To have been the cute little girl with on-time quips that we’d all grown to love on The Cosby Show, seems like every word flying from The View co-host Raven Symone’s mouth is “raven” such that the dark and doom keeps plaguing the That’s So Raven actress who, this time, is on the hot seat for making a comment on the morning talk show yesterday admitting that she would indeed discriminate against any job applicant with a “ghetto” name.
To scale back a bit about how the subject came about, despite that fact that this very subject has been beaten like a dead horse and I don’t see where any “new” research is necessary (or necessarily new) the conversation was jarred as a result of a “new” study by the Journal of Evolution and Human Behavior [regarding racist assumptions based on names], and so went the words spewing from 29 year-old Raven Symone’s mouth.
Although the moment was tongue and cheek, stemming from her [sometimes, not so well thought out thoughts and other times-her unpopular, stances and opinions] on:
- considering herself to be a simply: American [rather than] “African American”
- verbally expressing having no opinion about the Bill Cosby scandal simply because [quote]: “if it wasn’t for him I wouldn’t even be at this table” [end quote]
- her disagreement with the idea that Harriet Tubman be put on the $20 bill
…and several other either right wing or left of center statements that plague her name, social media took the words from her mouth by the firm stance on which she took–even for that brief moment.
Without delving into a by-the-book or urban dictionary definition of exactly what “ghetto” is, we’re gonna cut to the chase and talk about its meaning straight from the knee-jerk [not so well thought out and defined] definition of the word [“ghetto”] which, like from Raven’s viewpoint in so many words and (most often than many will ever admit) has a race and “type” of persons usually stereotypically wearing/appearing-like (slash) dressing-like (slash) talking-like (slash) behaving-like, therefore (slash) owning the word.
Having explained it like such, as if the name “Raven Symone” (together-versus just: “Raven”) is any less “ghetto” from however thee Raven Symone would discriminate a ghetto-sounding name, I too (and many others-I’m sure-without even seeing Raven’s face) would not exactly think a girl [named Raven Symone] on a list we are about to interview or meet is exactly ‘non’ “ghetto” and ‘non ethnic’ sounding, either.
But despite the fact that to even so much as Google images of Raven Symone, one would find her pictured with every single “ghetto” and “too ethnic” hair cut, style, and hair color subject to be found highlighted on the menu in the last ten flavors of Baskin Robbins; Raven Symone made the statement that in the [unfortunate event] she, (for lack of a better word) would (sight unseen) discriminate against someone with an ethnic sounding name.
“Just to bring it back, can we take back ‘racist’ and say ‘discriminatory,’ because I think that’s a better word. And I am very discriminatory against words like the ones that they were saying in the video. I’m not about to hire you if your name is Watermelondrea. It’s just not going to happen. I’m not going to hire you,” said the former child star and business woman.
“Is that mean?” she asked—after firmly stating her stance on the issue.
While, if you have a bit of time on your hands you can have at the Twitter backlash Raven’s received after making the statement, the fact of the matter is this.
As I mentioned earlier, this subject is old dead-horse beaten “ ‘til the white-meats shown” [as comedian, the late Bernie Mack would say] but the fact of the matter is: every “ghetto” or [“non ghetto?”] person can’t say that upon seeing names beginning with ‘La,’ ‘Qua,’ ‘Rah,’ [or ending with]: “eesha” or ‘eeka,’ doesn’t trigger an image or idea of just who, or what “type” of person is going to walk in the room…
And if all are truthful (while sitting politically correct hats to the side), we’ve all reckoned trouble was on the way with every single “Keisha,” and “Tameka” coming through–her name alone would proceed her reputation (that she is sure to live up to—so our minds have said a time or two or three or…all the time).
We even judge one another’s voices and diction within seconds to determine if we will be on our best, condescending, or less accomodating behavior…
So let’s keep it real in that regard and by those (mere) examples…so as to jar at your own personal truth.
All that being said however, while (sight unseen) I am against ANY employer using the process of elimination based upon somebody’s name, or their life online (which is a whole other blog to be); if that person’s name is not going on ANY lines of YOUR company’s letterhead or email correspondence, nor do they:
- own stock
- invited members on the board of YOUR company
…you’re doing a little bit tooooooooooo much. Get over yourselves!
Correction: Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much and need to deal with your own obvious issues…
NEWSFLASH: Not every employee is interested in their name being @ttached to, and having an extension of your company’s name to theirs to do that kind of business with, or for you. Contrary to many company’s ‘power’ and ego, not all applicants are interested in moving up your corporate ladder and company structure. So if you are going to be THAT discriminating, be DISCRIMINATE enough to consider that as well. Because if YOU think you’re that “professional” and astute, then YOU should also be savvy and smart even to decipher (or QUESTION) the extent to which they even WISH to be employed by you. Not every applicant is interested in representing your company outside of a job well done in exchange for currency commensurate with the job duties. Period. Dot.
By the same token, while I don’t agree with judging and canceling a person (sight unseen), I also do not agree with the notion that a sanction should follow people speaking their real, and true thoughts. If we keep spear-chucking in droves by demanding these kinds of sanctionings, when we have programmed and eventually lawfully made lawful-communism (in real life), what then?
— AttorneyMom (@PinkCottonMom) October 9, 2015
The world of social media is such that people are going to have to get JUST as comfortable with being uncomfortable with people’s thoughts and personal convictions without them having to wear any group’s scarlet letter. This is a new world order. With all the insincerity, fckery and fakery being presented in your face up and down your timelines and newsfeeds for rewards of reciprocity, why wouldn’t you want to know the TRUTH about what people think and feel on issues like such?
I’m all for people speaking their truths, even if I don’t agree.
What people need to know is: The entertainment business and business are two different animals.
While some white dude making fun a cutie little innocent black child on BUSINESS/company time and on company grounds for Facebook laughs should indeed be fired from that company (as was Geron Roth of Polaris Marketing Firm for mocking little Cayden).
I am sure there are clauses within that company’s code of conduct that prove having done so was indeed a violation of company policy.
But Raven Symone’s (and the Paula Deen)’s etc., job is in ENTERTAINMENT, and while it is a “job” nonetheless, how ‘bout we practice some self control and not patronize these people’s entertainment they provide for you or not buying what they are selling? Because THAT is how you “fire” somebody in entertainment.
What Paul Deen said doesn’t take food from my table, so I don’t care. But because of what she said, I can sure as hell take food from her table–by literally stop buying what it is she is selling….you get the “effective” way to deal with things like this now?
Because in the bigger scheme of things, the entertainment television talks show “The View” firing Raven Symone regarding her views is…somewhat, redundant and to do is merely publicity for the show but Raven will indeed work elsewhere–in entertainment, definitely so.
Lighten up. This is life, your world (and entertainment).