“The lady doth protest too much, methinks” was originally a quote in Act III, Scene II of Hamlet. However, it has become part of modern usage to suggest that a person’s overly frequent and vehement efforts to convince others that something is not true can ironically help convince them that the opposite is true.
That is how I increasingly feel about the discussion of race and racism in Davis. The very suggestion that there might be a racial issue brings a strong cascade of denials.
One clear example was the mother who came forward on Tuesday at the Davis city council meeting – clearly at the end of her rope for attempting to deal with problems at her six-year-old daughter’s school.
While the mother did not provide specifics, things became clearer when the mother said, “She has learned to identify herself in ways of her ethnicity, which I didn’t teach her,” and “I was pretty surprised by some of the things she was saying.”
“Just this semester she began labeling herself as well as others,” she continued. “I’ve never taught her that before. She’s been teased regarding her hair, amongst other things.”
The mother continued, “She has also been treated differently by her teachers and her principal.”
It is very clear from this context that she is talking about race.
What is interesting to me is the response. One response is to separate the racial component and to call it “a bully problem.” Or, as one person put it, “You know she was bullied because of race how?” Later they would say, “How would identifying this as race-based help solve the bullying issue? How would that change what needs to be done?”
They would later acknowledge, “There could be a racial component, but I didn’t really see it in the story. Why are others so fast to jump aboard and claim racism?”
It was an interesting jump there because suddenly the discussion went from “based on race” to “racial component” to “racism.” Later they said, “ I just didn’t see enough in the story to come to the conclusion that it’s about racism.”
As another person put it, there are “a whole lot of good, decent people who aren’t racists and who don’t label people,” “a few racist (bad word),” and “a few people who label everyone and claim Davis is a racist community and claim every incident that might be racist based IS racist based.”
The problem that we have is that, for the most part, the individual above is correct – there are very few overtly racist people left in this community. It is no longer socially acceptable to favor segregation or discrimination on the basis of race.
What I see instead is much more subtle, and I think on Saturday at the Breaking the Silence event, Teresa Geimer hit the nail on the head. She said, “The light came on, if it doesn’t happen to you, these subtle things, you don’t see them. But if it’s happening to you, it’s a slap in the face each time.”
Ten years ago or so, I would have been like Alan Miller. I had not personally experienced differential treatment on the basis of race, nor had I observed it.
I remember my wife’s niece coming to visit, complaining about being followed by the police. When 2006 happened with the police issues, I came into contact with a large number of people of color and slowly their stories came together to form a very different picture of Davis than the one I knew previously or had personally experienced.
Many people of color, if not most, have a story about racial profiling or at least what seemed to them to be racial profiling. Many had stories of differential treatment in places of business. Many African-American students at UC Davis have told me that they feel extremely uncomfortable going into Davis because of how they are treated.
So, you may ask, how is a highly progressive community that voted over 85% for Barack Obama racist?
What I see is a largely white and upper middle class community that likes to think of themselves as progressive on issues of race ‒ they even take pride in voting for the first black President ‒ but closer to home things get a little tricky.
I think what is experienced in Davis is more subtle and subconscious. But it is there and, when it happens all the time, it becomes very noticeable and increasingly offensive. For a lot of people, they end up moving away from Davis because they feel more comfortable elsewhere.
The story I told on Saturday was about Eli Davis. In May 2013, Mr. Davis was mowing his lawn in front of his home in West Davis when a police officer approached him and asked him if he lived there and then requested ID.
By itself this would not have been a big deal. However, as Assistant Chief Darren Pytel has pointed out, often there is a long history in some of the complaints and it is not the current issue that is really the problem, but the accumulated history of police-citizen interactions.
Mr. Davis, by all accounts is a quiet, private and unassuming man. But something finally pushed him over the edge and compelled him to write about what to him must have been a huge indignity to be approached in front of his home and made to feel like he was being accused of being a criminal based only on his race.
As I pointed out, this was likely not the first time something like this had happened to him. The first few times, subtle as they were, he probably did what many of our readers have done in these articles – shrugged it off. But after ten, twenty, thirty times, as Teresa Geimer put it, it becomes a slap in the face each time until the breaking point.
Was the officer in Eli Davis’ case racist? I don’t believe so. More likely, the officer used poor judgment in choosing to question a 60-something-year-old man mowing his lawn, and then compounded it by not taking the time to explain his actions and being more abrupt than necessary.
My point here is that I do not believe that Davis is so much racist as indifferent. I don’t think a lot of people are aware of how their interactions breed discomfort.
But, as someone pointed out to me this week, part of the problem is denial that we have a problem. And when the reaction to every single article dealing with race is denial, whether it is Ferguson or locally, that feeds into the community perception of indifference.
When a mother comes forward to complain about the treatment of her child, the instant reaction shouldn’t be – it’s bullying, not racism. The reaction should be that the mother feels that her daughter was wronged, let us figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. Anything else really just feeds into the perception that this is a community in denial and that the community doth protest too much, even when no one said it was racism.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, in my opinion you do doth protest too much about racism.
I anticipated that comment, but the analogy doesn’t work in the reverse.
Please explain.
The Hamlet analogy is that you protest that something isn’t true to the point where it actually draws suspicion that it is true. It doesn’t work in the reverse.
From wikipedia… “The quotation’s meaning has changed somewhat since it was first written: whereas in modern parlance “protest” in this context often means a denial, in Shakespeare’s time to “protest” meant to “vow” or “declare solemnly”, and thus the phrase referred to a positive affirmation.”. For what it’s worth…
I think a better analogy here is the boy who cried wolf.
I think by the Vanguard pressing every minimal and very borderline possible cases of racism that when an actual instance of outright racism occurs in Davis people will pretty much just say it’s just the Vanguard making a big deal over nothing.
BP, exactly. I think racism exists, but also a lot of items that might better be described as slights, mis-communication, bubbled interactions, cultural differences, suburban culture, etc, all get lumped into the liberal PC stereotypic accusation.
Put a sock in it. You cry a river on race when it suits you politically. When the UCD sentator declares her support for hamas, wanting to wipe out Israel you criticize those who critizice her more harshly than you criticize her own actions. So what is it? do members of the MSA and SJP have a special liscense to promote hate speech?
why is it permissible for mr. newkbahm to be permitted to tell people to put a sock in it? does that create a safe place for people in this community to dialogue? does that make people of color feel welcomed? immediately of course you try to turn the conversation back to ucd senator, and yet you want her conduct admonished but are unwilling to consider the broader picture in the community.
“does that create a safe place for people in this community to dialogue?” What dialogue is that DP? From the tone of this article I don’t see any dialogue – I see a rant, tell everyone why they should come around to greenwalds thinking on race – putting race as a higher priority in political thinking and attitudes and why they are wrong if they dont. That is a monologue, not dialogue.
Second, when I say race I don’t mean racial prejudice I mean racial prejudice as it applies to certain politically correct groups. The MSA could do just about anything, or say just about anything and the tone is “don’t publicly flog” them. But when it comes to blacks, latinos, or other groups, then the tune changes. – “people feel hurt” and we cant have “hurt feelings.”
then the overused cliched “community.” what community is that? Everyone except conservatives, republicans, or Jews that get attacked by the MSA SJP, or the ASUCD? the way community is used to makeoneself feel superior often feels like pure snobbery.
There is no agreed definition of community values because that often enters the political arena, and politics are not going to be agreed upon. You cant force me to come around to your way of thinking just as I cant force you to come around to mine.
a few thoughts.
you see a rant? i don’t. i see a very measured article. in what specific way do you see this as a rant?
“when I say race I don’t mean racial prejudice I mean racial prejudice as it applies to certain politically correct groups.”
you mean groups that are disadvantaged? it’s funny that you keep bringing back up the comments by the student senator – comments that the vanguard disagreed with, explained that they were wrong, but also felt that the reaction by the right wing press was over the top. i find it interesting because david is in fact jewish and once told me he visited israel as a youth and has a deep love and appreciate for it. my point is that his measured response there really isn’t that different from his response here, but you are consistently reading things into it that he did not write.
Tofu is a better metaphor.
“you mean groups that are disadvantaged?”
who decided exactly what groups are disadvantaged when?
second the article has ranting diatribes in it example:
“But, as someone pointed out to me this week, part of the problem is denial that we have a problem. And when the reaction to every single article dealing with race is denial, whether it is Ferguson or locally, that feeds into the community perception of indifference.”
who decided what “community perception”. second this language is arguably not about dialogue. the message is clear: I’m right that we have a problem on race. if you don’t agree with me, you are in denial. and being in a constant state of denial feeds into “community perception” (people who agree with me) that people are being indifferent.
notice how he declares his views on what “community perception” is, who he views is in “denial” as established “facts” he does this all day long on his race articles especially. he cant help himself.
Notice too how the only way this “community perception” logic works is if the “community” doesn’t include the people who argue disagree with davids claims.
where in this statement is the attempt at dialogue? This is david greenwald talking down to his audience refusing to believe that those who come to different conclusions than him on race do so by examining the facts
people who have commented on this latest incident pointed to the facts on the table, and they believe the facts indicate a bullying problem. David doesn’t like that so he writes the above.
“who decided exactly what groups are disadvantaged when?”
are you looking for a history lesson here?
““But, as someone pointed out to me this week, part of the problem is denial that we have a problem. And when the reaction to every single article dealing with race is denial, whether it is Ferguson or locally, that feeds into the community perception of indifference.””
if that’s a rant, you and i have different definitions of the meaning of a rant.
“who decided what “community perception”.”
the people who are complaining about their treatment have a perception of this community that seems to be at odds with your perception.
“second this language is arguably not about dialogue. the message is clear: I’m right that we have a problem on race. if you don’t agree with me, you are in denial. and being in a constant state of denial feeds into “community perception” (people who agree with me) that people are being indifferent.”
the problem is your isolating that paragraph from the paragraph that comes immediately before and after:
he definitely has a view as to how it should be and its a restorative view – identify the wrong, figure out how to fix it. i don’t see a rant. i agree he’s admonishing the audience not immediately when these stories come up to poo poo the notion of racism,
I’m replying to the comments below. the comments below does not have a reply button.
“are you looking for a history lesson here?” no I’m not:
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/03/08/no-whites-allowed-blacks-only-hs-assembly-outrages-white-parents-so-how-did-principal-defend-it-185199
so just who is disadvantaged? or how about “Irish need not apply?”
2. “who decided what “community perception”.”
the people who are complaining about their treatment have a perception of this community that seems to be at odds with your perception.
umm, yes so just who decides what “community perception is?” you? david greenwald? or an inordinate number of progressives? or the loudest whiners on the dais?
Then you quote a larger portion of text, which doesn’t make your point look better. the opening sentence for example. The problem is “we’re indifferent.” In other words we dont care enough and you and david do. thats “our problem.” Again talking down to people making the people you are at odds with out to be inferior, and making a subjective analysis of those people into established fact. the trouble is, people like david do it so often you don’t even know when youre doing it.
SECond sentence: we’re not aware of how our actions breed discomfort. again: stating opinion as fact, and talking down to the people you are disagreeing with.
third sentence: denial – we’re all in denial. dismissing our analysis of the mothers claims- we didn’t simply look at her statements and come to a different conclusion than david did, we are just in denial.
Almost half my life I’ve been literally surrounded by people of color, and especially African Americans. This is not a foreign culture to me or one in which I’m uncomfortable or threatened. My brother was astounded the time we entered a predominately Black area in Chattanooga in a genealogy quest. I walked around the neighborhood easily engaging residents in conversation handicapped by a Yankee accent. Surprised residents responded with the same level of friendliness and helpfulness, even while muttering, “White people don’t come down here!”
From this long-term association with people of color, I developed very deep friendships with several, a friendship that allowed us to speak very candidly about racism in private moments together. Naturally, I heard the same stories that have been related here; negative encounters beyond the element of chance, a feel of bias emanating from the person in power.
When I asked how this racist radiation was identified, the response was unsatisfying. I was told you just “feel it.” Deep feelings are hard to articulate. I remained skeptical, as least as to the DEGREE of the racist encounters, and attributed it to an example of self-fulfilling prophesy–you see it because you come expect to see it.
As a WASP, my racist encounters were nil. Then, I spent extended time in a culture where Caucasians were in the minority and the controlling government was staffed primarily by one ethnicity. I had the need to obtain permits and forms from this government, and these ethnic group vested with authority. I was a veteran government bureaucrat, well practiced in obtaining favors and attention from other persons in authority.
It was then my epiphany moment. Despite my being especially courteous, deferential, and patient with my routine request for service, I was getting jerked-around. It was not just one guy having a bad day, this was pervasive throughout the office. Almost a game of tag, and I was “it.” As my disenfranchised friends described, “You could feel it.” I felt it, and most importantly had a much better understanding of what racism really is, and most important, it exists in every human culture and sub-culture.
And that final comment also reveals while we will continue indefinitely, in vain, in the quest to eliminate racism. All the discussion has been one-way, we-they, the dominate are racist towards the oppressed. That’s only HALF the identification of racism. And only a half-solution towards addressing racism in this or any culture.
Making lots of people very unhappy but beyond really caring, the oppressed are also deeply infected with racist behavior. Why is it that nobody ever OPENLY wondered how the accused racist is depicted as an a totally bad person, while the accuser is always without sin? Never once does a victim of racism admit or acknowledge to the slightest personal failing, and that is simply not reality.
If you want to make a person claiming racism extremely uncomfortable, ask if he/she is capable of being just as racist as every other human being that ever walked this planet. Their reaction you will find very illuminating in an otherwise solution pattern currently filled with darkness. When we move from YOU are racist to WE are racist, a solution follows.
But never in my lifetime.
This may be the best post I have read on the Vanguard on this topic… maybe the best I have read on any blog on this topic.
My experience comes close to this, and my final perspective is 100% the same.
I remeber an article that David wrote about his opinion that Davis has a racism problem. When challenged to give examples, he cited time walking with his adopted son and getting “looks” from other residents.
This response would seem to fit into the “I just feel it” category.
I think to accruately assess the existance of true actionable racism for each encounter we need to filter out:
1. Behavior bias
2. Inacurately identified “feelings” (e.g., having a bad day or feeling especially vulnerable and have a hypersentive reaction that falsly atributes racism to a normal human encounter.)
3. Victim mentality
I have written quite a bit about all of these things. My opinion is that much of the amped-up racism narrative that seems to have exploded at the same time we elected our first black President is the beginning of the withdrawal synmptoms of those addicted to the nasrrative.
Racism exists because of inate human tribalism. The egalitarian utopian goal of social justice crusaders has this fatal flaw. Top-down social engineering to force this level of social “enlightenment” does not work very well simply because of human nature.
Here is my remedy for racism… wait.
That is it… just wait.
Because our youth think all the old folk are idiots for making such a big deal out of something they rarely experience. They have reframed their tribalism impluses to transcend simple racial differences.
The old farts will die off and so will the addiction of the racism narrative.
But we will still be biased and tribal. My guess is that in the future, lacking tattoos and piercings will be the new source of those “feelings” and “looks” that make a person feel like he/she does not fit in.
PC, very well put. Thanks for that.
1000-times more helpful than the original article in working towards a resolution.
Whoa! One of LadyNewkBahm posts disappeared just after I read it. Hope it was her/his ‘second thoughts’, and not other editing.
Seeing a documentary on Selma, 50 years ago. Racism 50 years ago was like Ebola, Smallpox, and the Bubonic Plague, compared to measles now. Measles isn’t good, but we have “vaccines”. Outbreaks are rare, but manageable. And outbreaks, when they occur, are screamed out in the media, all to “sell papers/air time”.
Sometimes I wonder about the Vanguard’s motivations, as well.
Lynchings occurred all too often from the Civil War to until ~ 50 years ago. Extremely rare, but well-publicized, today. People got incensed and self-righteous when a “noose” was found on the football field cross-bar. Yet, it was “un-occupied ” by an effigy, much less a person.
Much of what I’ve seen “reported” here is of the measles, common cold variety. Re: the MM student, there are so many other elements: exposition of genitals, striking, cutting of hair that disturb me more in the behavior than in the ‘motivation of race’.
“People got incensed and self-righteous when a “noose” was found on the football field cross-bar. ”
they should have. the coach who got up on saturday talked about how that made the black coaches feel. does that matter to you? does it matter that it says to the black coach, you’re not welcome here, regardless of whether there was something hanging in the noose.
a few weeks ago a judge in mississippi gave a speech where he talked about lynching:
“In Without Sanctuary, historian Leon Litwack writes that between 1882 and 1968 an estimated 4,742 blacks met their deaths at the hands of lynch mobs. The impact this campaign of terror had on black families is impossible to explain so many years later.”
“The common denominator of the deaths of these individuals was not their race. It was not that they all were engaged in freedom fighting. It was not that they had been engaged in criminal activity, trumped up or otherwise. No, the common denominator was that the last thing that each of these individuals saw was the inhumanity of racism. The last thing that each felt was the audacity and agony of hate, senseless hate: crippling, maiming them and finally taking away their lives.”
here’s the whole speech: http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/02/12/385777366/a-black-mississippi-judges-breathtaking-speech-to-three-white-murderers
why do i bring this up? because lynching wasn’t just murder, it was terrorism. it was a weapon designed to induce terror to keep the weak in their place.
hanging a noose was a reminder that while lynchings have gone away, the terror remains just beneath the surface.
i raised a biracial daughter and i just fear that the five or six people who come on here have never really experienced what it is like to a racial minority. not a white person in a black neighborhood, that’s a big difference, but an actual vulnerable minority in this community. seeing it through my daughter’s eyes, i don’t know that i would have done it again. i’m not sure she came out of it unscathed. but people like ladynewkbahm don’t give a damn about people like my daughter and that makes me sad. on the other hand, i think a lot of people here – barack, frankly, alan miller, hpierce, are good people, they just haven’t experienced this stuff first hand.
“barack, frankly, alan miller, hpierce, are good people, they just haven’t experienced this stuff first hand.”
No, Jews never experience hatred directed at their people. Antisemitism is a myth. The Holocaust is a myth. #gagmewithaspoon#
DP assumes that we “haven’t experienced this stuff first hand”. Massive assumption on your way to giving yourself the moral high ground, something progressives love to do. Don’t you ever feel your stances are patronizing certain minority groups?
I’d really like to know how your daughter turned out. Is she happy, adjusted, educated, employed? Or was she so traumatized by Davis, did she move to Cuba or Pakistan? I hope the former.
One of the main points most posters brought up was “We need more information”, but David seems preloaded with his conclusion.
What was this “labeling“? If a student meets a new student, and they don’t know their name, and says “The white girl scored a goal”, that’s racist? Really??
And now, in David’s World, teasing is also racist, though I haven’t seen the nexus. I’ve seen kids at the start of school use terms to describe fellow students until they learn their names, and then the “labels” aren’t used. Teasing is typical child behavior.
The label “mowing while black” was used to describe a polite interaction between a police officer and a citizen of the city as part of the “piling on” rhetorical strategy to prove the latest complaint. Then David “piled on” black students feeling uncomfortable downtown into being racism. And if you find flaws in his or the parent’s logic, or ask for more information, then that’s more proof of racism? Isn’t this indoctrination?
I understand that those that traffic in grievances don’t have open minds or large vocabularies. I had a friend decades ago who worked in some neighboring communities which were 98% white while here as an undergrad. He got a strange look or two, and felt a bit out of place. He extended his hand in friendship, volunteered, bought some clothing more in tune with the local populace (cultural norms), and he quickly was invited to several local functions. My friend is black, but I don’t recall him ever going to the least common denominator, his observations were much more nuanced and subtle. He laughed and joked about the transformation. He is now highly successful.
According to the current logic employed here, the scenario I recently described where I was bullied by a friend decades ago wasn’t bullying (to which I finally halted) – and my friends who were starting to bully – being that they were black, were all guilty of racism.
Throwing spaghetti / Crying Wolf doesn’t make an argument stronger, it does just the opposite.
“David seems preloaded with his conclusion.”
i don’t get that sense from reading this. what i saw in his comments the other day is he doesn’t believe we will get more information. the other thing i see is him being upset by the immediate reaction against any small indication that there was a racial component here. every article that mentions race, no matter how nuanced it is, gets a huge push back from a very small contingent of people. we don’t have the ability to investigate these matters and even if we did, most of the time they would have nuanced results. so the bigger question is – how do we handle this? i don’t think we solve that problem by stating at the onset, it’s not racism.
when my daughter was a young student she would get all sorts of comments and some had racial components. were the little kids racist? probably not. but where did they get those words from? who taught them those words? this is how it starts, and how it stops is by saying – never again – and meaning it. teaching kids that it’s not okay to bully but it’s especially not okay to do so using racial terms and epithets. until we’re ready to embrace that, i don’t think we’re really going to solve this.
“gets a huge push back from a very small contingent of people.”
The number of people who comment in the Vanguard is a small contingent of people. The unscientific example of people who all have a similar psychological defect (the need to post on the Vanguard) seems to me pretty much split between . . . whatever you want to call this divide. It certainly IS NOT racists vs. non-racists.
“teaching kids that it’s not okay to bully”
Is that like teaching poodles it’s not OK to roll in shit? My experience with bullies is they are usually victims perpetrating what has been done to them on others. That can’t be unlearned in school by teaching.
“The number of people who comment in the Vanguard is a small contingent of people. ”
lol, and that number gets even smaller when you subtract out the vanguard editorial board, who does the lions share of the commenting.
The individual with the highest comment count is not a member of the editorial board.
“And now, in David’s World, teasing is also racist”
actually, i wonder how carefully you read the commentary, he said very specifically it wasn’t. he writes, My point here is that I do not believe that Davis is so much racist as indifferent.
i wonder, how carefully you actually read this commentary if that’s your takeaway point.
What I see, DP, in addition to your fine observations, is that we get this “One with Ferguson” undercurrent in the recent articles David has mentioned. Davis is NOT anything like Ferguson, not predominately Black, and is highly educated, although maybe ignorant about real life.
The children mentioned in the original article are too young to be racist or prejudiced, although their parents may sure be. And children parrot things they do not understand, like songs and jokes, and TV shows they have no business watching.
Ask any young child why they did something – anything: “I don’t know”..
This sounds like the PD needs another officer in this town.
“Davis is NOT anything like Ferguson, not predominately Black, and is highly educated, although maybe ignorant about real life.”
actually i think you’re exactly correct. davis isn’t anything like ferguson. but there are still its own set of problems and part of that may be related to your comment about ignorance about real life.
“This sounds like the PD needs another officer in this town.”
not completely sure what this means, but i understand that the officer in the eli davis matter no longer works for the pd.
I have friends that live in Dixon and tell me that they often feel looked down upon when visiting or shopping in Davis.
I think much of what we hear as being racism is simply Davis snobbery.
i think some of what looks like racism is in fact elitism. but you end up in this place where in the end racism, elitism, its still a problem.
” in the end racism, elitism, its still a problem.”
And again I ask: Is elitism a problem similar to racism? How should it be addressed? Or can we all just call elitists “assholes” and go on with our day? Or should there be legislation? “Anti-Elitism Affirmative Action” if you will — giving opportunities to those who have been the victims of elitism in Davis.
So again, we have labeled Davis “racist” and now Davis “elitist”. True or not, what has the labeling gained? What good has it done?
actually if you read the column, david did not label davis as racist.
in fact he writes: “My point here is that I do not believe that Davis is so much racist as indifferent.”
i find this an interesting exercise of people either not reading the column or reading into what they assume it’s going to say.
Frankly: I have friends that live in Dixon and tell me that they often feel looked down upon when visiting or shopping in Davis.
How can you tell if someone is from Dixon? By the Dixon HS letter jacket that the person is wearing?
You stumbled onto the point. How can you tell? You cannot in any definitive way. But if the Dixonite feels looked down upon, then that is all that matters, right?
two contrasting thoughts.
first, i have always sensed that the woodland-davis rivalry is one-sided. woodland hates davis. most people in davis , don’t give a crap about woodland.
second, there is the chant from the basketball game from the soccer article – that’s alright, that’s okay, you’ll be pumping our gas some day.
I don’t discount the mother’s accusations of racism, but I don’t necessarily agree with her assessment not knowing all the details, understanding that how one perceives things can be very subjective. We all have biases, and believe it or not, racism is also practiced against white people (I was once the victim of racism)!
That said, there is an important element of this discussion that is missing. Racism is actually permitted by private citizens, depending on the circumstances. People can form private clubs that exclude a certain ethnicity or don’t allow a certain sex to be a member. Freedom of association allows for this. What is not permitted is the gov’t practicing discrimination. The fact of the matter is people often congregate together with like ethnicities or like backgrounds, etc. Essentially man tends to form “tribes” if you will. You can see this play out particularly in high school, where cliques are formed – the jock clique, the pretty girls clique, the ethnic clique, the religious clique, the nerd clique.
“Racism” can be subtle, just as any other sort of discrimination between citizens can be subtle. I may not like people with tattoos, or people who drink alcohol, or people with blond hair. I bring my own personal biases to every situation I find myself in. This makes “racism” a very loosey-goosey term that means different things to different people. Here are some definitions of racism:
1. “poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race”
2. “the belief that some races of people are better than others”
3. “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”
4. “racial prejudice or discrimination”
5. “a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such adoctrine; discrimination.”
6. “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”
Here is the kicker. Freedom of speech allows the Fayyez’s of the world to shout discriminatory comments based on religion. Freedom of association allows Jewish people to form an all-Jewish study group or Muslims to form a voting block at ASUCD. Both freedom of speech and association allow people to be racists if they so choose. But 1) the gov’t may not discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, ethnicity; 2) because the schools serve the public and are essentially an extension of the gov’t, the schools must not tolerate discriminatory conduct of students that is disruptive to keeping order in the schools. Students are free to exclude a student from playing with them on the basis of race, or refuse to eat lunch with someone they don’t like for whatever reason.
My concern here, and I have stated this in the past, is that the “race card” is used far too often. It is brought up so frequently, and in inappropriate situations, and in every interaction between gov’t and citizens, that people are starting to turn a deaf ear. That is dangerous, because when truly unlawful discrimination takes place, it very well may be ignored. And there is no question unlawful discrimination does occur.
“My concern here, and I have stated this in the past, is that the “race card” is used far too often. ”
i think if that’s true, that’s a good thing it’s used too often because for too long we as a society were not nearly sensitive enough to racial issues. that said, what i see happen is we have interactions that involve race and then it becomes difficult to see through the subtleties of the human interaction. so if you’re white, and you don’t deal with this on a daily basis, it’s easy to point to other explanations . if you’re black, you deal with these things on a daily basis, and you’re not willing to give the benefit of the doubt. that’s the place where my daughter is. is that a good thing? no. but to me that simply means we have to treat the other stuff more than we do. what tends to happen is we get bogged down in the debate rather than trying to identify and fix the harm. a harm happened, we don’t solve it by debating whether it was racial or just bullying.
“My concern here, and I have stated this in the past, is that the “race card” is used far too often. It is brought up so frequently, and in inappropriate situations, and in every interaction between gov’t and citizens, that people are starting to turn a deaf ear. That is dangerous, because when truly unlawful discrimination takes place, it very well may be ignored. And there is no question unlawful discrimination does occur.”
And in the same post, you have also accurately pointed out that “racism” is sometimes a subjective assessment of what actually occurred with reasonable people seeing the situation differently. So how does one decide what is “too often”. What you see as “playing the race card” I may see as a legitimate case of possible racism that should be explored to the degree possible.
I come at this issue from a different perspective. I believe that any case in which someone believes there has been racism involved in the public sphere should be examined. This means that there will be many cases that will be questioned. What is truly interesting to me is why those who feel that it is “being brought up too often” are not content to simply skip the article, or forgo commenting on it. Why is it that these people feel the need to weigh in on an article that they feel has no merit at all ? It seems to me that if some chord were not being struck, one would simple ignore the article. There are many articles on the Vanguard, the Enterprise, The Sac Bee, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times that I simply do not care enough about to read, or to discuss or comment on even if I did read them. What is it that is so important to the “race deniers” that they keep coming back to discredit the concerns of others ?
If an assertion of racism has more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese, why not point it out? Sorry, along with these often inane or half baked claims of racism comes requirements for PC training, education, various remedies, “understanding”, etc.
I look forward to the column where allegations of racism directed against Europeans or European-Americans is discussed and examined, and where you weigh in.
We’ve had such honest yet half baked logic in the past two articles on this topic. David basically wrote, even if racism wasn’t being enacted or exhibited, isn’t it a good thing to discuss? Meanwhile, up above, we’ve had several people agree that what happens in Davis is elitism, not racism, and what’s the difference? What’s the difference?!?! If it’s elitism, then call it that and quit flogging us with foggy claims of racism!
TBD
“I look forward to the column where allegations of racism directed against Europeans or European-Americans is discussed and examined, and where you weigh in.”
Why look forward to it ? Why not write it yourself and see who weighs in ?
On another note, I find this quite ironic because I while I have not written an article on it, I have commented several times on the treatment of my self identifying as “white” ex husband ( a Turk ) who was discriminated against on a number of occasions due to misidentification based on the color of his skin rather than on his race or ethnicity. I was there when this happened many times when we lived in the Southwest.
Of course racism can be directed at any group by any group or individual. That does not mean that the history and current status in this country does not have a predominant pattern that still colors relations today.
“The very suggestion that there might be a racial issue brings a strong cascade of denials.”
This is not true, and that is not a denial.
Racism *might* be an issue, to assume that may be destructive. As well, I see racists, others see race-ism as somehow “part of” or the level of racism “greater in” Davis.
I see no value in assuming racism nor in branding the community. But for some reason there is this “other view”. I don’t understand it, it makes no sense to me, and I find it ultimately destructive.
Oddly, no one in this forum or on either “side” of the argument exhibits actual racism.
Hmmmmm . . . . .
“It is very clear from this context that she is talking about race.”
It is very clear to those who choose to see race in everything.
“Ten years ago or so, I would have been like Alan Miller. I had not personally experienced differential treatment on the basis of race, nor had I observed it.”
David, [edit] You are dead wrong on this. I post non-anonymously and you seem to feel there is nothing wrong with people posting anonymously. Those of us who use our name are open to being criticized or abused, and I will continue to use my name.
But YOU David, have lost your right to use my name. Let me make this clear: you are not to use my name in any articles you write without asking me first. You are welcome to quote me without using my name to make a point, but DO NOT use my name.
Do not use my name and declare publicly your belief on what I have or have not experienced.
[edit]
[moderator] edited for language
For anyone who wonders what was edited, it is the symbol of two sets of outside fingers of the right hand lowered while one particular finger remains upright, word-wise beginning with the sixth letter of the alphabet and three more letters, followed by the 21st letter in the alphabet phonetically, carried out in the full spelling to three letter. In fact, the two letters, the 6th and the 21st, said in succession, should clearly state what I was conveying to the editor of the Vanguard.
I stand by my statement, including the deleted expletives.
when you post stuff under your name or you make a public comment, you lose control of how that message can be used.
Maybe so, DP, but anyone who is even remotely a journalist, even a blogger, is morally and fundamentally wrong to lie about me in a column using my name and making an incorrect assumption they neither researched nor asked me about. The statement is untrue and the interpretation of my words twisted and warped to the point of being a lie.
A friend of mine this morning said “reading the Vanguard is like sticking your [edited for language – not moderator] through a brick wall”.
DP, I disagree with you. The fact is that whether one’s comment is anonymous or direct, one loses control of how that message can be used by others.
As you lawyers say … that is a difference in name only.
I have found over the years that posting with my real name increases my own accountability, which I think is a good thing. A perfect example happened just last week when I pointed out my concerns about the concept of “single operator / sole proprietorship” of the Community Farm. I used two actual names in illustrating that concept, because those were the only two names that had surfaced in the “single operator / sole proprietorship” discussions I had heard to date. Two levels of accountability happened as a result of my initial post. First, Roberta Milstein questioned the source of the information I had shared. Second, Aggie launched an ad hominem attack on the individual persons I had named as examples, rather than engaging/addressing the flaws she/he saw in the “single operator / sole proprietorship” concept. Roberta and I could, and did, hold one another accountable. Aggie literally can’t be held accountable any more than many of the people who launched ad hominem attacks on Dave Morris could be held accountable for what they said during the height of the Mace 391 discussions. Aggie’s follow-up comments came across as butt-hurt, vengeance-driven retaliation for the way Mace 391 turned out. Of course we can’t know if that is the case, because Aggie chooses not to be held accountable for what he/she says … but his/her massage can/will be used by others regardless. That is a reality that she/he can not control.
What I see as far as denial is this odd prioritization of racism. One races racism is “more bad” than another races racism. What needs to be stamped out is racism. What is even more a denial is that racism can go from the hatred of “more oppressed” and directed towards those with “more power”.
I understand where the anger comes from when the deck is stacked against a less well-off group. I will go so far as to say that anger may be justified. Anger, however, does not justify “reverse” racism, nor is it an excuse for poor behavior. Never will the final step in rectifying most racism be resolved until everyone gets it that the best anyone will get is equal opportunity to get in the race, not an equal starting line.
While we “should” have an equal starting line in utopia, there is no utopia, and all attempts to create it cause a greater divide.
Alan
“Never will the final step in rectifying most racism be resolved until everyone gets it that the best anyone will get is equal opportunity to get in the race, not an equal starting line.
While we “should” have an equal starting line in utopia, there is no utopia, and all attempts to create it cause a greater divide.”
I fundamentally disagree with this point of view. I think that you are giving far too little credit to human flexibility and the power of human’s ability to reason and to develop compassion for others. I can give multiple examples of behaviors in many different realms where people believed that something was “impossible” or “not practical” or “utopian”, until it became reality because some had enough faith, or a strong enough concept or vision to make it reality.
1.A democratic form of government such as we have in the United States would be one example.
2. Human flight would be another.
3. Moving from the concept that illness was a form of disfavor of the gods, or bad humors, to the knowledge that many forms of illness are caused by microscopic organisms that can be effectively staved off with antibiotics is another.
4. Women having the vote, or serving as the heads of nations.
There are many, many examples of goals or aspirations that have been felt “impossible” that are now commonplace, so why so defeatist about the ability of humans to fully accept those who are different from ourselves ? If you believe as you say that “we “should” have an equal starting line ” why not work towards making that our reality rather than just asserting that “it can never be” ?
I agree with all your examples, except human flight.
Airplanes are evil.
Humans can indeed have compassion and accept others. That doesn’t mean the government can or should redistribute wealth in an attempt to create an equal playing field. It’s a utopian idea, and it will never work, and it will create further divides.
Alan
I understand that is your belief. What I do not understand is why you think that is relevant to the current discussion. I had certainly not said ( in todays conversation) anything at all about redistribution of wealth. Although it is true that I do believe that we certainly could choose to create an equal playing field. All of our governance is self determined, made and agreed upon by human beings. So why could we not choose to do this in a collaborative, egalitarian fashion ?
We already have a highly progressive tax system, and a very high business tax rate. We provide 12-13 years free education, and a plethora of public services to assist our citizens in moving forward.
Well, communism has been a glowing success as a government model, so maybe so.
Alan
“communism has been a glowing success as a government model, “
Please tell me where you believe that “communism” has actually been implemented as a governmental model ?
Tia
all the countries that survive as Communist are rousing successes, just ask them… Whether their citizens think so or not.
China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, and Venezuela is on the way despite their high oil resources, they have a rising misery index.
Communism is a system of economic organization and is comparable to capitalist organization of the economy. Liberal democracy describes the U.S. form of government as opposed to an authoritarian dictatorship as in the case of Nazi Germany. Just sayin’.
North Korea is an authoritarian dictatorship on the extreme end of the scale. China is arguably next and Cuba much less so. Venezuela and Mexico are liberal democracies like the U.S. with a higher degree of bureaucratic corruption. It’s all a sort of continuum, but nowhere does there seem to be a republic or democracy that works in the direct interests of its citizens except for some tribal societies in the Amazon.
Cuba is very much an authoritarian dictatorship. http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/lost-world-part-i
The brand of racism in the U.S. is unique and because it is deeply embedded in the origins of our country, cannot be explained or argued away. That is why whenever the issue is raised on the Vanguard, there is gnashing of teeth and sparks fly but nothing is or can be resolved. It’s too deep and too much a part of our national identity to be assessed disinterestedly much less calmly. Just because we don’t have flaming, bigoted Klansmen burning crosses in Central Park doesn’t mean it isn’t alive and well here just like it is everywhere in the U.S. Is my assessment too over the top?
Why, for instance has there never been an official truth and reconciliation process for slavery? Why hasn’t there been a truth and reconciliation process for the thousands of lynching of blacks since Reconstruction? Why is there only one museum in the entire country that attempts to bring the horror of slavery to life? Why is there no museum of lynching like the Nazi concentrations camps in Europe?
The answer is that we are in denial as a nation. That is our official position in the United States of America regarding slavery and its aftermath. We are in denial in Davis. If you deny this is true, well…you’re in denial.
This doesn’t mean we are “bad” people, but it does suggest we have failed to take care of business and face up to our past. Until we collectively face up to our past, officially, with lots of institutional reminders that cost money out of our pockets, we will continue to languish and deny and lash out and lash back.
Lots of holes and illogical comments here, quite typical. There is nothing “unique” about American slavery, we were one country among many that practiced this horrible deed. Slavery existed well before America even existed as a nation. It still exists, especially in Africa (most of the accounts I have read are Muslims enslaving Christians). We were never comfortable with it, and we fought a bloody civil war in part to end it.
What is unique is how we have moved past it, with black generals, surgeons, attorneys, and now President of the United States. Can you name a country were there are more opportunities, and more equality, than America? Name me five, name me three. Please. Not only do we have tens of thousands of black millionaires, I believe we also have black billionaires! Mexico has defacto segregation, Brazil has segregation, and I see no power brokers in France or Sweden who are black or brown on the world stage. No Colin Powell, no Fredrick Douglass.
Every president for decades apologizes for our sins, but it is never enough for the Progressives. Bill Clinton had a panel assembled to study racism and affirmative action with one token conservative. Barack Obama went on a worldwide apology tour. Not only this, we’ve spent Trillions upon Trillions in government programs to ensure that everyone has an opportunity, but instead Big Government programs destroyed the black family, and you still want more. Look at Detroit.
Lynching was horrible, and one shouldn’t compare one pain to another, but 4,000 lynchings in alleys or fields versus 12 million slaughtered by Hitler in plain sight – with plans for millions more – are different. The attempt to wipe out the Jewish people, nuns, priests, Gypsies, and invalids was far different.
There is no denial. The Left beats this like a dead horse. The denial is that the Progressives created many of the problems today in urban America.
TBD
“Lynching was horrible, and one shouldn’t compare one pain to another, but 4,000 lynchings in alleys or fields versus 12 million slaughtered by Hitler in plain sight – with plans for millions more – are different.”
How do you see them as different except in numbers. The effect on the individual and their family members is identical. The individual acts and the decision to commit them or not is identical. The public burning that I posted in my link was in full sight of an entire community. Once again, other than numbers, how is this any different ?
Numerically, and the very real attempt to wipe out complete ethnic/ religious groups off the face of the earth.
The “unique” argument is a bit flawed.
I do agree there needs to be a lot more recognition of the wholesale slaughter and continued discrimination against natives of North America. Not so long ago.
Alan, since you are a real person, I will respond to you. If you believe “unique” is a flawed term, you need to explain why. In the mean time, I believe it is unique because of the circumstances of how racism developed in North America. Sure, slavery existed before the English colonies and indeed still exists and is a fact that should chill the blood of any decent person. One of the things that made it unique here is that its biggest boosters and protectors are revered as the corps of our Founding Fathers (with caps and echo chamber effects). There is a great deal of scholarship on this issue and I challenge you to provide some backup to the fact that our brand wasn’t unique in other respects and that racism wasn’t developed in this hemisphere and its most virulent form wasn’t developed right here in the U.S.A.
We had it, we had it for a short time, we were never comfortable with it, and we fought our bloodiest war, partly, to end it’s practice. Hundreds of thousands of white men gave their lives to end it’s practice.
David writes an article about people prtoesting too much, and the majority of the replies are protesting further. That pretty much proves his point. I still don’t get how a bunch of white people disagree with a black woman’s assessment of the treatment of her daughter. Of course she has a better sense of the situation.
exactly. more importantly, i wonder if people really read the article because they seem to consistently mischaracterize what’s being said.
Only those with the psychological makeup / world view of the Vanguard are further convinced. There is a fundamental divide between the way people think regarding this issue. And it isn’t a divide between racists and non-racists.
You make too much sense to be posting here.
what do I think about race?
setting aside my previous comments to this is only my opinion but here goes:
1. race and race relations is fluid situation. the number and type of immigrants we have is constantly changing. We are not just talking about whites and blacks, or how whites view non-whites. We are a nation of immigrants and because of that, we are bringing in people from all over. IT has its upsides, but that also means their prejudices or established views of others also come here too. I think that problem manifested itself at UC Davis.
We are talking about:
BLAcks vs whites
BLacks vs latinos
blacks vs asians
Asians vs Latinos
latinos vs asians
half-breeds vs non half breeds
African natives vs african american natives,
English vs. Irish.
etc. the list is almost endless. then we throw religion into the mix. A serious conversation would need to be much broader in scope. more diverse group of people and it would also need a broader focus into how those people view each other that doesn’t include whites at all. in other words we are really dealing with an issue that is vastly complex in some ways infinitely so, because you can breed an infinite combination of ethnicities into your population.
AND that population makeup is ever-changing.
So what conversation on race exactly, are we supposed to be having, and how are we supposed to be having it?
Excellent point!
Great list, and it goes on and on.. I want to be:
Cool like Blacks
Smart like Asians
Sexy like Latinos
have the perspective of Native Americans
dance like.. Well you get the idea.
When people from other backgrounds were generous enough to give me a piece of their time and life, I learned something. I had a lot to unlearn.
the only people I do not want to be understanding of is criminals and addicts. Maybe I need more training. Seeing all the damage they cause, I feel I will take a long time ever trusting someone like that.
Actually I don’t . . . . “get the point”.
The is no “positive” stereotypes. The above may seem like compliments, but hidden is the message you are expected to be this, and that the other races are less so of each.
Thank you, Alan, you have maybe misspelled some words, so I have no idea what you are trying to say, except you seem upset about me learning about others in my world.
“So what conversation on race exactly, are we supposed to be having, and how are we supposed to be having it?”
I also see this as a point worth addressing.
I am in agreement that there is more than just one “racism” and that “racism” in any given isolated group can be seen against a member of any other group.
Having said that, the most prevalent and long lasting pattern of overt racism in this country has been the dominant white population against African Americans and that fact has had ongoing reverberations to this day.
Much is being made these days about the barbarism of ISIS. I am going to include a link that demonstrates how close we are temporally to such barbarity in our own country. The link I am posting is very graphic and is about events that happened in this country, not in my lifetime, but within my father’s lifetime, so we are not talking ancient history.
See: http://billmoyers.com/2015/02/05/isis-brutality-burning-lynching/
There are many potential places to start a conversation about race. One that I would suggest is to accept complete ownership of the fact that racism in this country has not been egalitarian, but has been primarily one group against one other specific group.
Once we are fully accepting of that fact, perhaps we could move on to the potential adverse effects of racism regardless of the race of the offending party or the person being acted against.
Instead of going back two generations, why don;’t we go back a few months to Northern England where 1400 white school girls, many in foster homes, were raped, pimped, and threatened with death? This went on for 15 years!
Why? “Institutionliazed political correctness”. Liberal government employees, educators, and health care workers didn’t want to believe that Muslim Pakistani cab drivers were abusing innocent white school children.
Years of Rape and ‘Utter Contempt’ in Britain
Life in an English Town Where Abuse of Young Girls Flourished
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/world/europe/reckoning-starts-in-britain-on-abuse-of-girls.html?_r=0
And this is no isolated case. Google Malmo, Sweden.
TBD
“Instead of going back two generations, why don;’t we go back a few months to Northern England where 1400 white school girls, many in foster homes, were raped, pimped, and threatened with death? This went on for 15 years!”
Because I thought that the conversation was about what happens in the United States. Yes, there are worse excesses in terms of numbers in other parts of the world. Does that mean that we should not address our own issues ?
Address how?
And will she address black on white racial issues here? I don’t think that is on the agenda.
It’s my opinion based on a fair amount of reading of scholars who have studied this question that a conversation on race in the United States is important because of the legacy of slavery. It really does get back to that issue. As I have also said, there has never been a truth and reconciliation process around slavery or around the Jim Crow system that grew out of Reconstruction. When we look at other countries where horrible things happened such a process was advocated and the adopted there because it was understood to be essential to some kind of healing. We, on the other hand, have acted as if time and time alone would remove the stain, the deep fractures, the very deep damage to our national identity and national consciousness of who and what we are as Americans. We ignore it. We pretend it doesn’t have an impact.
Until we address it formally, as a nation, it will continue to fester. We’ve never owned up to what it did to us. We don’t teach it in the schools in a way that people are able to internalize it and grasp it in all its dimensions. We don’t have museums, or other formal institutions dedicated to its awful legacy. It is out of sight, out of mind and swept under the carpet except for those horrible people who insist on wanting to talk about it.
I’ve done a lot of reading, as well.
Didn’t Bill Clinton have a “conversation” with his blue panel committee?
Hasn’t Obama done that?
Haven’t we actually talked this topic to death? We celebrate numerous civil rights and African American landmarks, we even eliminated a presidential holiday to add Martin Luther King Day. We have boulevards and streets and buildings and landmarks named after African American leaders, Latino leaders, etc.
On top of this, we have had affirmative action for decades, grants, special scholarships, special loan programs, ethnic studies majors, early education programs, EOP programs, and spent trillions of dollars on the War on Poverty.
We haven’t ignored it, that’s patently false.
Why don’t we talk about how Christians are being pushed out of the Middle East, gay men are thrown off of rooftops by ISIS, and Christian women and children are sold into slavery, today?
“Didn’t Bill Clinton have a “conversation” with his blue panel committee?
Hasn’t Obama done that?
Haven’t we actually talked this topic to death?”
have we? it doesn’t seem like it. i am unimpressed with the efforts of clinton and obama in this regard.
More proof that this is a ghost the Left won’t give up, its an addiction, a major tenet of life.
TBD
“Why don’t we talk about how Christians are being pushed out of the Middle East, gay men are thrown off of rooftops by ISIS, and Christian women and children are sold into slavery, today?”
I am happy to talk ad infinitum about these ongoing events. Please propose what we can do about any of them and we will have something to discuss. However, they are not occurring here and so have little relevance to the current Vanguard discussion.
The largely ceremonial steps that you have mentioned with regard to acknowledgement of the history of black/white relations and the acknowledgement of the contributions of those of other than white heritage to the nation have been positive in raising awareness and in some cases fund raising just as pink ribbon campaigns raise awareness and funding for breast cancer. They should however not be confused with research or progress in identifying and ending social discrimination anymore than the pink ribbon campaigns should be confused with research or progress in improving breast cancer identification, treatment or eradication.
Hypocrisy and double talk?
We can apply political, financial, and moral pressures to these 5th century retro-grade psychotic “religions” that toss people off of roofs or enslave and rape children. Bomb their oil fields (for ISIS / ISIL), learn to identify their actual name and philosophy (radical Islam, Jihad), bomb their training camps all in one night, blow up the tanks they stole, cut off their bank accounts.
The steps I mentioned weren’t ceremonial. We’ve spent trillions upon trillions in our War on Poverty, George Bush even extended our country to Africa and saved millions of African lives. You seem intellectually incapable of escaping the rather limiting black (victim) /white (oppressor) mentality of our multi-ethnic country. I’m convinced in about ten years the Left will start identyfing Asian and East Indian Americans as honorary white so that they can keep up the victim train. How bout you also discuss how Latino gangs are chasing Black families out of South Central LA, or the rape and brutal treatment of white men in prison by people of color? These should be right up your wheel house, they are right here in Yankeeville.
Alan
“Address how ? ”
This I think is a valid question. There could be many starting points. I would like to suggest a few options with if you will permit me an analogy or two from my field.
1. Stop denying the problem exists. From my field, the first step in addressing a problem is to stop denying it, even if it is not yet a huge problem. The best approach to being told that one has a problem, such as a precancerous condition of the cervix, or pre diabetes is to enquire what that means and to take steps to prevent progression, not saying “but I feel fine so I won’t think about it, and will just go on as always”.
2. Once acknowledged that the problem exists, stop minimizing it. When someone else is injured, we do not know how much pain they are in even though we make think the injury is minor. Why not take them at their word with regard to their pain and ask how we might best address it. Would a dressing suffice, a cast, some pain medication ? There are always options if we are willing to look for them.
3. Stop trivializing behaviors that reinforce and normalize the objectionable behavior. I have seen many posts here about racist comments being “just blowing off steam” in the case of police recordings and similar comments about how this is “just human nature”. Sorry, I don’t buy that. Murder, rape, arson are all just manifestations of “human behavior”. That doesn’t mean that we have to accept them. That doesn’t mean that we cannot constantly aspire to the best behavior and consistently model it for our children.
4. We could agree that racist behavior is not owned by any one group. We could also agree that it has affected some groups in our own country disproportionately. We could also agree to call it out equally for all groups when we see it happening.
5. We could make it truly socially unacceptable to publicly display raciest behaviors instead of doing what most of us do which is to minimize, or make up other excuses for the behavior, or just find some more comfortable term than “racist” such as “frat behavior” or “a…..h…” as one poster has done which of course eliminates our own responsibility to demonstrate that this is not acceptable behavior. This is essentially claiming that our “hands are tied”, which of course, they are not. We are just abdicating our responsibility to demonstrate better behavior. We have precedent for this in the realm of smoking. Although it took many years of progressive societal disapproval on many levels, smoking in public is no longer the norm in California. This proves to me that given acknowledgement of a problem, concerted effort to examine the various different ways that it might be addressed, moving forward with those that demonstrate the most promise, we were able to change a social norm. I believe that we could do so again if we were to focus on “what if” ( with my thanks again for the borrow) rather than “we can’t”.
Just a beginning. Interested to hear your thoughts.
Imagine what sort of dialogue and conversation you would get if Congress allocated funds to establish state slavery museums to be operated by the National Park Service in every state where slaves were owned or sold since 1776. For example, the Georgia State Museum of Slavery and Racism or the Connecticutt State Museum of Slavery and Racism. These museums would be charged with compiling and maintaining archives of slaves, slavesowners, and slave-traders. The archives would include the kinds of industries where slaves were employed, the businesses that were built using the profits from slave operations, slaves freed, slaves who family members were sold out of the area, working conditions, diseases, life span, diet, how they were punished, the prevalence of rape, use of rape as terror, methods of execution, stories of insurrection, how slave patrols were organized and how many of those patrols morphed into city police forces to name a few subjects. In short, any and all information that can be found now or in the future pertaining to slavery as it was practiced and documented. Diary entries by slaveowners, slaves and abolitionists are incredibly informative. Nothing left out. That would be an amazing start, not just a bunch of blather and speech-making.
It would be resisted in many of our southern states where Confederate Generals who were Ku Klux Grand Dragons still have statues up, bridges named after them like the Pettis Bridge in Selma, Alabama. It would be a formal recognition of the problem, and would address Tia’s points 1, 2 and 3 above. By the way, this would not just be southern states, but most of New England. It would be very helpful and eye-opening to see how such an undertaking would unfold in these various areas of the U.S.
Next, a similar series of museums organized around the post-Reconstruction Jim Crow era. These museums would comprehensively include displays, data and written accounts of lynchings. Extensive records and internal memos from financial institutions on black codes in real estate, bank loans, etc. That would span time up through the twentieth century and through 2015. A seamless series of displays and records that shows an unbroken line of hate-induced behavior and how it is not just the caprice of bigots, but a calculated and constructed system. These museums would have to be built in any state that had prohibition on sales of real estate to anyone based on race, “sundown” laws, miscagenation laws, off the top of my head. To save money, a dedicated Jim Crow wing could meet this second requirement.
Intelligent people, 95% of us, will draw the appropriate conclusions to satisfy Tia’s points 4 and 5 after spending some time in a well-curated museum with these kinds of exhibits. Every school would take trips to these museums at least once in third grade, sixth grade and ninth grade. That would be a good start to address racism.
Praise the Lord, Dave, whip out your credit card, pack your bags, your dreams have come true in the blink of an eye.
Georgia {partial list}
Tubman African American Museum Macon, GA
Columbus Black History Museum Columbus, GA
Apex Museum Atlanta, GA
Jack Hadley Black History Musum Thomasville, GA
Lucy Craft Laney Museum of Black History Augusta, GA
Hammond House Museum Atlanta, GA (primarily art work)
Ralph Gilbert Mark Civil Rights Museum Savannah, GA
Morgan County African-American Museum Madison, GA
Washington, DC {partial list}
Smithsonian: The National Museum of African American History and Culture (ETA 2016)
Smithsonian: Anacostia Community Museum
Frederick Douglass National Historic Site Washington, DC (I need to go here)
Alexandria Black History Museum Alexandria, VA
Prince Georges African American Museum Brentwood, MD
National Museum of African Art Washington, DC
African American Civil War Museum Washington, DC
Cultural Tourism DC’s African American Heritage Trail
Howard Theatre (aka The People’s Theatre)
Sorry, I don’t recall Connecticut having slavery.
I think it wiser to visit existing museums than to create new edifices, new budgets, and then wipe out existing organizations who have worked for years or decades to record and preserve our history.
Dave, how many times have you been to The African American Museum and Library at Oakland?
Great list, and after looking three or four websites, they aren’t what I have in mind. I will look at the websites for these places and I hope to be surprised. But after a quick look at three or four of them, I notice these museums are dedicated for the most part on whatever positive aspects of character, culture and survival that slaves managed to maintain or build on after slavery. Some are established as a paean to black culture. That’s okay and even good and necessary for black folk. But that is not what white America needs. Spending several billion dollars would be a paltry down-payment on setting the record straight. The audience for the museums I have in mind is white America, the America that presided over slavery, Reconstruction, post-Reconstruction (backlash), Jim Crow through at least the 1960s. It may interest you to know that slavery was common throughout New England through the 18th century. Slave rebellions occurred routinely in New York City with slave owners’s throats slashed and and slaves being killed in just as horrible ways as any place in the South.
The museums I have in mind should leave people shocked and shaken. Anything less would gloss over or outright lie about life as a slave and the damage that overseeing or benefiting from slavery had on the slave owners and whites who lived in close proximity.
I do thank you for taking the time to compile this list and I will look at all of them. I’ll be traveling in Kentucky and Tennessee this spring and will keep and eye out for anything that approaches what I have in mind.
By the way, did you see Twelve Years A Slave? That is the template for the museums I have in mind. This article is what got me to thinking about what would have a significant impact: http://nyti.ms/1EaDBUe
Dave, how many times have you been to The African American Museum and Library at Oakland?
TBD – I don’t think you are going to make much progress with good old Dave. I think he would lose part of his soul if he had to admit that we already honestly and profoundly report on the terrible thing that slavery was. It will never be enough for some people.
I wonder if Dave feels the same about Jewish Holocaust reporting?
Getting back to slavery. Interesting how even the US-hatin’ UN reports that the US has one of the lowest rates of “modern” slavery. And of course much of the modern slavery in the US is the result of our lax immigration policy that imports a lot of people from other cultures that still practice it.
So the US moves forward, but people like Dave can’t seem to get enough dredging up the ugly past. Are the people of the US really helped by yet another museum and movie about our history of slavery? Is this just a way to perpetuate the victim mentality? While we are looking back, maybe instead we need more museums and movies about the millions of, mostly white, young men that fought and died to abolish slavery?
I think that more focus on the abolitionist movement — early history, development from a fringe movement into mainstream political thinking, incidents of civil disobedience — would be a good direction in the schools and public monuments/museums.
Great comment.
“Stop trivializing behaviors that reinforce and normalize the objectionable behavior. I have seen many posts here about racist comments being “just blowing off steam” in the case of police recordings and similar comments about how this is “just human nature”. Sorry, I don’t buy that. Murder, rape, arson are all just manifestations of “human behavior”. That doesn’t mean that we have to accept them. That doesn’t mean that we cannot constantly aspire to the best behavior and consistently model it for our children.”
Re: excusing bad behavior as “just blowing off steam”: it occurred to me that the posters who seem toughest on crime seem to be the easiest on cops who commit crimes, and bullies who do damage to youngsters, who in turn, sometimes commit heinous crimes.
Can you please post the links and posters who wrote “just blowing off steam” and “just human nature” regarding ‘racist comments’? I’ve never read that here.
I haven’t seen those posts either TBD. Also I don’t know of any posters who are tough on crime but “seem to be the easiest on cops who commit crimes, and bullies who do damage to youngsters”. I’d like to see those posts too.
Is this more proof of how weak their arguments are?
Dave
Your perspective made me wonder about the current depiction of slavery in books used in the public schools. My children have been out of school for a while, so I don’t know if my recollections are representative of the current texts. However, as recently as 15 years ago, texts dealing with slavery emphasized the economics of the situation and the bravery of the slaves and those who aided them such as Harriet Tubman. I cannot recall any mention of the horrors actually inflicted by the owners ( of any color) of rape and forcible separation of families or of the subsequent use of lynchings, dragging behind vehicles or roasting as I posted previously as means of maintaining subservience of a population by terror.
Surely how we teach our children in the public schools should be an accurate reflection of what actually occurred if we are ever to hope to understand the full impact of these situations on all involved, the oppressors and their children as well as the oppressed.
It also has to be age appropriate.
In your opinion, what age is appropriate to explain to students that slave owners raped, beat, tortured slaves and tore families apart? I would suggest 3rd or 4th grade.
You want to discuss rape with a 3rd grader? (Eight years old.)
Why?
Ridiculous and unneeded.
What I see is a largely white and upper middle class community that likes to think of themselves as progressive on issues of race ‒ they even take pride in voting for the first black President ‒ but closer to home things get a little tricky………….This type of thinking is beyond pathetic. Things had improved for decades before our “divider in chief” fanned the flames. Now, everybody’s bickering like two kids in the backseat of a car-“he came on my side”. Things aren’t perfect. Things (before the age of Obama) were improving. And, the endless bickering will only be destructive. Have an open mind, an open heart, and everything will continue to improve. That simple!
“Have an open mind, an open heart”
“Things had improved for decades before our “divider in chief” fanned the flames.”
Am seeing some dissonance in your comments.
“This type of thinking is beyond pathetic”. You got that right, bro’.
Mr. Johnson – I agree on the first part of your comment. The second part of your comment however, you are missing a key point that was raised in the article as well – the country was divided on race long before Obama became president. The polling showed that blacks in 2007 before Obama was president, had a very negative view of race relations especially when compared to whites. What has changed is that recent incidents have made it clear to whites that race relations hadn’t improved nearly as much as they thought.
It is no surprise to me that many African Americans have a different view on race given the long and complicated history, given community attitudes, failed Big Government, and the indoctrination which come s from many sources that racism is the starting and ending point for problems in the black community.
I caught a portion of program on CSPAN titled something like “The Status of Black Men” or “the Status of the Black Community” which had more insight in 10 minutes than most liberal sites will have in years, if not decades.
These included painful, sensitive topics like one-half of black children never seeing their non-custodial parent (i.e., their father). This means that 1/3 of black children rarely if ever see their Father. Tied to this was the topic of high rate of violence committed by the new male figure(s) against children they have not fathered (i.e., the children of the absent Father). Topics like this, and truancy, have little or nothing to do with racism or the white community, yet affect the development of the child and community.
When Barack Obama hurts the situation when he says “the police acted stupidly” in Boston when a combative professor is temporarily taken into custody- before he even had the facts.
When Obama and Eric Holder take the side of a teenager who attacks a community watch member – it was an ugly, sad case – they hurt the situation.
When Obama, Holder, and Sharpton take the side of a criminal who attempts a kill a police officer, they hurt the situation.
When George Soros funds anarchy groups in order to pimp the situation the black community, he hurts the situation.
When black leaders, primarily black, tie the hands of police and let hundreds of businesses burn and mayhem rain, they hurt the situation.
The Left creates these situations, and then wants to blame others for their failed policies.
I’d say we had much more progress when George Bush Jr. was President, he had capable leaders like Colin Powell and Condi Rice, and the instantaneous decision wasn’t to question police or other leaders, but to gather facts and act like adults, not professional agitators.
I moved to Natomas from Oregon in 1986 and became friends with a young white couple. The husband was attending McGeorge & his wife was a stay at home Mom with two toddlers. I told them I planned to move to Davis when my lease expired. They warned me against it. “It’s too racist and elitist. We want to raise our kids in a more diverse community.” I was stunned, I moved there anyway. It wasn’t for a few years until I heard some anti gay, anti low income comments from Davisites. Then I actually heard racist comments and saw behavior first hand, around 1990. Now I believe racism is somewhat hidden in Davis, but it exists.
A close friend attended UCD in the late 80’s/early 90’s. He was consistently pulled over for a “flickering tail light”. He is mixed African American and Filipino. He told me it became a joke among his college buddies: don’t let him drive us anywhere, we’ll get pulled over. He complained to the campus police and the Davis police, in writing. He states he moved from Davis after he graduated. He is now a very successful businessman in Sac.
I’m sorry to hear that after 13 years in Davis you may have heard racist comments.
Within one week of going to South Central Los Angeles I heard racist comments, so I guess no place is perfect.
I must be living in some kind of plastic bubble. Thinking back over the past 25+ years of living in Davis, I can recall hearing one racist comment, but it was not in Davis, nor by a Davis resident. In was in a group discussion, and it was literally a conversation-stopper.
There have been innumerable instances where I’ve heard racial epithets directed between and among the race being disparaged. Sometimes, it was a playful insult couched in humor, and more often it was the by-product of an angry confrontation. But even these instances have diminished a lot in the past few years.