>I went to a black college
>& frankly, I think they
>better prepare black students for
>life as a minority in
>the US both in their
>approach to academics & the
>sense of community & unity
>they encourage.

Do note that I said that I don't support segregated schools until university. Opinion only of course, but I think that people are a lot better prepared for lots of things once they reach the college level and will have somewhat of a better perspective from which to view the world. Too young and I think we're fostering and solidifying artificial distinctions and creating boundaries.

>
>A think preschool and primary education
>is not a good place
>to have your child as
>the minority (being that we're
>only about 13% of the
>population, most likely we will
>be a speck of pepper
>in a bowl of mostly
>flour in an "integrated" school).
> Its important to remember
>that even when different kids
>are "friends" at the elementary,
>that changes at about 13.
>All the playing together in
>the world has little to
>do with the social pressures
>of interacting as young adults
>of different races (many parents
>change their "we are the
>world tune" when kids get
>past 13. And also, at
>that age kids become very
>aware self, racism, sexism, etc.

Yeah, 13 is a tough age. That's actually my favorite age in kids. They can be absolute MONSTERS but the thing is that they are so completely screwed up (physically and emotionally with all them hormones rearing their ugly heads) that they don't know who THEY are much less who anyone else is. I see a lot of kids that age lashing out at anyone, trying to break free of parents, trying to fit in with school cliques, etc. My heart just goes out to anyone who is 13. But I also really like it that they're snotty, they talk back, they're not those sugar sweet little 5 year olds who want a kiss from their teacher every morning. Ugh! You're right, there are lots of challenges at that age.

>Probably the best time for integration
>is at the junior and/or
>high school level.

See, I think it's too late then. I think you've already set up this barrier that says, "Fundamentally you're different" to each group. I personally believe that there is a fundamental human essence that transcends race, and cultural stuff is overlaid on top of that, and history, and gender stuff, and all that, but FUNDAMENTALLY (excuse my yelling, I'm really just trying to italicize), we have human existence in common, we have emotions in common, we have hopes in common (they may not be the same hopes, but everyone hopes for something). So to separate the little squishy impressionable kissy kids from each other based on race is going to build walls rather than build understanding. Little ones are the least racist. And those little kid impressions are lasting. Yeah, they get weird at puberty, yeah, but I think they'll be one hell of a lot less weird with each other ultimately if they spend time together rather than get segregated.

>Well at this time there already
>is seperate schools, seperate standards,
>businesses, etc. The only difference
>is that blacks haven't established
>our own so that we
>are a force to be
>reckoned with. Its impossible to
>negotiate from a position of
>perpetual weakness.

But your hypothesis in a previous post acknowledges that credentials are a possible issue -- why create further weakness? Nahmean?

I really don't
>see anyone how can be
>self sufficient if they don't
>have their own. A black
>run school doesn't assume that
>whites can't attend. The question
>is would they want too?

I don't know where you're going with that.

>The outcome I'm looking for is
>for black people to be
>self determining. That can't happen
>if we MUST get our
>education, jobs, food, etc from
>white people (or any other
>people). Historically, its been
>shown that we can't depend
>on anyone's sense of fairness
>or good nature to be
>treated with respect or given
>equal opportunity.

That's true, but does that mandate a separate universe? Won't that make things worse?

>If it doesn't matter then why
>would you want to see
>a black owned business thrive
>& prosper?

I'm not saying it doesn't matter; I'm saying that I want all people to have the oppportunity to build a good life for themselves, and if the status quo would suggest that the Big Guy is going to beat out the Little Guy, or the majority overwhelm the minority, I'll swing my business in such a way as to try to even the balance. I was trying to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, purposely directing my business to a specific enterprise (a positive purpose) and, on the other hand, purposely withdrawing my business from another enterprise (a negative purpose).

I assume that
>if we all support black
>owned businesses that eventually that
>money will be recycled into
>our own communities if we
>had the ability to buy
>& sell to our own.

Why limit it? Why keep this goal in a single community? Isn't it a greater good to support Black owned businesses so that they can grow and prosper and serve a wider arena, so that some day we no longer have to consciously direct money toward our community in order for it to survive? See what I mean?

>Unfortunately, much of what we
>buy (from food, clothing, shelter,
>services) isn't sold by blacks
>who live in our communities,
>hire from our communities, etc.
>My idea of a strong
>black nation is one where
>Thompson & Thompon manufactures a
>necessity & can hire other
>blacks to help make that
>product. Then we trade with
>Wong & Wong or Cohen
>& Cohen who manufactures something
>we need. Right now that
>ain't happening.

Yes, you see what I mean. There are some strong Black-owned businesses, and I keep thinking I'm going to find the last Forbes that ran the Black Forbes 500.

>of course. But you notice that
>certain groups do educate their
>own.

Yeah, they invest their kids with cultural pride and heritage at home.

The elite/powerful of every
>group send their kids to
>schools which promote their own
>cultural heritage & value systems.
>Why shouldn't we?

Well, you and I see this differently, I think. I think a lot of private elementary schools are based, not on cultural heritage issues (though many are based on religious issues), but more so on a feeling that the teaching in the public schools is low quality. Seems to me that could be race neutral (Not that it is, necessarily, but that it could be)

>why not, most kids learn about
>Thanksgiving (for example) from a
>very European perspective?

I did, I guess you did, but I'm hearing from My Boyfriend The Teacher that things are a little different now, it's not quite as biased. They do teach about the complexities that were overlooked when we were little -- in an age appropriate manner, of course.

If we're
>going to abandon culture specific
>education, it should apply to
>all not just noneuropean culture.
>Especially in a "melting pot"
>society.

But Thanksgiving is historically an American holiday. I'll grant you that Thanksgiving in general is euro-centric, like there was no America prior to the Europeans finding it, but it originated on this soil. So given limited resources and limited time, I would rather see little kids taught stuff that's historically American than confuse them too much too young with too many different stories (that being said, here in SF, most of the public schools do study the Chinese New Year b/c the Chinese presence in SF has been a strong and powerful one throughout the city's history, so I guess I take back what I said before about not caring if the kids learn about that in school.)


Peace.