are not in a position to turn a critical eye to the Chinese and ask him about the presence of prejudicial attitudes about "blacks" among Chinese individuals which rival those of "whites", with regard to negativity. We are not in a position to turn a critical eye to the Native American and ask him why Native Americans have not taken more aggressive steps to deal with the widespread drunkenness and social disorganization in the Native American community. We are not in a position to ask "whites" about the fascination of many of them with "genetics" and "race" to the exclusion of concern about substantive economic and political issues which plague most working people (of any color). We are not in a position to turn a critical eye to "black" and ask him why has there not been an effort by highly-paid "black" athletes and entertainers (who number their wealth in the tens of millions of dollars) to form a solid consortium with heavy financial investments to deal with pressing urban concerns.

We are not in a position to do these things because too many "whites", "blacks", Native Americans, Asians and even multiracial folks feel that only their respective positions have any validity, that each of them is some sort of respresentative of said group:

"You dis' Latinos, you dis' me."
"You dis' multiracials, you dis' me."
"You dis' "blacks" you dis' me."
"You dis' Native Americans, you dis' me."
"You dis' "whites", you dis' me."
"You dis' Asians, you dis' me."

Well, you can call all of the above everything but the kitchen sink and it shouldn't mean a damn thing to me.

We're human first.

Now, if you got a problem with humans.........

William Javier Nelson, Ph.D.

---

---

©2003 all rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited without
the express written consent of Interracial Voice.