I think this year has been... enlightening for a large portion of America in terms of where we actually stand with respect to race relations on our own soil. Not because I feel anything new has been exposed to the world. Everything that's been seen this year has been seen in previous years. Cops (white AND black AND Latin AND whatever other race (from either gender)) killing unarmed African-Americans, especially African American men. Unnecessary force used on African American people of all ages and genders in the act of apprehending them for (sometimes legitimate, sometimes not) infractions not warranting such force. School cops roughing up young African American students of either gender (or any gender identification) in a manner that more than meets anyone's requirements of “unnecessary use of force”. Teachers using racial slurs and promoting racist ideology in classes around the country. Mass murders of innocent African Americans. White cops and civilians getting by on lesser charges (if any are even brought forth in the first place) in cases where African Americans are killed.
None of the above is new, not by a long shot. None of it is even particularly unique to America ,either, if we're going to get technical about things... if we're really being honest, racism against people of African birth and/or descent is a global, historical phenomena. I focus on America because that's my home, and that's my experience.
What IS new, what's really different (especially this year, in my opinion) is the amount of documented evidence of such behaviour. Much of the documented evidence is available in video format, usually with accompanying audio. In other words, actual hard evidence. Indisputable evidence. You can't look at the footage of the (immediate aftermath of the) killing of Philando Castile, for instance, and say the policeman was in any way threatened. In fact, Philando Castile was essentially shot for complying with standard protocol on all accounts with respect to being a passenger in a car with a legal firearm involved in a traffic stop. You can't watch the footage of the teacher in Baltimore yelling racial epithets at her students and say “that didn't really happen”. It's now a real, verifiable, caught on tape, hard-evidenced-backed, self-evident truth of American society that racism on this level still exists today.
And yet people still outright deny this exists, or they deflect by falling into old stereotypes and diversions, or the try and distract attention from the issue by pointing out other, lesser, issues of discrimination in an attempt to “dull the noise” on the growing uproar against racial inequality and injustice.
In terms of outright denial, there are actual, real people out there who can see all of this and somewhere in their head they say it's not real. These are the same people who can watch real footage from a space mission and say space travel is fake. These are he same people who deny climate change. The same people who actively discriminate against others (whether that be through actual discriminatory practices or through words), and then get into their car with a “peace and love and equality are the answer” bumper stickers. (Usually people with racist stickers on their cars aren't deniers...they actively and readily admit to racism on their part and on the part of others. They tend towards being deniers or other things, like sexism, while being overt in their racism.)
In terms of diversionary tactics, you see people (especially media figures [real or not]) who divert from the real issue of racism in America by using rhetoric that implies racism is really the African American's fault. Arguments like “Well, if THEY would just get jobs, we'd treat them more respectfully”, while avoiding the fact that the racist hiring practices of many (if not most) businesses keeps African American people from getting jobs in the first place, which instantly negates any pretense for any kind of real or feigned interest in mutual respect. And you hear similar types of arguments in terms of violence against African Americans. “If you follow the police officers instructions, you won't get shot” is an oft-repeated diversionary tactic: divert the blame from the user of lethal force by implying the dead person was only killed because they weren't complying. Even right now, in the Castile case, we're seeing the defense trying to use the argument that, since Castile had used marijuana and wasn't making proper eye contact with the police officer, the firing of 9 close range (and lethal) shots was justified. But how many people with guns on their person (concealed or not) get pulled over with (lots of) alcohol in their system and DON'T get shot, point blank, 9 times (with a child sitting directly behind them). And there-in lies the danger of “diversionary rhetoric”: you can get stuck in a loop of arguments and counter-arguments that completely divert the conversation away from the real, central problem. In this case, whether Castile had smoked some weed or had a few shots, he told the officer he had a legally obtained and licensed firearm and he went to get his ID, telling th eofficer that he was getting his ID. The officer already had to have had his gun on Castile to get off 9 rounds before Castile could even pull out his wallet, and Castile's weapon wasn't drawn so the danger was low: the cop always had the upper hand. If he saw a gun and not a card/wallet, that's one thing (I guess). But in the end, the facts are the facts: this kind of car stop situation almost never ends in death, whether or not substances (including alcohol) are involved. It's very difficult to deny the fact that race DIDN'T play an issue in the officers use of point-blank, deadly force.
To add something to the thought of “diversionary tactics/rhetoric”, I'd like to point out the fact that there are also cases of police officers who are themselves ethnic minorities that also seem to be prone to profiling and reactionary violence based on a suspects race. One of the things I think that came out (though maybe not as...explosively) this year was the fact that it's possibly a POLICE thing. Are police in general (regardless of race or gender) simply more apt to use excessive force on African-American people (or members of other minority groups)? Is that something that is taught to police in training? Is it a conditioned response based on a (n implied or overt) racist system of educating our police? Is it unwritten (or possibly written) policy? Some of this goes back to a question I posed in an earlier post about the effect of crossover of personnel between police forces and the United States Armed Forces. If you were trained to kill, or trained to train people how to kill, becoming a police officer may not be the most... socially conscious job choice. The police of America are not a domestic military force. That's the National Guard. I worry the distinction between the two is shrinking.
In terms of distractions from the problems of racism...what do I mean there? I mean to say, the voices we hear on a mass scale (via media or video blogs or whatever) are so numerous and so varied, with positions and beliefs that are equally varied and numerous...our collective global “issues” are so varied and sometimes catastrophic, that it's easy to have one problem come up that distracts us from adequately tackling (or even acknowledging) problems that were at the forefront of our national consciousness only days ago. Sometimes this is unavoidable, and even appropriate. In the case of Syria and the crisis over there... you can't have a human rights violation of that magnitude without a certain amount of distraction, in terms of policy AND media attention, from domestic issues (including racism) being unavoidable.
(Though I wonder, often, why we don't get as equally distracted by reports of human right violations in African nations in the same way, but I digress)
An example of a domestic, unavoidable distraction would be coverage of the DAPL episode. There was a potential human rights violation based at least partially on race, and it got coverage, and the problem is seemingly resolved. All sorts of activists and supporters turned out, and vets came to help and everything. I don't know why they didn't (or haven't) done the same thing for Flint, but...well, I don't have a “but” for that... Why DIDN'T they do the same thing for Flint? Why didn't Michael Moore sell one (or two) of his multimillion dollar homes to (at least help) fund a project to change out lead pipes and such? Being that he's the self-appointed Saviour of Flint Almighty and Forever, or whatever.... I just can't reconcile what he says he stands for with comments like the ones in this article from his website (link) where he basically says "Don't send bottled water, since these people are basically dead anyway. Instead, let's politicize this tragedy." In essence, he's using tactics that he's supposedly spent his whole life fighting against: he's using peoples lives as bargaining chips in socio-political maneuverings. It sounds like "Let them die, so we can push my vision of America through". I mean, do you think that's an ideology that's terribly dissimilar to the idea of "Let Flint take the hit on job losses, so we can push our vision of cheaper labour via foreign assembly plants" that he was fighting against in "Roger & Me"? I don't walk away from Mr. Moore's comments on Flint's water thinking "There's a guy who cares." I walk away from them thinking "There's a guy with a victims-be-damned agenda that's not too dissimilar from the people he's supposedly fighting against".
Some distractions are avoidable though. I'd like to mention one such case of “avoidable distraction” that may or may not be controversial. It relates to the NBA (National Basketball Association), and it's commissioner, Adam Silver. About 75% of NBA players are African-American. At no point in the past year has Adam Silver made any definitive, vocal comment about the current national racial climate (in support of his players), and yet he HAS taken a definitive, vocal statement (many times) in regards to the rights of transgender people, especially in North Carolina. He went so far as to pull the NBA All-Star game from Charlotte, NC because of the laws passed in NC regarding bathroom usage. While I sincerely applaud the effort and gesture, I think it's kind of sickening that this is the subject he chose to make a stand on, when approximately 0% of NBA players are transgender. Maybe some of them are closeted transgender, who knows. But I think even if a percentage of the 75% of African Americans employed as players by the NBA were transgender, they would still probably prefer Adam Silver to take a stand against racism over that one law in NC. It's hard not to feel like it's an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, and it's not hard to feel like maybe Adam Silver doesn't view 75% of his players as people deserving of an equal place in society. He'll give them money to entertain, but he won't give them the same vocal support for their equal rights as he will transgender people. I think he should take a stand on BOTH issues, to be sure (which I'll get into a bit more in subsequent paragraphs). My quarrel is with the fact that he only took a stand on ONE of the issues, and it was the issue that least affected those people who are the very source of his power, voice, and wealth.
I know that (possibly) sounds harsh. And I want to say, I AM a supporter of LGBTQ rights. Everyone deserves equal rights. They're not equal rights unless everyone has them, obviously. And I can even say I empathize with the LGBTQ community, and I'll explain that here in the hopes of taking some of the sting out of that previous paragraph. In past posts I've stated in no uncertain terms that I've spent more than a few years of my life being sexually molested by men, and sometimes male children being ordered by men. I've also been called “gay” and “faggot” many, many, many times in my life. Mostly this happened from middle school on through my mid-to-late 20's. In my late teens and early 20's, I was kind of messed up (psychologically, emotionally..whatever...and "kind of" is definitely an understatement) by all of that. I'll be the first to admit I wasn't exactly a “hit with the ladies” in high school (I had one girlfriend in high school, my senior year (she was a freshman in college), who I eventually got engaged to and very much loved during that time.. with her. And I'll say the same of my past long term girlfriends, all whom I loved very much with varying levels of maturity, I was just too psychologically stunted emotionally...well, incompetent to really understand how to make any kind of relationship really work or last.) . I questioned myself a lot, in terms of my experiences and desires. My natural fantasies (whether those be sexual or "one day when I'm married"-type domestic fantasies) were always about women, but everyone (friends/acquaintances, occasionally teachers, even some family members) told me I was gay, and would call me things like “homo” and “faggot” and such. Add to that my history of being sexually abused for years by men....yeah, I questioned myself a lot. Like “What is it about me that makes everyone put this label on me and physically treat me this way, sexually?” It got to the point where I figured “Fuck it” and tried kissing a few guys. And I just wasn't into it. At all. I couldn't get beyond even a light kissing. There was no attraction to men anywhere in me to make the moment any kind of enjoyable sexual experience.
But I LEARNED something from it, and I don't just mean that I learned I didn't have homosexual urges/feelings in me, latent or otherwise. I learned: “This is how homosexual people must feel when they have to kiss someone of the opposite gender that they just fundamentally don't find attractive.”
My empathy for the plight of homosexuals to just..be themselves... grew a thousand fold when I came to that realization. You can't force something that isn't real in you, even if everyone around you is essentially conditioning you to be the thing you're not. No matter how much I was told I was gay, I wasn't attracted to guys. So why would it be any different for a guy or girl with homosexual urges, who have parents or friends or whomever telling them “You have to date the opposite sex!”? You can fake it, and try to fit into the image projected onto you, but you know it's not really you when you're left to reflect on it.
I could never support anti-homosexual rhetoric or action after experiencing both the conflict within and the impossibility of forcing a sexual preference on somebody to fit an opinion or “social norm”. So when I make the statement I made in the paragraph above, expressing my disappointment in Adam Silver's taking a bold pro-transgender stance AT THE EXPENSE OF a bold pro-African-American stance, it isn't because I think transgender (or any LGBTQ) community member ISN'T worthy of such a bold stance to be taken in their favour. I'm just saying, don't let your own personal crusade or pet cause be a distraction from an equally important and relevant cause. You know, personally, I'd like to see women, LGBTQ, and racial minorities and other historically marginalized groups all get together and say they'll put equal effort into advancing each others causes. If you're LGBTQ and you've experienced that kind of abuse and possibly violence, be equally vocal about African-American rights and hold your vocal proponents to take an “all-encompassing acceptance” stance and you'll probably find you'll receive the same treatment from African-American's who have also experienced oppression through our their history. I feel like, especially between the LGBTQ community and African American community, there's been a historical mistrust, if not dislike, of each other. And I thought this particular year saw an upswing in respectful and fruitful collaboration between the two groups in terms of working for equal rights for each other and in general. I think it's note worthy to see that the formal Black Lives Matter organization (as opposed to the informal Black Lives Matter movement rallying around the slogan) is also involved in LGBTQ activism, and has amongst its founders at least one (that I know of) member of the LGBTQ community.
That's...well, that's a step in the right, unified direction. It's one of those things you look at and you can think and understand (or even overstand, if that's your preference) “You know, maybe the oppressive white male dominated Moral Majority system is really an Immoral Minority system”.
The observation about the NBA's transgender stance VS. its African-American (non)stance isn't meant to say “African American rights over LGBTQ rights!”, it's meant to highlight the fact that the rights of both groups are equally important, and both groups should be given equal support in both words and actions by people who regularly deal with minorities (racial and/or sexual). If Adam Silver is removing the All Star game from Charlotte because of NC's LGBTQ laws, why is he moving it to New Orleans, which is in the state of Louisiana, which has on the books, and possibly on the way into the books, many laws that actively and negatively target minorities AND women (Louisiana isn't exactly known for it's fondness of abortion rights and accessibility, for instance)? Where Alton Sterling was shot for complying with police? Where a black man JUST got shot dead over a road rage incident, and the shooter was let go that day and eventually charged with ONLY manslaughter? I'm just saying, people who want equal rights have to be consistent with equal right for EVERYBODY, and not just be distracted by their own self-interest or agenda or personal bias.
And to be fair across the board, you know, I have similar complaints about the Brother Farrakhan and his occasional stance (at least in subtext) of homosexuality. I know in terms of where he stands on racial issues, his heart and mind are generally in the right way but I think it benefits his community to hear a positive message about accepting the help of those LGBTQ community members who also have a sincere desire to help African Americans succeed in furthering the cause of equality and justice. And I know there's all kinds of other similar, seemingly contradictory and conflicting, cases of “equal rights for us, but never mind those other oppressed people who aren't us” mentality showing its face.. I'm just saying, if you're teaching an anti-homosexual philosophy and one of your congregants is about to get illegally evicted and the only available lawyer happens to be homosexual and sincerely wants to help, but the congregant denies themselves that all-important help based on the lawyers sexuality.... It's not the same situation as the Adam Silver thing I'm talking about above, but it's a similar.... well, distraction from progress, I guess would be the way to word that. It's an unnecessary division.
If there's one thing I'd like to see in the coming year, in terms of race relations, I think it would be what I mentioned in the previous few paragraphs: a unity of racial minorities with each other and with other minority groups (and also with the majority group made up of women) to fight for universal equal rights and find a way to Make America Work For Everybody Finally For The First Time. You know, every group has it's own inner-schisms: not all African Americans or LGBTQ community members are Democrat liberals, for instance. But minor ideological differences are always going to be there. What I mean is finding a way to move towards a society where there's an equal chance for everybody. Where you can find a job where your boss or CEO is just as likely to be black, white, yellow, red, brown or gay,straight,transgender, bisexual, asexual or Muslim, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, Taoist, or conservative, liberal, moderate or whatever else. Whether you're a Conservative or a Liberal African American, you're still marginalized as an African American. Whether you're a LGBTQ Conservative or a LBGTQ liberal, you're still marginalized as a member of the LBGTQ community.
I guess that's what I really want to see: not JUST an improvement in race relations, but an improvement in the relations of all marginalized people. For all the marginalized people with leadership skills to lead the marginalized people as a unified group of respectful and respected equals. For the intellectuals that are marginalized to unify and prop each other up by supporting each others research and ideas. For people to be willing to sacrifice a little (and maybe a lot) now so that they can reap the benefits of a more equal, cohesive society with a minimal of divisive behaviour in the (hopefully not-too-far) future.
I see it in small doses. Little things around here, in a place I would say isn't known for its historical racial harmony. I see less confederate flags around. Black and white teenaged girls saying they'll Snapchat each other later before they go to class. More minorities around in general, even from just a few years ago. It's good. It's positive. But it's not over. People have to keep pushing to move forward. Step out of that comfort zone even more...
Damn, that was long winded. Hopefully it was/is as coherent to the reader as it was to me while writing it out.
Peace to everyone out there who's sincere about creating a better world based on equality and justice, who choose the power of knowledge of self as opposed to power over others.
Have a Happy Holiday. Personally, I don't do any holidays. I'm just as likely to be working on the new project I have going as I will to be having a Hannibal binge-watching marathon on Christmas. I don't do Festivus or Kwanzaa or New Years (or even birthdays, to be honest) or anything else either. Just another day to me. But if you DO celebrate some holiday, celebrate it in the spirit of a new tomorrow where nobody is marginalized for any reason, and our abilities and potential, alone and of themselves, define us both to ourselves and to others.
One love.
1/20/17: I'd also like to see, in 2017, the new President engaging African American political, educational, legal, financial...whatever field..leaders in discourse on how to work things out in terms of the racial context in modern America. I don't want to see him engaging Kanye or Don King or Steve Harvey any more. That's not enough. Those aren't leaders, they're entertainers. There are African-AMericans with social and political influence right there in Washington, a few buildings down from the White House., who actually know what's going on with their constituents. And if they don't personally know what's going on in their district, they know (or SHOULD know) people who do. Those are the people to engage in political discourse with, in regards to African-Americans' place in an equal, just America. Not Kanye.