The Race for Ramekins

Have you read Ashley Owens' ramekins story? You really must! Go here, I'll wait til you're all caught up. No seriously, I'll wait.

Now that you're caught up, here are my quick takeaways:

1) Ms. Nice White Lady (NWL) was your typical "I'm not a racist" racist. 

She started off with slightly left of center comments about hair - always a bad place to start, but our hair seems to draw 'em in like honey does flies. Instead of recognizing an unwilling combatant in Ms. Owens, Ms NWL continued on along a path to perfidy.

Shortly thereafter, all the fake bonhomie fell away when Mistress NWL discovered that *gasp* Ms. Owens had something she wanted but could not have.

At this point in my reading, I realized that this story was not about ramekins. It never was. 

If there is one thing people of color have come to learn the long, cold, hard way, it's that what NWLs are apparently screaming about ain't ever what they're actually screaming about. We learned that about 400 years ago and we have not failed to teach it to our children ever since. 

Substitute the ramekins in Ms. Owens' story for land; homes; jobs and what you have is a story that any person of color can tell. Ramekins are just about every damb thing in the universe that a person of color might want and set their eye or hand upon first. 

For example, this story reminds me of a (former) NWL colleague who complained mightily that her son had been futzing around in the 11th grade, but wanted to go to college. A year later, when he finally got around to straightening himself out, he couldn't magically undo the crappy outcomes of his 11th grade year. This, naturally, had consequences for him when he was applying to schools and he didn't get into his first choice school. His first choice was the flagship campus of his state school, a place where competition is stiff on any given day. But here he was, trying to get in with some sketchy ish in his transcript. He didn't. Naturally. But what was his reaction? Was it annoyance at himself for having slacked off at the critical point in his academic career? Nope. Instead of taking personal responsibility, he claimed instead that he'd paid the "White boy tax". Some Black kid had taken his ramekins. Where's the manager?

His mother repeated this to me casually as if, "Ho hum, he's entitled to a space there because....White boy". I blinked several times and said not a mumbling word. 

2) There is a reality at play in this story of the ramekins that we would do well to heed

Under the Naturalization Act of 1790, a person could apply for citizenship as long as he was "a free white person, being of good character and living in the United States for two years." 

This is germane because in the 1790s there were free Negroes, persons entitled (more on this word anon) to the rights of citizenship but the first Congress excluded both women and people of color from those rights. Frankly, people of color haven't yet recovered from that slight. Since then, the details of our exclusion may have changed, but the consequences of it have not. We are still made to feel, as Ms. Owens was, that what is ours is only ours if someone allows us to have it, if someone more deserving, more entitled, refuses to part-take thereof. More importantly, the inference continues to be made that whatever has come into our possession has done so only via gift. You got reservation land? We gave you that! You got a job because Affirmative Action forced us to consider you? We gave you that too. Integration rather than segregation? Civil rights laws? An end to domestic terror? We gave you these things! The majority has given minority populations these things and anytime they want 'em back, like those damn ramekins, they will either take 'em out our shopping basket or tell the manager we took 'em out of theirs. "Where's the damn manager?!"

3) Ultimately, the fight is for or with entitlement

A few days ago, I went back and forth with someone on Twitter, trying to get her to understand that I did not deserve rights but was entitled to same. She had a lot of trouble understanding the difference between the two. I tried very hard to explain that in much the same way that she was entitled to (or in Constitution-speak 'endowed with') rights under the Constitution, I was and am too. She could not say the word. Could. Not. Would. Not. Did. Not. Not even after nearly a dozen tweets. The best she could manage without being shoved across the finish line was "should have", not even "you DO have" but "you SHOULD have".

The notion of a person of color, being entitled to something same as she seemed to be a bridge too far. 

There is embedded deep down here a fundamental rejection of equality, which in turn signals the belief in supremacy - White supremacy.  Not only do NWLs believe we cannot have anything unless they - as the owners and givers of all good things - allow it, we also should never have as much as they, and definitely not more.  It's not just that Ms. Owens had something this NWL wanted, but also that by having something she did not, the NWL's sense of cosmic order was disrupted...hence her hot run to the manager's office.  Owens could not have ramekins that she did not have.  “Manager fix this!”

The NWL seeking Ms. Owens' ramekins has this problem. She feels that she is entitled to ramekins, land, jobs, education, access, opportunity, security, whatever, but we, not so much. It's that "I'm not a racist" racism. It's that Orwellian "some animals are more equal than others" racism. Yes, we're both entitled to shop in this store, but if you see something I want, then equality goes out the window and I'm one of Orwell's more equal animals. 

Don't ask me what it will take for us all to be equally entitled. I have no idea. After several tweets back and forth I barely got my NWL on Twitter to agree that I was entitled to rights under natural law and the Constitution. I do know that if you think these incursions into our space stop at ramekins, you are very much mistaken. In September 2016, the federal court ruled that mainstream approval of your rights has limits. It has been decided that you can be terminated for wearing locs if NWLs or NWGs don't like 'em in their office. Your hair you see, is not an immutable characteristic ergo, an employer is free to regulate it. 

Hair: the next round of ramekins. 

There really is nothing new under the sun. The battlegrounds may change, but the war itself remains ever the same. 

Follow me on Twitter @truthwriter65