IN HIS Oct. 23 opinion column "The Griot Society's mixed signals," Anthony Dick made some bold and controversial statements about The Griot Society, a student organization on Grounds founded on the premise of educating students about the African Diaspora. Although Dick's comments were directed toward the society, they symbolize the enduring problem of racism that still exists in America, and specifically at the University.
After "closer examination," Dick (although he has not been to a single Griot meeting or sponsored events), claims the organization does not live up to its ideals of educating about Black history and culture. According to him, the organization "seems to advocate racial violence" and is tainted with "irrational, racist and violent undercurrents." Perhaps in my four years at the University, I overlooked the flyers that said "Griot Society presents: Violent riot on the Lawn tonight." Or perhaps I missed any brandishing of firearms during the society's year-long black history lessons to Charlottesville middle school students. Maybe I missed the memo that said the professors that participate in the bi-monthly lecture series were participating in a massive terrorist campaign against White America. Can somebody please tell me when being conscious about your culture became irrational, racist and violent?
The article goes on to attack the red, black and green flag (a symbol of the Pan-Africanist movement), Malcolm X, Kwame Nkrumah, the Black Panther Party and Mumia Abu-Jamal (a supposedly glorified cop-killer of "a defenseless white policeman"), calling them "symbols of racial segregation and divisiveness." According to Dick, references to the vicious struggles people of African descent have faced and continue to face do nothing to foster positive change or education.
Dick then makes a rather sophomoric analogy, saying that the only difference between a hypothetical "Office of Caucasian-American Affairs" and the existing Office of African-American Affairs would be skin color. Dick may consider himself a champion in the struggle for equality of the oppressed white man in America, but this argument is ridiculous. Contrary to what Dick and others may seem to believe, there is no "perceived" racist establishment, there is an actual racist establishment that is blatant at times and covert at others. Over four centuries of injustice have not nearly been rectified enough to the point where blacks and whites are on an equal playing field to even suggest something as ludicrous an "Office of Caucasian-American Affairs."
Dick's column is beyond the Griot Society, beyond the red, black and green flag, even beyond Malcolm X, Kwame Nkrumah and others we look to as black leaders. It is an example of the subordinating relationship that still exists in America today, whether we realize it or not. It is obvious that Dick and other columnists in The Cavalier Daily are allowed to freely express their opinions.
However, it seems that when African-Americans try to voice their opinions, views and concerns, they are often stifled and told what they are doing is wrong and that we aren't doing anything to further our race. This problem is an aspect of society that is manifested in the opinion pages of The Cavalier Daily. Some opinion writers often write columns saying African-Americans shouldn't do certain things, or should do certain things in different ways (i.e., how they should structure their organizations or who they should sit with in the dining hall). For instance, when we happen to be sitting with people who look like us in the cafeteria, we're "promoting segregation." When we join certain organizations, fraternities or even attend historically black colleges and universities we're "separatist." When we write about theme parties that may seem offensive to us, we're "extremists." And now, when we want to express parts of our culture and history through an organization or a Web site, we're advocating violence.
The people on The Cavalier Daily opinion staff have the right to express themselves, but for some reason, African-Americans have been greeted with hostility by some of the opinion writers when they voice their concerns.
People of African descent are no longer physically enslaved, but we now have to deal with people who contribute to the mental enslavement of the race by telling us how we think about ourselves, how to act, when to speak and when not to speak. Apparently these individuals are experts in the black experience and African-Americans just can't seem to get it together. I sometimes wonder what writers like Dick wish black people would do. Maybe they feel that since people constantly try to take away the land, history, culture and dignity of people of African descent, why not try to take away their ability to think, act and express themselves as human beings, as well?
Although slavery was over in 1865, this is not too far removed. If we were to listen to and agree with all the complaints about black expression, and allow others to dictate our actions, we might as well be back on the plantation bowing down to our "massahs," pickin' cotton, wishing we were allowed to read, and believing the propaganda that we were an inferior race that could never succeed.
(Joseph Obi is vice president of The Griot Society.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
