Senate "Race" Relations (was "U.S. Society and Black Men")

"Hey Rogue Number Ten, what did you buy from the hardware store?"

"Hardware stuff."

". . ."

 

I agree. It seems to me that much of the earlier generation of civil rights activism was based on a need to absolve the conscience but not really to address the fundamental issue that skin colour should be a complete societal non-issue in the same way as red hair or freckles have no social meaning. This "transactional" approach is mostly condescending and smacks of elitism. You know the whole "we gave the savages shoes to wear and now they want to live next door, ungrateful brutes" vibe.

 

at the same time, i want to distinguished between the "colorblind" copout and the kind of engaged etiquette im advocating - this is honest engagement with the self and others, a set of social mores that you can pride yourself on adhereing to but that you "owe" to nobody but yourself and the kind of society you want to live in

this is not the "colorblind" method of convincing yourself that you "treat everyone the same" or "dont see color" and calling it good because you never shout the n-word in public (well almost never)

 

No, I totally get this LOH. But as I've asked, how would that change the situation? What exactly makes it quiet subservience vs simply being in the wrong area and asked to leave? How would you handle a similar situation if you inadvertently sat down in an area that was supposed to be closed off and were asked to leave?

We've already established that this guy sits down in the restricted area to wait for his kids. No harm, no foul. A security guard comes up and says "this is the employee only area, you have to keep it clear." There is doesn't seem to be anything racist about any of this. Ok, so this black guy has been moved on all of his life, and is argumentative because of it. We're on the same page here. So what changes can be made? Because the security guard still has to keep the employee only area clear, and would have to do so no matter what the person's skin color is. And the guy still checks this off as another example of him being harassed because of his skin color. So how do you reconcile the feelings of the man in the closed off area with the outcome that the security guard has to achieve? This reconciliation is the difference between conflict and resolution and forms one of the main issues of this overall topic.

 

For many people in the United States, probably more in the 1960s but continuing through today, there's a lot of sentiment that as soon as institutionalized racism was outlawed, the playing field became even overnight and blacks and other monitories should cease their troublemaking immediately and be grateful for what they already have. I think that continues to power a lot of working class resentment (which in turn fuels some of the incidents and more subtle racism that minorities encounter in their lives).

 

Mr44-It is very simple in my mind. Empathy. Being in a job where you are expected to be in a position of "authority" and you have a badge and a gun requires you to understand some simple social realities and act accordingly. In my experience most cops and security guards don't do this. They just don't let stuff go. They don't deflect anger and frustration but rather they respond to anger and frustration with more authority which causes more anger and frustration which inevitably leads to a confrontation.

If you recognise this then you quickly begin to be able to recognise real danger from simple frustration at the unfairness of it all and respond accordingly.

 

Um, I think when you critique someone for something you are quite guilty of yourself, it makes it harder to agree with your message.

I mean, erm, in general terms...

And Mr44, with respect of your point - you seem to be saying that in that renting scenario, it doesn't have to be or might not be racism. I'm not sure that's the point. Taking a macro perspective, if in 80% of instances race is a factor in deciding on rental applications... you have an issue.

Evidence suggests it's more likely that not the case that yes, in fact, racism is a factor.

I, too, am over the inane wet crowd offering useless post after useless post on police brutality (having once imagined themselves at the barricade on a social issue and being beaten, but not actually leaving that armchair).

So on a macro level, racism is prevalent and yet on a micro level, less so. I think the focus is and correctly should remain macro for the short term, quite frankly.

Mate, honestly? More than half of them are still at the need to absolve conscience stage. That's why they can't move on, the guilt. The baggage. See below.

Yeah, that's probably quite true. But I think the lesson here was that actually, you needed a Truth & Reconciliation Commission-like entity to move forward. Like, to compare it to a mental health scenario (because I think the US has basically a psychosis nationally that it refuses to deal with) - you have a trauma, but you don't speak to anyone about it and you think you can manage. For a while, everything seems ok because you can push through but over time, the cracks appear and a breakdown seems imminent.
So, actually, I think the above is 100% true. But I think everyone - all colours, both sides of the spectrum - have avoided any tough discussions afterwards. Liberals perpetuate one form of institutionalised discrimination; conservatives another and black men are still more likely to be poor. Still more likely to be in the justice system. Still more likely to be disenfranchised...

 

For clarity, I was referring to this as a larger topic, not just the discussion here. How many people in America do you think would see this and feel like mr44 has come closest to expressing their own views?

 

when? i wasnt responding to you

like, a crap-ton of white people. as we've discussed. over and over again. do you see the looping effect i'm talking about?

 

Ok, as I'd said something about pragmatism in the discussion the post before you covered how to make this particular discussion productive, it read to me as more of a response since it was more of a 'meta' comment than the posts prior to mine.

 

Honestly, I think that's a bit harsh considering he's not actually been racist. And FWIW, there's not too many views here outside of Souderwan/Merk to be that proud of as a nation...

 

And do you know what is ironic, Rogue? The majority of the people in the US don't think in racist terms. Yes, this effect is a combination of background and experience. But if you're comfortable with people of varying views, it's not an issue. You, KW, others seem to be under this assumption that everyone has to come to a cathartic revelation that they're racist jerks. Maybe everyone is. But maybe not. Questioning this assumption doesn't mean that one is completely blind to racism. Does this have to be a homogenous experience? Does a family from Costa Rica have the same catharsis as a family from Ireland? Because so far, you've broken everything down to ideas of either white vs black, and really, with some of what you've posted, it would be more accurate to characterize it as not black vs black. It doesn't have to be that way.

I do think life experience comes into play here. In the other thread, I believe it was Ghost who detailed his excitement about working for Americorps and the prospect of seeing the different aspects of the country. That's the coolest thing. When I was in the military, * it didn't matter if the person next to you is black, red, or purple. You develop a brotherhood, and that continues when you move from base to base. Colin Powell, a leader I greatly admire, summed it up as all being "army green." Does this mean there is no racism in the military, or in Americorps? Of course not. But as institutions, they're not defined by it, as everyone pulls their weight together. This would be a foreign concept to someone who hasn't experienced anything similar.

Sure E_S, I agree with your post. Except for the macro point, because as of yet, no one has offered any macro solutions, and have almost entirely used micro examples beyond what they represent. Is actual progress on racism being hindered in the US by focusing on racism that is so subtle that it is in the eye of the perceiver? You hit the nail on the head a long time ago when you said perception is everything. That's spot on. So how does one address the issue of perception while simutaneously addressing the concrete issues that you mentioned above? The problem is that the incidents feed off of each other. LOH mentioned the idea of institutional anger and past hostility. He makes an important point there, but like KW, just stops. If all someone does is focus on past hostility, there will always be one more incident which builds on it. As you pointed out, if the macro level should be the goal, then tangible ideas most certainly have to be the focus.


*=for any alternate universe theorists out there, this paragraph should read.... "When I was a military contractor earning hundreds of thousands of dollars going out shooting people for oil"... and then continue right with "this would be a foreign concept to someone who hasn't experienced anything similar." I mean, for those who concern themselves with such things.

 

You, KW, others seem to be under this assumption that everyone has to come to a cathartic revelation that they're racist jerks

How do you do this? Truly. I do not understand it. No one in here has said anything like that. No one has implied anything of the sort either.

 

I would actually say this leads to the police brutality problem. As you mention Powell's comment about army green, which is creating an "us vs them" mindset in the military of the army vs the people they're fighting, the issue here is that to a large extent it seems like the colour that matters when it comes to the police most is blue. A similar "us vs them" mindset gets set up, except the "them" in that equation is the people that they're theoretically serving.

 

So if you figure the police have, conservatively, a million interactions with citizens per day... it's us vs them?!

 

I believe it is very much us versus them. My old man was in the Australian Federal Police for over 15 years and that was the culture. It is why you can have a black cop who is racist against blacks because of the "them".

 

About a decade back was in a situation where someone had called 911, and LAPD showed up about an hour, maybe 2 hours later. The guy that was there that went to go talk to them about the situation, and the slow response time, was like a former cop or something like that (I think he was security guard at that point, I'm hazy on the details of what he actively was) and one of the things that the cops told him, that they didn't mean for us to overhear, was that if there was another problem, that he should let them know that he's a cop and they'll get out there faster then. There was a pause of a second or two as he realized that other people overheard that, and then he tried to cover it with an "of course, we'll get here as fast as we can either way". It was... fairly transparent.

I was having to deal frequently with the police for a couple years, and we'd usually not get any traction, and the only reason we'd get any results were that it was a neighborhood problem, and I've got one neighbor that's a semi-retired sheriff, and because he's in the department, he can do stuff when the police don't, or he can use his contacts and get results. It was very evident how far this can get when I was listening to a teen try to talk his way out of trouble because his dad was a police sgt and he felt that gave him a sort of immunity. And really, had it not been for my neighbor the cop as a witness AND security camera footage, I think that connection would've gotten them off scot-free. It's been incredibly frustrating to see how the only times action actually gets taken are when strings get pulled, and because there's a law enforcement officer involved. If it was just my family involved, I doubt we'd ever get any help.

So yeah, I think it is largely an us vs them situation, where it's police, judges, and DAs vs the people.

 

Mr44, I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt an say that Malik is wrong--that ignoring your posts would probably be more productive. As Ender and others have rightly pointed out, we as a nation haven't really dealt with our racial legacy since the end of government-enforced racism. But I do think that your worldview is shared by a pluraity, if not outright majority, of white Americans. It's certainly shared by many immigrant blacks. So I think continuing this discussion could be helpful to everyone.

But for that to work, I need you to stop with the straw man nonsense. For real. Just stop it. You keep making these claims about how we see racism in everything or how all of America is racist and variations on this theme. Then you proceed to point out how that's not true. It's just completely dumb and is beneath you. It also makes you look like a tool. And you're not. So stop doing it. Please.

That being said, what I see happening is that we all look at an event that happens through our own lenses. If there's a question about whether racism (overt or otherwise, intentional or subconscious) is involved, you choose to interpret that racism had nothing to do with it until proven otherwise. Most of us are more inclined to think racism had something to do with it, in addition to whatever other factors were involved. Now I agree with you that sometimes racism has nothing to do with a situation. But sometimes racism does. If you default, every time, to the idea that racism has nothing to do with it ,we're never going to have a productive conversation.

So let's go back to the situation with the gentleman approached by the security guard about where he was sitting. I talked earlier about the many, many micro-aggressions minorities face every day and how we don't respond to most of them. One of the byproducts of a lifetime of experiences dealing with these micro-aggressions is that you become an expert at recognizing them when they happen. What's not captured in the report about the interaction between the security guard and the dreadlocked black man who was waiting for his son, was the tone and tenor of that exchange. How can you? It's one guy's word against the other. But I am willing to bet my next paycheck that it wasn't a simple "Excuse me sir, this area is actually restricted. I'm really sorry, but would you mind moving over to this area here to wait?"

You asked what can be done. Four specific things (that incidentally the military does as well):

1. Have an official policy on diversity and interactions with the public
2. Conduct regular (at least semi-annual) training on racial interactions with the public--how to diffuse situations, conflict resolution, etc.
3. Set up a racial abuse/discrimination hotline for the public to report incidents without fear of retaliation (to date, I've reported 0 of the 10+ interactions I've had). Reports would be cataloged and investigated, where appropriate.
4. Outfit all police officers with badge and dash cameras. These would be verified fully operational prior to going out each shift and the data downloaded and saved at the end of each shift, irrespective of any reports. Should a report come in, this would be the first place that the investigation would start.

 

The thing is... the original situation did not need to bring race into the matter at all!

Mr44, as a cop, I can imagine that you received training in what to do if someone assaulted you and tried to take away your weapon. I am willing to bet that those training you never said that the justification for use of deadly forced changed based on the race or ethnicity of the assailant.

 

So I recently read about Al Sharpton's comments at Michael Brown's funeral. It was a great speech but when he said, “Blackness has never been about being a gangster or thug,” I immediately thought about this thread. He said the T word!

I just couldn't resist.

Wait, are you saying that because he's not agreeing with you and not giving in to your view points, he might as well be ignored? Wow. So just out of curiosity, can you tell me of times in the past when you've looked at an opposing viewpoint and changed your opinion to agree with it. I'd love to see a thread in which this happened. I just want to see an example of open dialogue in action that conforms with your statement above.

 

The way some folks (and indeed FOX news) are reacting to the race discussion might as well be #NotAllWhites.

This continuous argument that it's not racism because that's not the word people have in their heads is ridiculous, as is the weird insistence people have that "we have to do something," as though action and discussion are mutually exclusive.

 

Vezner's that's ridiculous, and has nothing to do with what Rogue Number Ten actually said. It has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement, but rather how the discussion is conducted. I have said throughout that I think Ender's "economics only" approach is flawed for a number of reasons, from creating a false choice at the outset to the way systemic racial biases will still hinder its effectiveness, just as it has in the multiple times strategy has been suggested or pursued in the last two centuries. But he does seem to be responding to what people have actually written, and replying earnestly with evidence of his own. So even if I find his solutions wrong or his tone abrasive, I'm confident we're still having a discussion.

As Souderwan's last post addressed, M44 doesn't do this. His posts repeatedly charge that those who disagree with him attribute "everything" to racism, even after we have clarified in every response to him that we do not, and agreed that several of his observations are valid. That sort of behavior is consistent with someone who is not interested in having a conversation, because he is literally not responding to the actual views of other participants. If you've tried to engage someone and they won't, then really your only other option is to leave them alone. I'm comfortable applying that standard to anyone on the JCC, with any subject at all. You should be, too.

 

Yes Merk, which is what I said from the beginning. I'm sure everyone can agree that I've written the word "context" so many times in this thread that I might as well start charging royalties for its use. But in doing so, I get accused of ignoring racism. But the context of any situation is extremely important. I do think this is where our disconnect is coming into play. People like KW, Rogue, others ask "how can you not see that the black man being asked to leave perceives the situation as racism?" And while I agree that the man can have this perception, it doesn't define the specific situation. So either two results could be possibilities:

1)The security guard has asked previous people to leave the same area, and this latest guy is just one among many. How then, does one address his perception of racism, when no such intent was intended?
2)The security guard was racist, and singled this black guy out for harassment based on his skin color. But then what does one use to determine this?

This is what Souderwan posted, and I agree with it, as it forms the backbone of our differing views:

That being said, what I see happening is that we all look at an event that happens through our own lenses. If there's a question about whether racism (overt or otherwise, intentional or subconscious) is involved, you choose to interpret that racism had nothing to do with it until proven otherwise. Most of us are more inclined to think racism had something to do with it, in addition to whatever other factors were involved.

Except how does one assume the 2nd option without any evidence or indication? Did the guard mention anything about skin color? Did the guard use racial slurs? Did the guard allow other people to stay in the area while asking the black guy to leave? Those are all evidence of racism and can be addressed. Up until this point, I was chided for suggesting that the overall situation be examined. Merk is the only other person who finally suggested that something contextual be looked at. Unfortunately, it's academic, because we've never going to find out how many other people have been asked to leave the area. But absent of information, why assume? The standard of general societal interaction is that people are innocent until proven guilty. So the default is to conclude that "X had nothing to do with Y" until proven otherwise. Which is why we disagree over how to perceive any specific situation. If someone defaults to the idea that everyone else is racist toward them in any interaction, it skews one's judgement.

Simply defaulting to a view that racism was probably involved no matter the other factors, will never bring about any improvement in the overall situation. You can't assume motivations in any one individual when such evidence is absent. Ont he larger scale, inequalities exist in society that have to be addressed. But in an interaction between 2 people, you can't project external forces onto either. This is when E_S's concept of of macro vs micro levels becomes important.