RACIAL DISCOMFORT: WHY ARE BLACK AND WHITE PEOPLE SO OFFSET IN EACH OTHER’S COMMUNITIES

Image result for black and white people

“Still discomfort after so much time.”


not your community

I live in Harlem, NYC, and I can tell you first hand there is a discomfort and a heightened awareness when White people are in the presence of Black people. But that awareness increases with us in predominantly White environments as well. How does two groups who have been in a country for so long still feel such discomfort around each other? Now, you can point to the idea that most people feel more comfortable around people that look like them than those that are different. But there is real social construct to the American landscape.

segregation alive and well

Like I said earlier, I live in NYC, a city with an array of diversity. And if you are someone not a fan of diversity, you are going to be miserable here. Because you are constantly in a position to have to deal with someone different than yourself. But I am from the Midwest, and you really don’t have to deal with too many people that don’t look like you. So the tolerance is a lot lower elsewhere in America. So for the most part the vast majority of your daily life is communicating with your own group for the rest of your life. From your school life, to social life, to dating, to what neighborhood you raise children within.

everything isn’t bigotry

Wanting to live around that share the same culture as you is not all hatred. Everything has to be looked at in context. But in a society where context is slowly going away, saying anything that is not the status quo can land you into trouble. But who decided being comfortable was bad. Like I said, context, if you are forcing someone from a neighborhood because ethnicity, now you’re in a really weird position. But discomfort will always exist in America because of the social construction.


My Personal Website: www.faheemjackson.squarespace.com

Instagram Me: @theefaheemjackson

Twitter Me: @2320howe

Medium.com/@faheemjackson

Tumblr Me: @fjackson44

My Personal Website: www.faheemjackson.squarespace.com

Instagram Me: @theefaheemjackson

Twitter Me: @2320howe

Medium.com/@faheemjackson

Tumblr Me: @fjackson44

WHEN PERSONAL INTEREST COLLIDE WITH CORPORATE INTEREST

Image result for espn jemele

“Know that you represent them inside and out.”


The above photo is of sports journalist Jemele Hill of ESPN. She recently came under fire for her comments aimed toward President Donald J. Trump. She stated via her Twitter account that she felt President Trump was not only a voice for White Supremacy, but a member of their organizations. It sparked criticism enough to catch the attention of the United States Press Secretary SarahImage result for espn jemele Huckabee Sanders who stated that Jemele’s comments were “fireable.” Even the president himself felt that she should be relieved of her duties for making such comments about him. And it must have struck a nerve with someone because ESPN issued a statement regarding Hill’s comments directed at the president. So they must have really taken issue to the comments that Jemele made to put out a statement. Or was there another reason they decided to issue a statement regarding her (Hill’s) comments.

ESPN is a multinational cable television provider of worldwide sports. And as a company owned by Walt Disney, they are aimed at trying to maintain a certain level of decor on their television programming. Now, Hill has her freedom of speech, but ESPN has the ability to take a stance as well. Meaning that if they truly wanted to, they could fire her. Not on grounds of what she saidImage result for espn because that violates her freedom of speech. But if they feel what she said could cost them in monetary damages then they are in their full right to let her go. Now, those in Jemele’s corner might say she spoke the truth, but here is what you don’t realize. You represent the brand that is ESPN; and while under that brand you have to abide by their rules and regulations. Meaning, if politics are to not allowed then you don’t discuss politics. But if they are allowed , the speech has to be in alliance with company regulatory measures.

It sounds unfair, and it is, but that is what happens when you work for a company. You see, prior, Jemele and her colleague Michael Smith ran a podcast show that became popular. And that popularity opened doors for them in much more lucrative and diverse business environments.But with that bump in exposure comes the rules when playing the game at that level. And what Image result for walt disney company you can say and do on a podcast is not the same as when you are representing a brand like Walt Disney. Yet many still feel she should be able to express herself because it is her rights. And once again, here is where you are put into this weird trick basket which is why people don’t voice their opinions. You can freely say anything you want; but it’s an organization’s right to fire you if you don’t align within their company policies and/or cost them in monetary damages.

And a lot of the sentiment in the sports world is still stemming from the fact that former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick was shut out of football for choosing to not stand for the national anthem. A move against him that has even sparked protest outside of the NFL’s headquarters in New York City. So with so much going on, it’s no wonder they are trying to distance themselves from her statements. But in the end, Hill is still an employee of ESPN. So for now it’s a waiting game to see the final decision. And as much as I agree with freedom of speech, you have to be willing to also take the lose from a company not willing to continue to do business with you.


https://faheemjackson.squarespace.com/ (PERSONAL WEBSITE)

https://www.facebook.com/fjacks063 (FAN PAGE)

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Afaheem+jackson&keywords=faheem+jackson&ie=UTF8&qid=1492966094&rnid=2941120011   

@theefaheemjackson Instagram

@2320howe Twitter

GOVERNING SENTIMENT: WHY LEGISLATING FEELINGS IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

Image result for US CONGRESS

“I feel therefore it should mean something.”


In the United States today, we are constantly in these debates on what you can and cannot say. No matter if it’s in a public space or in private; we tend to disagree with the language. But are we just attacking the language, or is it something more? I have come to the conclusion that it’s not the language per se, it’s more so the sentiment. And then we get into the debate in how one should feel in regards to dealing with other people in society. But you can’t have a country where there is a governing of sentiment. Because whose to say how you feel is the right way when feelings can be so ambiguous.

I posted a recent article pertaining to the differences and similarities between former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick and political commentator/author Anne Coulter. How sentiment forced both of them to be locked out of career opportunities because of their stance. Only difference is that Colin was employed on a team and Anne is self-employed. But neither one of them broke any laws. And both were compliant with how they expressed themselves; staying in alliance with their first amendment rights. But the actions of people and how they felt is what effected Colin and Anne. Although people might argue against my point on why Anne said what she said, Colin did what he did, it doesn’t matter. The right to take an action that is within the law was infringed upon.

But what about people in our society. We are so dishonest on how we really feel, and we also are quite selective in what makes us upset. Someone on the left and the right will say their rights are under attack. Yet they are willing to stand in the way of each other’s rights because of how it makes the person/people feel. My real reasons why people are so willing to go against what they feel is wrong is because of how they look at their own lives. The less satisfied you are with your own life, the more willing you are to infringe upon someone else’s life. Anything so someone knows what it’s like to be you. Also, the changes in people’s lives creates a moment to moment sentiment. Which is a main reason why legislating feelings can cause so many problems. Laws are supposed to be resolute, and changed only under drastic measures. The following examples is why you can’t govern sentiment.

I am a Conservative Christian, who believes Gay marriage is wrong. Allowing Gays to marry goes against my Christian beliefs. So therefore we should legislate against Gays ability to get married. Gays state that this is wrong to legislate for this person/people because of the sentiment under a belief that is based around faith, not fact. But here is a flip side example. I am a Liberal Gay man, and the fact that you would say Gay marriage is wrong, you should lose your job. Now anti-gay sentiment is not illegal, but you should lose your job from the sentiment alone. Both examples at the top is why government can’t legislate feelings. Because in the end, whose to say how you feel is always right. As a matter of fact, it might be just as dangerous. Another main reason the government shouldn’t legislate feelings is because feelings shift so much. Law should be more resolute, and not constantly changing. So for now, as it pertains to discussion, everything is on the table.


https://www.facebook.com/groups/1777548702458281/

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/freedomless-speech/x/11885908#/

https://faheemjackson.squarespace.com/ (PERSONAL WEBSITE)

https://www.facebook.com/fjacks063 (FAN PAGE)

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Afaheem+jackson&keywords=faheem+jackson&ie=UTF8&qid=1492966094&rnid=2941120011   

@fjackson12345 Instagram

@2320howe Twitter