FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2093604671> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2093604671 endingPage "377" @default.
• W2093604671 startingPage "367" @default.
• W2093604671 abstract "Is There Interest in Reconciliation? Kirt H. Wilson (bio) On June 14, 1997, President Clinton addressed the graduating class at the University of California, San Diego, and said, We must begin with a candid conversation on the state of race relations today. . . . We must be honest with each other. We have talked at each other and about each other for a long time. It's high time we all began talking with each other.1 With these words, the president invited America to a yearlong discussion about race relations. Clinton appointed a panel of experts, led by the historian John Hope Franklin, to facilitate the discussion and advise him on racial policy. The president and members of the commission traveled to Akron, Ohio, and Houston, Texas, to participate in town hall forums. On July 9, 1998, many PBS stations televised an hour-long discussion between the president and his commission, and, according to several news sources, Clinton even considered using the Initiative [End Page 367] on Race and Reconciliation to apologize for slavery. Eventually, the White House rejected the idea, with press secretary Mike McCurry explaining, [an apology] is not the place that he chooses to begin this dialogue. . . . I don't anticipate the president putting any of the focus of his energy on that subject anytime soon.2 I was reminded of Clinton's dialogue on race after reading John Hatch's essay in the Winter 2003 issue of Rhetoric & Public Affairs. Building on Mark Lawrence McPhail's work and recent trends abroad, Professor Hatch expresses the hope that reconciliation could work sociopsychologically to move groups plagued by a historical victimizer/victim relationship toward involvement in dialogic coherence.3 Hatch admits that his proposal faces obstacles, because he advocates only for a serious dialogue and not the kind of rhetorical sleight of hand that plagued President Clinton's failed initiative.4 Hatch's purpose is to begin opening up space for a serious scholarly discussion of reconciliation as a rhetorical response to the problem of race.5 In the following moments, I would like to participate in the space that Hatch creates. He deserves credit for furthering our conversation about racism and how rhetoric might facilitate a solution. I am sympathetic with much of what he says, especially his appreciation for McPhail's scholarship; nevertheless, I am not convinced that reconciliation is the best direction for future U.S. race relations. While there are undeniable emotional and psychological dimensions to racism, a social psychological approach is not the best foundation for a theoretical model or pragmatic methodology that addresses the problem. Using the theory of interest-convergence, I contend that a more likely means toward reconciliation lies not in a cathartic experience that removes shame, guilt, and victimage but in a rhetoric that induces the public to consider that its interests are served by dismantling existing systems of white privilege. Even this approach is limited, because reconciliation, itself, may be incapable of solving the structural roots of racism. My perspective accepts the inevitability of what McPhail terms complicity, but it also rejects racial essentialism by understanding the goal of dialogue as the construction of interracial interests, not the recognition or discovery of a metaphysical coherence. The question is not whether rhetoric creates difference but whether that same rhetoric can construct a set of interests that acknowledges difference and then motivates us to realign differences so that one community does not enjoy eternal privilege at the expense of another. There are good reasons to be concerned about the problems of race in the United States. In 2002, Glenn C. Loury published a study of racial disparity based on recent economic and demographic data.6 He concluded that society maintains a racial stigma that castigates African Americans and thereby perpetuates disparities in income, achievement, health, and legal sanction.7 It is possible to disagree with Loury's interpretations, but it is hard to dispute the data. The approximate median income of black and white families in America differs by almost $18,000, and that disparity has remained remarkably constant from 1980 to 1999. In 1999, the largest [End Page 368] percentage of employed white men held managerial and professional jobs (29..." @default.
• W2093604671 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2093604671 creator A5027183650 @default.
• W2093604671 date "2004-01-01" @default.
• W2093604671 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2093604671 title "Is There Interest in Reconciliation?" @default.
• W2093604671 cites W1247047090 @default.
• W2093604671 cites W143173597 @default.
• W2093604671 cites W1543971459 @default.
• W2093604671 cites W1607582521 @default.
• W2093604671 cites W2010870672 @default.
• W2093604671 cites W2029430685 @default.
• W2093604671 cites W2068171222 @default.
• W2093604671 cites W2796665653 @default.
• W2093604671 cites W3040797857 @default.
• W2093604671 cites W3113314941 @default.
• W2093604671 cites W632472777 @default.
• W2093604671 cites W650214873 @default.
• W2093604671 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/rap.2005.0019" @default.
• W2093604671 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2093604671 type Work @default.
• W2093604671 sameAs 2093604671 @default.
• W2093604671 citedByCount "12" @default.
• W2093604671 countsByYear W20936046712012 @default.
• W2093604671 countsByYear W20936046712016 @default.
• W2093604671 countsByYear W20936046712020 @default.
• W2093604671 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2093604671 hasAuthorship W2093604671A5027183650 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C1370556 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C2776034101 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C2777200299 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C2777855551 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C56273599 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConcept C76509639 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C104317684 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C107993555 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C11413529 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C1370556 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C138885662 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C144024400 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C161191863 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C17744445 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C185592680 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C199539241 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C2776034101 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C2777200299 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C2777855551 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C29595303 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C41008148 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C41895202 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C46312422 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C48103436 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C55493867 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C56273599 @default.
• W2093604671 hasConceptScore W2093604671C76509639 @default.
• W2093604671 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2093604671 hasLocation W20936046711 @default.
• W2093604671 hasOpenAccess W2093604671 @default.
• W2093604671 hasPrimaryLocation W20936046711 @default.
• W2093604671 hasRelatedWork W1555808935 @default.
• W2093604671 hasRelatedWork W2005801668 @default.
• W2093604671 hasRelatedWork W2020479690 @default.
• W2093604671 hasRelatedWork W2032117917 @default.
• W2093604671 hasRelatedWork W2158975128 @default.
• W2093604671 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2093604671 hasRelatedWork W3138789183 @default.
• W2093604671 hasRelatedWork W3195360060 @default.
• W2093604671 hasRelatedWork W3195988253 @default.
• W2093604671 hasRelatedWork W4213250777 @default.
• W2093604671 hasVolume "7" @default.
• W2093604671 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2093604671 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2093604671 magId "2093604671" @default.
• W2093604671 workType "article" @default.