Last week the Winston-Salem Journal ran a piece about travel clubs for black people and when I saw it the first thing that popped into my head was, "I wonder what would happen if they did an article about a white people travel club?"  Well, I’m not the only person who thought this.  The managing editor at the paper has a blog and on it he shared an email he received from a reader and his reply email.  Here’s what they wrote:

Please, Please help me understand the reasoning of the recent article (9-15-06) on vacation camaraderie. How outraged would the public,specifically the afro-american community be if your paper advertised and promoted a travel club or ski club or WET(White Entertainment Television) ,etc. designed only for white folks! It is so discouraging to read articles about the afro-americans complaining about racism in the workplace and communities and amazingly there are very proud to organize these clubs and organizations designed strictly for their own ethnic group. If we are ever to move past this sensitive subject of racism let’s drop the promotions of these afore mentioned clubs and organizations!
Thanks for listening,

Dear XXX: Your email was forwarded to me. Thanks for writing. I’ve discussed your comments with several editors here, both black and white. These travel clubs that we wrote about exist for several reasons, even when it comes to vacations. Sometimes, black people feel more comfortable doing things—particularly things that white people don’t often identify with black people, such as skiing—in groups. And clubs etc. that we as the majority may feel are open to everybody don’t feel the same way to minorities. 

You’re right that there is no WET, but the reason BET exists is that network TV did a poor job of producing shows that catered to the tastes of black Americans. Minority groups in America—whether racial, ethnic or religious—have always found strength in their own. That’s something that is sometimes hard for people in the majority to understand, particularly in how it relates to the larger goal of building a society where people are judged by what’s inside rather than outside.

Again, thanks for writing and for reading the Journal.
Best,
Ken Otterbourg
Managing Editor

Well, I can only say that if the justification for people creating and joining a club based on race is "Sometimes, black people feel more comfortable doing things—particularly things that white people don’t often identify with black people, such as skiing—in groups. And clubs etc. that we as the majority may feel are open to everybody don’t feel the same way to minorities" then why can’t a white person just as easily say "I’m not comfortable being around any non-whites so let’s create our own Whitey Ski Club so we all feel secure?" After all, those clubs that are open to all and aren’t often identified with white people could very well make a white person uncomfortable.  "Whitey Dance Club" anyone? 

Honestly I don’t have an issue with any group of people deciding to create their own exclusive club, but I do have a problem with one group being able to do it without catching heat and the other group getting absolutely raked over the coals for doing the same thing. The issue is not that people would decide to create a group based on race, but rather that there is a double standard in our society that says it is okay for one race to do it but not another.  So what if white’s are a majority?  Does it mean that they have fewer rights to consort with whomever they want just because there’s more of them?  That idea is actually contradictory to the concept of equal rights and I just don’t agree with Ken’s, or by extension, the paper’s reasoning.

To me the issue truly is that there’s a double standard in terms of race in this country and that we actually hurt the cause of racial equality by allowing the double standard to continue.  I personally don’t want to belong to a "white" club of any kind, or a "black" club, or a "tall people only club", because by default I think those clubs are less interesting.  I’m attracted to groups that engage me in different conversations on a regular basis so I’m drawn to groups, as Ken says, "where people are judged by what’s inside rather than outside." 

That said, if our society and our media can accept and extol the virtues of a black or other minority travel club then it should be able to do the same for whites, and if they can’t accept the same for whites then they should accept it for none.  I refuse to believe that it is an enlightened society (or publication) that allows for such double standards to exist and I’m saddened that in the forty years (two generations!) since the civil rights movement we still have to have these discussions.

So Ken, and the folks at the Winston-Salem Journal, I have to say that your article did not forward  "the larger goal of building a society where people are judged by what’s inside rather than outside" rather it added one more detour on the road towards attaining that goal.  It’s just a damn shame.