Posted by Rachel on: 10.08.2007 /
Guest columnist Matt EchoHawk-Hayashi and his wife Colleen come from the 49th and 50th states. Colleen is a Pawnee tribal member and Matt is 4th generation Okinawan/Japanese from Hawaii. They are part of a new church in Seattle called the Ohana Project.
I’ve been slow to catch on to the blog phenomenon. However, the candor and honesty that seems to be produced by sites such as this one is, for me, fascinating and hopeful. That’s why I began looking for discussion on the current state of race relations in America in the wake of wedge points like the Jena 6, Don Imus, Michael Vick, OJ Simpson and the exposure of American perspective on race two generations after the civil rights movement began. The issue for me is a personal one and I’m very interested in what the post-modern, socially conscious, spiritual-but-not-dogmatic, justice-minded folk of the blogger community thought.
I won’t try to report on the incidents such as the Jena 6 and OJ, anyone with cable probably feels overloaded with reporting already. What strikes me, and what I’d be interested in hearing feedback on is on the divide between how different members of this country perceive the issue. I’ve found that when the issue is race and justice, we often are not talking about the same thing at all.
The Don Imus’ comments are a good example of this. A few months ago, when this white older edgy DJ made racially and sexually offensive comments regarding a collegiate women’s basketball team, all hell broke loose. More recently, Isiah Thomas, a basketball legend and current executive for New York’s NBA franchise, he has been recently reported as stating that it is less offensive for a black man to call a woman a b#%*$ than it is for a white man to do the same. You may be surprised to hear that A LOT of people agree with Isiah (even though Mr. Thomas is accused of verbal and sexual harassment by a former co-worker, which is the reason for his reported comments). The media has made a point to line these two men side by side and ask the question, “What is the Difference?”
Great question. But misunderstanding happens when before even discussion begins, the lines are already drawn. On one side the question implies that there is no difference, and the other the difference is as present a reality as the sun in the sky.
I don’t think any responsible person would condone the b-word as acceptable word to describe ourselves, our sisters, and our mothers. I also don’t think any responsible person would condone a group beating an individual even after that individual is unconscious (see Jena 6). That’s a fact in any community, minority or not. And yet, for a great and growing portion of America’s people, when race is involved, it brings in perspective that divides us.
I believe for many Americans, there is a worldview that is dominated by threat. I don’t necessarily mean fear, we all react to being threatened in different ways, and fear is just one way. But when people of color react to nooses and verdicts with uproar, it’s not just about justice in that place, at that time, for those involved. We are seeing a culmination of multiple generations experiencing American society with nearly constant, albeit varying degrees, of vulnerability and threat.
For some, the debate around Jena, Louisiana is primarily about a group of students beating up another student, and though the attack was provoked, the severity of the attack is the issue and not race. I agree that it is an important issue (especially for the student who got beat and his family) and should not be overlooked.
But for others Jena is sign, Mr. Imus is a sign, Katrina is a sign, and the signs keep on coming pointing to an injustice that goes deeper and broader than any one sign taken individually.
Unless we can agree to discuss the same thing, I fear the gap of race will continue to deepen. That’s the situation as I see it; I’d be very appreciative of your perspective.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: benjamin ady
1 10/8/07 1:21 PM | Comment Link |Matt
Thankyou so much for your insight, perspective, and your questions.
I am led to ask questions about the nature of active and passive violence. systemic injustice kind of *means* systemic violence, both active and passive. Is it possible for us to agree to talk about violence and thus injustice in such a way that we choose (or attempt) to operate outside of *both* “camps”?
Or is it perhaps better to attempt talk about these issues in such a way that we choose (or attempt) to operate from *inside* both “camps”?
I’m just throwing out some thoughts that I had in response to your thoughts. At one level either of the options I threw out seem impossible. How can we escape time/culture/upbringing in the pursuit of justice and/or non-violence? Perhaps, in spite of the impossibility, the mere attempt is a moving in the right direction.
Comment by: Rachel
2 10/8/07 2:34 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin, I think that a big part of this is simply being willing to listen to and validate the experiences and perspectives of others. We are all influenced by our own subjective experiences, we see things through our own window. But by being willing to listen and learn we can choose to look out other peoples’ windows as well. As was alluded to in our discussion about the “good old days,” we might be shocked to discover that the landscape looks very different from someone else’s vantage point.
Comment by: benjamin ady
3 10/8/07 6:33 PM | Comment Link |Doesn’t the ability to do this–or as Matt, said “to agree to discuss the same thing”, rest largely upon the conscious choice to refuse to respond to actual or perceived threat with violence?
Heh. Once again we are speaking of near impossibilities. I don’t even manage to pull this off with people I love and am totally committed to. But there’s a scale thing, I guess. I mean maybe it just has to do with *working toward* the choice I iterated. Perhaps in the working towards, , we can see a reduction in scale of our own violence. Like for instance, perhaps in the process of this moving towards, my active and passive violence will at one point be measured on a scale of 1 to 100 (I’m envisioning an x y coordinate plane here with time on the x axis and violence level on the y axis), and then as time increases, perhaps my violence level will now be measured in only the first 10 of that scale–a reduction of one order of magnitude.
Starts here, I guess. I think a big part is just recognizing that. My community, my nation, my world, will *never* move in that direction if I’m not moving in that direction. Or at least that’s how I see it.
Comment by: Matt EchoHawk-Hayashi
4 10/8/07 8:53 PM | Comment Link |you guys are smart. help me out with what you mean by the connection with violence and injustice. I think I missing something.
Comment by: Courtenay
5 10/8/07 10:50 PM | Comment Link |I’m not sure I completely understand what Benjamin is framing, but if I were to work with Matt’s point about the injustice being a compilation of threat, and turned that into a kind of mathematics (as Benjamin describes it), it seems that we have to talk about a kind of momentum. For whites, the momentum is built up on the side of winning. Being white, I comprehend it as an individual. An individual was beaten, he is due a certain justice. A woman is called a b*$^*, she is due a certain justice. But it’s because an incursion was made on an expectation of security and respect. Why do I have that expectation? Because I receive it most of the time. I receive systemic justice.
I can imagine that for most minorities, who live with continual threat on the other side (an expectation of insecurity and disrespect), the momentum is built up on the losing side. For the Jena 6, a larger cultural context was invoked when nooses were hung on the tree. So when a black kid beats up a white kid, how does that stack up against the unlawful lynchings that happened to countless black men? Especially in the loaded topography of the south. How can we justly “bring him to justice” when justice was never brought to his people?
So how do black and white start talking? Who should put the gun down first? Honestly, I think it’s just like the old days– we have to make the constitution mean what it means. If we want justice for the individual, we have to have justice for all. And in that view, it has to be that black speaks louder than white, because how else will we know what justice really looks like? As I am white, I’m not really sure– especially if I’m under the delusion that the world is already just.
One final thought: in the face of an appropriate anger & frustration expressed by minorities in the larger cultural context, how do I, as an individual white person, bear up under it? See it as a collective thing, not my individual responsibility? I think that’s where most white people get stuck. Thinking “I need to make things better for black people,” because of guilt, is not only a horrible feeling, but is also demeaning to black persons. How does one be appropriate in whiteness?
Comment by: Rachel
6 10/9/07 6:10 AM | Comment Link |Great comment, Courtenay! Welcome to Justice and Compassion!
Comment by: Matt EHH
7 10/9/07 9:47 AM | Comment Link |I think Courtenay is on to something (well a few things actually). Before we can move forward in the injustice involving race in our communities, we need a cultural setting, where when hot topics such as the Jena 6 or Don Imus come up, there is enough understanding that we can discuss the issue without assume combat positions.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “I am not a racist” or “I am not like that“. I sometimes agree and sometimes don’t, but pointing out that specific person’s racism or prejudice is rarely if ever something I care about. I’m talking about something bigger, I’m trying to describe kingdoms that I see where although I may be an American I and my family are not welcome into and the benefits of those kingdoms are not extended to people like me.
Is there a good way to communicate that without getting bogged down with personal defensiveness?
Comment by: Benjamin ady
8 10/9/07 11:54 AM | Comment Link |Matt,
You asked about the connection re: violence and injustice. Your question made me ponder.
I guess your question leads to the question: Is there such a thing as “just violence”?
which is related to the question: Is there such a thing as redemptive violence?
Which kind of comes around to the question: Can we hope to *fix* injustice by means of violence?
So wikipedia has this to say about myths:
So if by myth we just mean narrative–the story we tell about ourselves and about others–then it seems to me that this story about redemptive violence, as described here:
is fundamentally secured in the american story/the american way of being. So as you bring up, the jena 6 thought they could *accomplish* justice by means of violence. Conversely, those who hung the nooses on the trees and so forth were in some sense making the same argument from the other end: “We (the white people) must be right/just, because we *won* (became dominant) by use of violence.
It seems to me that the Christian story, the story of Ghandi, the story of MLK junior, are all strong arguments against this story and they say, in effect: “Justice can only come about by making the conscious choice to *receive* the violence rather than *perpetrate* it.
That is say, to answer my question above: Violence is inherently *unjust*, and the *only* long term feasible plan for correcting this injustice is to consciously choose to receive the violence without retaliation. We can only move from this injustice of violence toward justice by making this choice.
Let me just point out that all of the above is way more than a mouthful–mostly impossible. People who do it are heroes.I don’t remotely begin to accomplish accomplishing this sort of thing, and to the extent that I don’t, I am, unfortunately, continuing to be part of the machine of injustice. Which is to say despite my best intentions, I can’t altogether escape being american, being white. Or forget “altogether”. I can hardly escape it at all.
Comment by: Matt EHH
9 10/9/07 12:38 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin,
I think I’m following.
I must have orignially communicated poorly. I do not know what the Jena 6 was thinking when they beat up that white student. I would say though that if justice was a motivator, they would have a very inaccurate definition of justice. I have no intention of justifying those kids beating anyone. Those kids, although I can understand the rage and I won’t judge thier hearts because psychic assault like nooses hung from a tree can make you do things you would not otherwise,– they were wrong.
Those kids’ beef was not about justice at all. I was just commenting on the world they live in is a very different one than many of their fellow americans do. And that the reality of the difference in our society is one that needs to be reckoned with if we want to discuss it.
But to answer you question about justice and violence-(although again, that wasn’t my intention), Justice is different from Love. And the greater of the two is love. I believe if you are seeking and answer justice can’t help you, only love can.
If justice alone is the goal, Violence is inevitable. Emmitt Till, Jim Crow, Bull Connor’s Attack Dogs, Internment Camps, American Policy of Indian extinction… our history is saturated with a kind of Hell that if you are trying to even the score, there is hell to pay.
But we should be unendingly greatful to the ethnic and cultural minorities for their commitment to something that far transcends a demand for justice. There is no Black KKK, there is no Indian IRA. And while our democratic process and court system does have something to do with it, it is because there is a deep commitment to an ancient story that promises something beyond justice.
I’m not saying justice is not important, it is vital in a world where injustice is so prevelant and so powerful. But justice can only point the way, Love walks the path.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
10 10/9/07 12:54 PM | Comment Link |It seems to me that education can *help* with this. It sort of creates (ideally) a space from which to have a larger view, from which one doesn’t have to feel (as) defensive. Victor Hugo put it nicely in Les Miserables:
Comment by: benjamin ady
11 10/10/07 9:18 AM | Comment Link |Matt, I’m really glad you’re here. You make me ponder.
Would you agree that the love of which you speak is that which enables the perspective/place to discuss of which you spoke earlier?
Which is to say, does not love actually require something *more* than justice of the loved one? Justice would merely demand that the perpetrator pay for/experience retribution for the crime. Love would demand that the perpetrator change internally in such a way that they understand the crime from the victim’s point of view, with all the attendant emotions, so that they … become more human. It seems to me that the latter is a lot harder.
Or another way–would you agree that love is that which grants us the perspective to realize that violence will *never* lead us to the goal of justice, which we so desire. Love enables us to in one sense give up on the goal of justice per se, in the hope of attaining a bigger and more impossible goal?
Comment by: Keith
12 10/10/07 10:16 AM | Comment Link |Matt,
Thanks for the post. You mentioned the comparison/contrast of Don Imus & Isaiah Thomas. You also compare/contrast the different reactions to the O.J. Simpson trial. In most of the issues where race is brought up, either words or violence are the trigger. We watch one another’s speech & actions. These are the easiest problems to spot. I wonder, however, if the solution runs deeper.
Reagan’s administration really brought out the idea that government is more likely to hurt than help. Today, many - if not most - conservatives echo this sentiment. The African-American community in general can be described as less-than-completely-confident in the law enforcement or court systems. However this disdain for government reveals itelf in different ways.
For some conservatives - they blame themselves for problems rather than the government, because they expect the govt. to be incompetent or only make things worse. For some African-Americans - they blame the goverment for the injustice that goes on. Two groups who seem so different in their responses actually have a common issue underneath it all - they don’t believe in the system, nor do they know how to work with it.
Perhaps many (not all) of what we term race problems would be solved if citizens - specifically conservatives and African-Americans - understood how to work with and trust a flawed-but-often-adequate system. Let me know if this made any sense, or if you agree/disagree. Thanks, guys.
Comment by: Matt EHH
13 10/10/07 12:29 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin,
to answer your question
I think all good things are essentially enabled by love. But, I don’t think that getting folk to realize that when racial charged headlines make the news and people start rising up, that for those people who experience America in various degrees of oppresion and threat, the conversation is not just about that specific headline or the specific people involved in that headline–it shouldn’t take the earth shaking for people to at least take that into serious consideration.
Remember when Kanye said “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” during the (ongoing) Katrina crisis?
I think for those who do not relate to a worldview of race-based oppression, the easier discussion is about whether or not Kanye should have said it and whether or not the president likes black people.
But the difficult question, and the one that for me, is the essential question, is why is it that millions can relate to Kanye and millions are certain that the comment was justified? Remember, we are talking about the most powerful military, political, and perhaps legal individual role in the country and possibly the world. People live in that reality of perspective, that the federal government doesn’t care about a certain race. Why is that?
I think love makes us capable of discussing the harder questions, but I don’t want to sound like it will take a miracle. I think its a realistic expectation that we at least take the time to submit to consider the “other side”.
One of the essentials of the idea of justice is the acknowledgement of injury and crime. That’s where justice and love continue to be linked. Love saves us from ourselves but it doesn’t shield us from the truth.
Comment by: Matt EHH
14 10/10/07 12:39 PM | Comment Link |Keith,
I blessed that you are about solutions. And I think reconciliation between these divisions, political and racial, are very much needed.
for me, allies are helpful and perhaps neccessary, but allies are connected by convienence and this journey will demand a deeper commitment. So, more than the common ground between groups, I think it requires a connection beyond agenda. So conservatives could champion the ongoing struggle for civil rights, but if they do I think it would be due to being “married” to the cause and not for being an aly of it.
Comment by: April Terry
15 10/10/07 3:18 PM | Comment Link |I think one of the biggest issues surrounding racism is that is has no clear definition of what it is.
In the law, we can say that if such and such happens, then it is a broken law and a certain set of consequences will be administered.
However, when it comes to the niceties of human and social interaction, there is no clear definition as to what is acceptable and what is not. Therefore, we go forward somewhat blindly trying to follow the guidelines that we have learned through our own individual experiences in life. Often, these experiences are based on local and regional rules that don’t translate in other areas of the country or world.
In our current society, we have a number of problems that we face. In each of those problems, we have started using the media to solve the issues. For instance, anti-smoking campaigns and anti-drug campaigns. In doing these types of campaigns, we are seeking to change perceptions about what is considered acceptable. No one has ever done that in regard to racism that I know of.
I’m just saying that the public perception will only change if we start identifying racism and calling it for what it is. Right now, we can’t even get minority and whites to agree what is and isn’t racist.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
16 10/10/07 4:00 PM | Comment Link |Matt,
I think I’m starting to get more of a feeling for (at least part of) what you were saying in you’re original post. You’re saying it’s a lot easier, and safer, for the dominant group to have a meta conversation about the underlying reality than to have a conversation about that actual reality. Is that right?
Or another way of putting that is, perhaps, that it’s a lot easier for the dominant group to ignore the suffering of the oppressed group than it is for the oppressed group to ignore their own suffering?
Therefore our (the dominant group’s) attempts at understanding the underlying reality should be … predicated upon listening to that groups own iteration of that reality?
I like it that you used the word “submit”. This word seems both rather charged and rather appropriate for what you are talking about. It sounds enormously … christian–I mean in the sense of what Jesus was talking about with the whole “authority over vs. authority under” discussion. Let the dominant one, the powerful one, move away from fear into conscious choice of submitting to the one with less power. And your saying this begins when we listen well? It’s a very off the mappish sort of idea, methinks.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
17 10/10/07 4:06 PM | Comment Link |April,
Isn’t racism legally defined to *some* extent–for instance with regards to hate crime laws?
And … do you see how certain organizations put up such a fuss about hate crime legislation? Do you understand that? I don’t get that at all.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
18 10/10/07 4:09 PM | Comment Link |So Keith, I’m thinking that there are many who would say that the flaws in the “justice” system might make it adequate for rich white people, but that it is entirely inadequate for the very poor and/or racial minorities. They might cite, for instance, differences in prison and death row population proportions compared to the proportions in the general population.
Has any seen the movie Crash? It speaks to some of these ideas.
Comment by: April Terry
19 10/10/07 5:15 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin,
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the vagueness of the hate crime legislation is what makes it controversial.
For instance, if I decide to run over a minority because they make me angry, the act of running them over isn’t necessarily racist. However, if I run them over because they are a minority, it is clearly a hate crime. Proving that it is a hate crime is the problem. The court would have to prove that I had racist intentions for running them over by showing that I was either screaming racial epithets or had racist tendencies and therefore had no other reason than race to run them over. The latter is not as easy to prove.
One of the main problems with the sexual harrassment laws is that what constitutes sexual harrassment is a difficult judgement call.
Above and beyond that, though, I am not even talking about the legal definitions. If a law is broken, it is actually easier to define than it is when it comes to the more subtle forms of racism. Institutional racism, prejudice, and other types of racism are much more difficult to define.
If you were to take a poll, I would imagine that 90-100% of the people polled would say that they weren’t racist. If you started asking specific questions like “Have you ever told a joke about a minority?” you would probably find out that the two numbers don’t match.
I grew up in a very racist area, and not one of the people I knew growing up would describe themselves as racist.
Comment by: Keith
20 10/11/07 7:25 AM | Comment Link |Crash was excellent.
I’m not denying that those in the system seem to favor the rich and the white. However, neither conservatives nor African-Americans have confidence in being able to use the system. My car is a piece of junk, but I know not to roll down the passenger-side window (or it will stay down forever), and I know to put a little extra air in my front tires once a week, and I know that it will lurch when it first takes off from a sitting position - so I had better not try to quickly pull out in front of someone, etc. Despite this, I still feel confident that I can get where I’m going with this car.
The justice system is a lot like my car - it has serious flaws, may kill me one day, but is also one of my best chances of getting anywhere. The phrase “entirely inadequate” in my mind is not as accurate as “significantly flawed”.
I grew up in a place where the law was a confusing monster that was out to get you, and so if you ran into it you were a victim of inevitable bad luck. Our law is significantly flawed, but it is not a monster out to get us. Helping people learn about the law, and work within the system, will help destroy the fear that someone is out to get us. The reaction to the O.J. trial was in part the sense that the monster finally showed favortism to us that it normally showed only to others. That case wasn’t about favortism … it was about an insufficiency of evidence to produce a conviction beyond all reasonable doubt. With different requirements in the civil case, the verdict was different.
Again, I don’t think an ability to work with the system solves all the problems, nor does it remove the human element - and thus the human prejudices - that can impact it. However, I think a number of improvements in race relations can come by improved education for all citizens on how to work with the justice system. Appreciate the feedback.
Comment by: Matt EHH
21 10/11/07 9:35 AM | Comment Link |Keith,
I really appreciate your comments! And again, the way you are bringing tangible suggestions like working within the justice system armed with education is what I think this discussion needs.
Your point is well made. My sister-in-law often teaches a Street Law class to minors who are considered “At Risk”, and often find themselves engaging with police. The class gives the kids a background on their rights and the best way to preserve and exercise those rights when they get rolled up on.
The info is probably something most middle to upper class people already know (although more importantly, those groups usually know someone who can help) but, it goes a long way for those kids.
We make a big deal among our people about education in general. For every year of post-high school education a native student can obtain, that adds 10 years to their life expectancy (which is the lowest among people groups). Education is power in general.
I would add this though.
Justice may be blind, but our officers, judges, lawyers, teachers, politicians, civic leaders, those people can see very well, and they often see exactly what they want to.
I think you made this point as well.
And while, it still stands that a person of color who knows how to navigate our justice system stands a much better chance of one who only knows what the streets teach, living in a world where your car always seems to be the broken down one but it seems they are passing out shiny, fuel efficient, honorable cars down the block to the white kids, that plays a significant part.
Its the best and the brightest who can, armed with some education and few breaks, become sucessful despite the economics and racism. But what if you aren’t the best and the brightest? What if the best you can do is a C average? What if can’t overcome?
I understand life has its challenges no matter what the mirror or your bank account says. But, in my experience, if you aren’t the best and the brightest and you were born into priviledge, its better than being the best and the brightest and being born into struggle.
Comment by: April Terry
22 10/11/07 12:11 PM | Comment Link |I might’ve said those words once, but I learned that struggle has made a better person out of me than I could have ever known. If it weren’t for struggle, I most likely would have fallen into many pitfalls in my life. I embrace the struggle, and thank God for it.
A friend and I were discussing the way we have separated ethics/morality from education throughout our society. There are some who would say that that means to bring faith back into education, but I say that it means to bring morality learning back into the classroom.
As she put it, “We can teach a child to write words on a paper or we can teach a child to write words clearly on a page so that others can read it and understand completely what we are trying to convey.” In this way, children then can learn that the importance of learning to write well is also a form of being gracious.
Comment by: Matt EHH
23 10/11/07 12:25 PM | Comment Link |April,
You are absolutely right.
Struggle shapes character and invites grace. in reading the quote you mention, I don’t like the way it sounds. I think its the “…better..”, being privledged doesn’t make you better and having things come easy definitely does not shape strong character.
I’m proud of the history of my family and my wife’s family, its not all pretty and includes severe injustice, but I wouldn’t trade it for a silver spoon. I’m blessed to be a part of that story.
But another way to look at it:
my son belongs to a people group that is by far the most likely to commit suicide, become chemically dependant, and die early. His people struggle in ways others do not. Is that something to embrace? or shall act against the struggle?
Comment by: April Terry
24 10/11/07 12:44 PM | Comment Link |I believe that it isn’t the struggle that is important, but that it is our reaction to the struggle that is important. Each of us has been given gifts and struggles in life. We all have them, but we all deal differently with them.
Some people’s struggles are far more severe than others, but I have found that many people who struggle the most are the most gracious and humble human beings I know.
I know it’s hard to embrace struggle when we are going through it, but when we take a look back and realize all that we have learned through our struggle, we realize that it was necessary for us to experience in order to achieve what we do at the end.
The hard part is being a parent and watching your child struggle. Their struggle becomes yours as well and your greatest job is to find ways to empower your child to learn to deal positively with his/her struggle.
I can look back at my life right now, and I can tell you with all openness and honesty that the most painful experience of my life was the same experience that taught me to love God and to love others.
Comment by: Keith
25 10/11/07 1:12 PM | Comment Link |Important question … I don’t think my suggestion of education and working with the system completely addresses this. However, another thing you said might head us toward some solutions …
Who you know matters. I would be interested to see studies comparing the justice handed down from judges, DA’s, etc. who are local to the area they serve, with justice by officials who are not local to the area they serve. I wonder - I have no evidence one way or the other - if judges with a stake in the community do anything differently from others.
Which brings us to how I think education benefits in the long run … in a generation, when those “best and brightest” you described are in positions of authority because they have worked with the system … they then have the capacity to change the system so that it not only continues to provide opportunities for the best and brightest, but also for the C & D students if you will. And their ideas will potentially be creative and effective beyond what I currently picture because of their experience and expertise (of which I have little).
And someday my broke down car will drive to a dealership where - after years of having transported me back and forth from the job where I earned the money for this upgrade - I will purchase a better, safer, and more efficient vehicle. I think over time education and empowerment to work within the system is actually one of the best ways to improve/overthrow the system so that it is more effective. Work with it today, work to change it tomorrow, and let it do the work after we’re gone. Again, thanks for the feedback. Glad you’ve posted on this topic.
Comment by: Doreen Mannion
26 10/11/07 1:21 PM | Comment Link |Wow, I can relate to so much written here, especially how to affect change without being seen as whitey helping those poor oppressed folks.
Most of my seminary classmates are African-American and there is a great divide between those who still feel and live out the struggle of their ancestors and those who think they are past that and everyone else should be also.
The cafeteria is the most segregated place on campus. It is not segregated by denomination or theology but by race. I’ve talked to many many people about this because it really bothers me and I’ve been told consistently that it is a comfort factor.
One of the reasons this column and the responses is speaking to me so much is I’ve found myself inexplicably drawn to African-American Sunday services and my best friends from seminary happen to be African-American. I live in the county in the US with the highest African-American income. When I shop and eat, I am a minority. I’ve experienced prejudice because I’m white, which I hope every white person gets to experience because it is a real learning experience.
If you’re white, it’s late, you’re in a parking garage and a white man gets on your elevator, how do you feel and what do you think?
If you’re white, it’s late, you’re in a parking garage and an African-American man gets on your elevator, how do you feel and what do you think?
I think our responses say a lot about how we are socially conditioned.
Comment by: Matt EHH
27 10/12/07 9:03 AM | Comment Link |Thank you Doreen for your input. And thank you for being a bridge-builder.
Is there a difference between how you feel and how your parents might feel in general towards people of color? If there is a difference, how did you establish your own way?
Comment by: Doreen Mannion
28 10/12/07 10:04 AM | Comment Link |Matt asked
Oh yes. When I was in 5th grade, one of the friends who came to my BD party was someone who back in that day was termed “mulatto.” My father would not come downstairs for the party.
When I was in 9th grade, we moved to a new town and the first person to befriend me was the tallest girl in the school who also happened to be one of only a few African-Americans in the school. She walked to my house and we were talking in the garage. My mother came out & asked to see me and told me my father said my friend had to go home & never come back.
I think this is why I grew up being the way I am. I never saw color (literally and figuratively; they were not many non-whites where I lived).
One of the funniest stories - most of my stepson’s friends were African-American. I got to know the lingo all the kids used by coaching them in basketball. One day I’m waiting for a bus in DC and these African-American teenagers start talking about me using all this slang. I turned and answered back in a string of slang that made their heads spin. They all cracked up and high fived me. When I told some friends (who happened to be white), they were very disapproving saying I was lucky I didn’t get attacked and/or shot.
Comment by: Matt EHH
29 10/12/07 10:31 AM | Comment Link |wow. you like basketball too?
we’d get along.
what part of the country did you come from?
Comment by: Rachel
30 10/14/07 1:30 PM | Comment Link |Matt, I’ve been thinking a lot about this and I think that there is often an unspoken dynamic at play that stifles discussion about issues of race between Anglo persons and persons of color. The unwritten but clearly understood rules state that it is a horrible offense to harbor racist attitudes, whether overt or covert. And it is also understood that the person of color is the one who has the power to determine that an offense has been made and to label the Anglo person a racist.
So often the Anglo person’s primary motivation is not to have a meaningful dialogue or to hear the other person’s story or to realize a new perspective, but simply to navigate safely through the minefield of the discussion without committing an offense and thus receiving the terrible label of racist. A lot of times the Anglo individuals will simply do whatever they can to avoid the conversation all together, because their fear of committing a transgression is greater than their desire for dialogue.
What is needed to change this dynamic?
Comment by: Rachel
31 10/14/07 2:12 PM | Comment Link |I agree, Matt. But unfortunately Americans are not known as great students of history. We tend to have short attention spans and be very self-focused. It takes a lot of effort and engagement to step outside our own little world and make a conscious choice to try to see things through the eyes of another. And often what we see if we do look will be painful so we would rather turn away.
Comment by: Doreen Mannion
32 10/14/07 4:12 PM | Comment Link |Matt asked
I was born in South Central LA but left there in the 60s. I also lived a third of my youth in upstate NY and in Western PA. Since then, I bopped back & forth ‘tween the coasts but have lived in the Washington, DC, area the last 18 years.
Comment by: Matt EHH
33 10/16/07 9:21 AM | Comment Link |Rachel,
Thank you for your comments. Seems to me that the dynamic of the fear of being judged as racist often squashing honest conversation or heart connections is a biggie, and I appreciate you bringing that in.
That is a daunting barrier.
If I may throw another question for general comment: what is your opinion of how much of the current “Race issues” is about injustice of the past that people are reacting to now and how much is straight-up racism/classism built into society today?
I know it’s crude, but how about adding a percentage?
Comment by: Rachel
34 10/16/07 10:03 AM | Comment Link |Wow. Maybe 50-50? What do you think? I appreciate that you included classism, because with the ever-widening gap between rich and poor in our society, I think that economics is becoming our greatest social divide. Of course issues of race (and gender) are deeply intertwined with issues of class.
Comment by: Rachel
35 10/16/07 10:27 AM | Comment Link |Regarding barriers to dialogue…I think that one thing that is very helpful is to create an environment where people can have issues brought to their attention without being labeled racist or unkind. For example, several years ago a Latina friend of mine started gently correcting me when I would use the terms “America” or “Americans” to refer exclusively to the United States or its citizens. She reminded me that Canada, Mexico, and all of Central and South America are part of “America.” She explained that many Latinos find it offensive when US citizens seem to imply that we are the only residents of America. But she did not communicate in any way that she thought I was racially biased or a jerk, just that she wanted to bring this to my attention.
Since then I have made a concerted effort to change in this area. It doesn’t always work since the language can get awkward (we don’t have a word for Unitedstatesians) but most of the time I am able to adjust my language to reflect this awareness. And I have shared this with a lot of other people, not to scold them either but just to point out something they probably never thought about. Many of the Anglo friends I have shared this with have gotten very defensive and I understand why they do, because often there is this implication that if someone is judged to have been racially insensitive or unaware then that means they are a dirty rotten bastard. The attitude should simply be, “Wow. You just weren’t aware of that, how could you have been? But you are aware of it now. So now you know more. Cool.”
I also think we need to feel more free to simply ask people questions about sensitive topics that we are unsure about. For example, I work for the school district and a few years back I attended a meeting where a presentation was being given by a woman who held the title “Indian Education Coordinator.” She was explaining the goals of her program and I raised my hand and said, “I noticed that you are called Indian Ed Coordinator. I always thought that Indian was an offensive term and that the correct term is Native American. How do you feel about that?” She laughed and said, “It just varies from person to person. Some people only want to be called Native American, others have always referred to themselves as Indians and continue to do so. The program is just called that because that is the name the federal government gave it originally.” Then she put her hand over her heart and said, “The best thing to do is what you just did - ask the person what they want to be called. You have my heart because you asked me.”
That really stuck with me and I always try to ask people what THEY want to be called. BTW, I should let you all know that I would like to henceforth be referred to as “Her Majesty.” ;-)