Monday Morning Thoughts: Do Whites Really Want to Be Part of the Race Conversation?

Ferguson St Louis

I found myself reading Debra DeAngelo’s column this weekend, which is probably something I should not do. But the topic: “Whites want to join the Black Lives Matter conversation, but we’re afraid to.” As someone who has been part of the conversation for years – quite frankly, I was taken aback by her theme.

After a long and drawn-out recitation of history, she finally got to the point: “Sadly, racism has been simmering away all along, particularly in neighborhoods scarred by chronic poverty, unemployment and violence, where blacks are exponentially overrepresented. High crime means more conflicts with law enforcement, and the subconscious erroneous association of skin color with crime. Black America knew this all along, and with the shooting of Michael Brown and the subsequent Black Lives Matter movement, now white America knows too.”

Ms. DeAngelo continues: “But here’s the thing: Most white Americans want to support the continued efforts toward racial equality, but we’re becoming afraid to join the conversation. The temperature in the room is very hot right now, and frequently when whites attempt to chime in, we’re shouted down with ‘white privilege!’ which has the same effect as ‘Shut up!’ And so, fearing being called racist above almost anything else — we do. But: Shutting whites out of the conversation hurts, not helps, the effort toward racial equality. We need each other.”

“Whites hesitate to say a peep, because when we attempt to engage in the racism conversation, we become the proverbial bull in the china shop, causing disaster every time we turn around. But, in our heart of hearts, we want to help. And to love. We really do. History has proven that,” she concludes. “So, fellow black Americans, please consider that most whites support your cause and want to join the conversation, even if we put our big fat bovine feet in our mouths when we try.”

I disagree with Ms. DeAngelo on both ends of this column.

First, I have been in more rooms in the last ten years that I care to elaborate. I have been in the homes of people whose loved ones have been sentenced to life sentences for things that would make you shake your head. I have been in the homes of people who have felt the indignity of racial profile.

I have been with people Tasered by police who could not grasp the enormity of the injustice. I have walked side by side with the families of people who have been shot and killed by police and people who have been pepper sprayed.

I have seen heartache and pain beyond what I care to grasp.

I have been the only white person in the room more times than I can count and I have never felt out of place or felt anything but gratitude for being there and listening to people’s experiences.

As a founder of the Vanguard or a member of the Davis Human Relations Commission, I have been part of this conversation many times with people of all races and creeds. Indeed, the event that we started in 2012, Breaking the Silence of Racism, is an effort not only to be part of the conversation, but to help facilitate that conversation.

If, Ms. DeAngelo, you want to be part of the conversation, then start speaking. Start using use your podium to advance understanding. Join with others in your community to be part of that voice for change.

The problem that I see is not that whites want to be part of that conversation on racism but can’t, but that too many whites simply do not want to be part of that conversation.

This is not a liberal-conservative thing, by the way – my experience a decade ago is that white liberal Davis did not want to talk about the dark underbelly of the treatment of people of color in their community. It made them uncomfortable. Sure, they would proudly vote for the first black president and celebrate it, but when it came to issues closer to home they would turn a blind eye.

Ms. DeAngelo writes that “with the shooting of Michael Brown and the subsequent Black Lives Matter movement, now white America knows too.”

She’s wrong. Polling shows that whites have been opening their eyes to the fact that race relations are not good, but they see Michael Brown as a precipitating event. They believe that the President, former Attorney General and a bunch of race baiters are stirring things up. They don’t see that their language is cloaked with the same language from the 1960s’ push back against the civil rights movement, where many southerners proclaimed that their blacks were happy, but for the outside agitators.

In one of the comments to the article, Noreen Mazelis demonstrates this point when she writes, “Michael Brown was a thug; this planet is better off without him. After robbing a store and beating its owner, he tried to kill a cop; then his parents, with ample help, tried to burn down the town. Face it: black lives ‘matter’ BUT only if they are taken by a white person. When blacks murder blacks, we hear nothing from bleeding heart columnists and, of course, nothing from The Current Occupant of the WH.”

In a way, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s was simpler. End segregation and legally sanctioned discrimination.

But, as I noted yesterday in a comment, no sooner had the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act been signed, but the conversation changed. The next wave of the struggle has become more difficult. It is one thing to end laws that legally separate and hold people to a second class status, it is another thing to be able to create an equitable and fair society.

By focusing on the fact that “black lives matter,” we are focusing on the fact that for too long and in all phases of society black lives mattered far less than all other lives.

If we want to talk about black on black crime, as some on the right want to, then it has to start in a place with understanding that the current system traps many young black men into the cycle of poverty-crime-incarceration from which there is no escape.

The fact is, a lot of people can be part of that conversation – they simply have to speak up. My experience is not that people are not able to speak up, it is simply that they don’t wish to.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Breaking News Civil Rights Sacramento Region

Tags:

245 comments

  1. ” “…we’re becoming afraid to join the conversation. The temperature in the room is very hot right now, and frequently when whites attempt to chime in, we’re shouted down with “white privilege” ”

    As a white woman, I couldn’t disagree more. Ferguson and other events give us an opportunity to speak up, support survivors of police brutality, memorialize the dead, and enter into the conversation. I have felt more comfortable in the discussion now, than any other time in my 59 yrs.

    Once again, the Emptyprize. Don’t read it, especially don’t buy it, and read the Vanguard instead.

    1. sisterhood

      Good morning.

      I have a different perspective about the value of reading the Enterprise. This newspaper represents the view point of a substantial number of members of our community. While I often disagree with the viewpoint expressed, I believe that ignoring this perspective rejects an opportunity to address directly those particular points with which I do not agree. An ongoing conversation, including the direct confrontation of ideas we oppose, is vital to addressing the issues that are most important to us.

      1. Well said Tia Will.  I often don’t agree with what I read in the Vanguard but I would never tell anyone to ignore it, not to read it and not to donate if they wish to.  We should all embrace different forms of journalism and do as you say, have an ongoing conversation.

        1. “We should all embrace different forms of journalism and do as you say, have an ongoing conversation.”

          “Conversation”?

          I only sense someone waiting in the wings to attack or make snide remarks.  Why not write a suggestion, something positive. Suggest a way to improve something you don’t like. Empty criticism,  and pessimism, without a constructive suggestion, or two, isn’t helpful. You don’t converse, you attack.

        2. I only sense someone waiting in the wings to attack or make snide remarks. 

          Look at you and your passive aggressiveness.  What did you do right now with what you just posted?  I posted this two days ago in agreement with Tia Will and you waited in the wings to attack and make snide remarks.  You often do this so go cry to someone else because I’m not playing your game.  So do you think you’re conversing with constructive suggestions right now, or are you simply attacking?  Do yourself a favor, don’t read my comments, nobody is forcing you to.  You just don’t like it because I come at things from a different political perspective than you.  Deal with it.

          Peace and chill out.

           

      2. I guess if a person is Emptyprize curious, they can visit Cindy’s for a nice breakfast & free copy. They keep them in a basket by the front door. I hope Cindy’s is still there. Loved it.

  2. Most white Americans want to support the continued efforts toward racial equality, but we’re becoming afraid to join the conversation.”

    If Ms. DeAngelo is correct that most Americans want to support “continued efforts toward racial equality” I would suggest another venue. Joining the conversation would certainly be one entry point. However, action frequently speaks louder than words and also gains more respect. I would make a simple suggestion to anyone who really wants to bridge this gap. Get involved directly in some way.

    If you are white, volunteer in some fashion that brings direct engagement with blacks. For medical professionals that might include volunteering at a minority dominant clinic. For anyone with a college education that might involve tutoring or mentoring. For business owners that might involve offering a youth internship program. For those who do not have a college education, consider volunteering time providing child care so that a young parent can pursue an education or get a better job.

    Unfortunately too often whites “joining the conversation” means telling blacks what they are doing wrong. This understandably leads to comments about “white privilege”. Do whites really believe that blacks do not know that lack of education impedes their opportunities, that having children without completing high school impedes them, that having a young father incarcerated means that a child will grow up in a fatherless household ? And yet these are the comments that we frequently encounter when whites “chime in”.

    Until all folks, regardless of the color of their skin are willing to actually take concrete steps to help those who do not have the same opportunity achieve it, we will be stuck in the same polarized lack of inclusive conversation.

     

     

    1. If you are white, volunteer in some fashion that brings direct engagement with blacks.”

      “Until all folks, regardless of the color of their skin are willing to actually take concrete steps to help those who do not have the same opportunity achieve it, we will be stuck in the same polarized lack of inclusive conversation.”

      First statement, given the second, sounds a lot like ‘white person burden’ and/or ‘white person guilt’.  I actually have neither, but I push back when someone says I should.

      Your second statement, I espouse.  Well-off ‘people of color’ should also be willing to mentor/take other ‘concrete steps’ to help those who do not have the “same opportunities”, regardless of the ‘color’ of those who need the help.

      Unless, of course, you believe in “the white devil”.  If so, then, we cannot agree.

       

      1. hpierce

        Please bear in mind that my comment was a direct response to Ms. DeAngelo’s comments about her perception of “white people’s” desire to join in the conversation. I believe that exactly the same applies to all people who want to see improvements in American society.

    2. Many “whites” have been part of the successes, and failures (programs that have unintended, negative consequences).

      Many do not fully comprehend the negative consequences to their choices / strategy. Dr. Thomas Sowell refers to the so-called “black underclass”. I see the problem here as twofold.

      1. Many have no idea what a traditional nuclear family looks like, what a Father in the home is, what traditional garden-variety social norms are, etc.

      2. Yes, there are many that know that being married is a benefit, that certain behaviors are negative, yet they continue to repeat that. It gets complicated.

      I recall reading one study where young girls who grew up without a Father knew life would be very difficult, there were counseled not to do it repeatedly by their Mothers (how hard their life was), they were given sex education / access to birth control, yet many still got pregnant. Part of the study showed that even though there were many arguing to change said behavior, the social scientists also concluded that there are benefits to a teenage getting pregnant when young (the child’s view) – they get to have a baby shower, they get to pick their childs name, they become the center of attention in a matrifocal community, and then may access money via government programs. They see the perks.

      Instead of these factors, many liberals tell them life is hard because they are black and because of racism. Many adopt that mindset.

      1. The reason that many do not know what a nuclear family looks like is that their “father” has been in out of prison since he was 15, their mother made a series of bad choices, and the interaction has compounded on itself. You never want to talk about the impact of mass incarceration – people ending up in prison, the impact of prison on education, getting a job, getting housing, etc. And the fact that those punishments are lifelong. At some point, you have to intervene to stop that cycle.

        1. What the h e double-toothpicks is “mass incarceration”?  That is just a liberal buzz phrase that has no rational meaning at all to anything about the topic.   Nobody rounded up any group en mass and incarcerated them.   They did the crime and are doing the time.

          You need to come clean with what you propose for “intervene”.  This is where you are getting off way too easy.  You keep reporting the problem and never really commit to any specifics for what you propose for solutions.

          Put it out there.

          1. First issue:

            Drug Sentencing Disparities

            About 14 million Whites and 2.6 million African Americans report using an illicit drug
            5 times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites
            African Americans represent 12% of the total population of drug users, but 38% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 59% of those in state prison for a drug offense.
            African Americans serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months). (Sentencing Project)

            Source: http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet

          2. Mass incarceration is the lock up of a lot of people for a long time based on a variety of crimes. I don’t dispute that bad choices are made, the question that you have not answered is how do you prevent a kid from falling into a lifelong habit of crime-incarceration-release?

        2. 5 times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites

          It is really quite infuriating that these type of junk stats are thrown out there without appropriate controls.  And the most glaring is the fact that many more blacks have multiple priors that lead them to receive harsher penalties.  And also there are more repeat offenders.   Someone gets a warning and then does it again, verses someone gets a warning and gets scared straight.

          The other control missing is geography.  For example, if you live in Damascus Syria today there is a greater likelihood that you will get killed by an Islamist.  And if you live in a high-crime, low-income urban area of the US, there is a greater likelihood that you will get attention from cops and get caught breaking the law with drugs.

          So multiple priors and geography are not racial issues.   Control for those and what do we see?… probably a de minimis difference.

          Besides, what is the solution you are suggesting here?  Is it simply that you want law enforcement to ignore blacks doing illegal drugs.  I already said that I am in agreement with that.  I think there are a lot of people on both sides of the political aisle that agree.  So why isn’t it getting done?

          But if not that, then what exactly are you suggesting?

          how do you prevent a kid from falling into a lifelong habit of crime-incarceration-release?

          First – you cannot easily prevent adults from making bad choices.  You can only teach what good choices are, and what the consequences can be for bad choices.  And there are some “mistakes” in choice that cannot be undone… so clearly they should never be chosen.

          But the answer to your question is really quite simple.   It is to provide the compelling and positive alternative.

          1. I already said that I am in agreement with that. I think there are a lot of people on both sides of the political aisle that agree. So why isn’t it getting done?

            Maybe you should blame the prison guard unions. Or the corporations that provide privatized prisons.
            More likely, the issue is that criminal justice reform is largely a state issue, and no individual legislator wants to be seen as weak on crime. In California, much of the reform would require modifying the Three Strikes law, which voters have shown little enthusiasm for changing. In short, decriminalizing drugs or even just reforming how they’re handled in the legal system faces a lot of pushback and it’s politically risky to push for it.
            What I think they ‘should’ do is start releasing people who are just in jail for drug offenses. Start wiping convictions from the record so they aren’t impediments to employment. Press at the federal level for changes to how different drugs are listed. And press for criminal justice reform state by state.

        3. Frankly:  But the answer to your question is really quite simple.   It is to provide the compelling and positive alternative.

          And how do you do that in large communities of concentrated poverty and social breakdown?

        4. the other problem frankly is that the system is set up to prevent good choices.  once someone has a felony status, you’ve effectively made it impossible to get gainful employment.  how do you allow people to get out from under that?

        5. “the most glaring is the fact that many more blacks have multiple priors that lead them to receive harsher penalties.”

          when they do these studies, they control for priors -no reputable researcher would fail to account for priors. but the other part of the study, if you bothered to read it, is that they found that at every step in the process – blacks more likely to arrested for possession, more likely to be charged, more likely to be convicted, more likely to go to prison. none of that is independent of priors – the whole process leads blacks to have more priors than whites, because they are arrested, prosecuted and convicted more than whites.

        6. More likely, the issue is that criminal justice reform is largely a state issue, and no individual legislator wants to be seen as weak on crime.

          Obviously we are moving forward on voter opinion on decriminalization of marijuana.  I’m not sure about other more seriously addictive and destructive drugs.  I think there are valid concerns there with respect to collateral negative impacts having more serious drug-addicts on the streets.  But I think we should change the system and laws so we handle it differently.

          If this is THE issue with blacks as David and other liberals have latched onto, they why isn’t Obama using his lame duck influence to make changes?

          We had Democrats in control of all three branches of Federal government 2008-2010 and then in control of the Executive branch and Senate for six years.  And no executive orders.  No legislation proposed.

          I don’t buy that this is a state issue.  The Federal government is much more restrictive over marijuana than are many states. The Federal government can demand state compliance in return for Federal monies that flow to states for the drug “war”.

          Seems that the left is pointing fingers at everyone except themselves… the real reason we don’t have any progress here.

          And if you are still insisting that this is a state issue, then what does Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Brown say?

          I think the system in Portugal is a model worth considering.

          http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening

          1. If this is THE issue with blacks as David and other liberals have latched onto, they why isn’t Obama using his lame duck influence to make changes?

            If you recall, he addressed prison reform recently and granted clemency to a few dozen federal drug convicts. How’d that go over?
            I just read that he intends to make criminal justice reform a focus of his post-presidency.

            We had Democrats in control of all three branches of Federal government 2008-2010 and then in control of the Executive branch and Senate for six years. And no executive orders. No legislation proposed.

            In fact, the administration early on issued orders to de-emphasize prosecution of marijuana cases and reiterated that more than once (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/eric-holder-marijuana-washington-colorado-doj_n_3837034.html).

            We had Democrats in control of all three branches of Federal government 2008-2010 and then in control of the Executive branch and Senate for six years. And no executive orders. No legislation proposed.

            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/12/eric-holder-smart-crime-reform-us-prisons “The Department of Justice will now instruct prosecutors to side-step federal sentencing rules by not recording the amount of drugs found on non-violent dealers not associated with larger gangs or cartels.”

            I don’t buy that this is a state issue.

            It is mostly a state issue, I think. We’ve got lawyers who post here who can clarify that.

            The Federal government can demand state compliance

            And sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. This administration has straddled this issue considerably, finally informing the governors of Washington and Colorado that they would not prosecute once legalization occurred — but essentially reserving the right to do so in the future, or something.

            And if you are still insisting that this is a state issue, then what does Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Brown say?

            If it’s a state issue, it doesn’t really matter what a US Senator and the US Representative say, does it? Gov. Brown has pretty consistently opposed legalization.

        7. “If this is THE issue with blacks as David and other liberals have latched onto, they why isn’t Obama using his lame duck influence to make changes?”

          that’s a good question.  i would argue that obama has done a lot in the last year moving in the right direction, but he hasn’t gone far enough fast enough for my taste.

          “We had Democrats in control of all three branches of Federal government 2008-2010 and then in control of the Executive branch and Senate for six years.  And no executive orders.  No legislation proposed.”

          democrats were bad on this issue for decades – it’s a big reason i’m not a democrat.

        8. Frankly:   I think there are valid concerns there with respect to collateral negative impacts having more serious drug-addicts on the streets.  But I think we should change the system and laws so we handle it differently.

          If this is THE issue with blacks as David and other liberals have latched onto, they why isn’t Obama using his lame duck influence to make changes?

          Maybe you were on vacation when this happened.  But when the story came out in the news, though, I don’t remember it being about blacks specifically.  It is something that a lame duck president can do to make a point:

          Obama Shortens Prison Terms For 46 Drug Offenders, Vows More Commutations

          For years, reformers have been complaining that the justice system is out of whack, but now they’re hearing that sentiment echoed from the White House. This week, President Obama agreed to shorten the prison sentences of 46 people locked up for nonviolent drug crimes, and he says there’s more to come. 

    1. responding to purported trumped up outrage with more trumped up outrage is hardly helpful.  in this case, the police once again instead of wanting to enact halfway measures have chosen to completely pull out when they are confronted with criticism.  it’s the same mentality of the slow down, when confronted don’t do your job and blame it on the media.  hardly helpful.  glad we have such mature people serving as police officers.

      1. The video even goes farther saying that the assailant may have rushed the officer because of the trumped up outrage that the media has helped instill in blacks.  Where’s your understanding of how the officer felt, the situation he was confronted with and his response that he didn’t want to pull his gun because of the media?  Most officers are good men and women, but you wouldn’t think so because of the narrative being put forward by the left.  It’s sad that they’re now afraid to do their job due to media bias.  I’m afraid that we’re going to lose many good police officers who no longer want to put up with the media backlash when they’re only trying to perform their jobs.

        1. let’s pause the blame game and push it to the next level – what would you suggest we do at this point other than trying to silence the media and activists – neither of which will happen?  how do we get to common ground?  how can we deescalate the situation?  i’m interested in seeing if you have a real alternative here?