The prosecutor took a simple crime by three bad men perpetrated on a peaceful, innocent man, rather than on the race of those involved. It worked, and the murderers were convicted. [NY Times photo]At some point, I don’t remember when or how, I got on the subscription list for the NY Times Morning newsletter. Based on several problems the NYT has had with inaccurate reporting, biased reporting, and their general acceptance by the media as the nation’s “newspaper of record” (I generally distrust almost all media), I’m not very favorable to the Times.
It comes daily by e-mail, and I generally read the main stories every weekday. I find them to be mostly biased, but not as badly as I expected. In several, I found fodder for blog posts. These emails I saved, while all other of these newsletters I discard. Recently, I was trying to reduce the number of emails in my inbox. I started with the oldest, one of which was Morning for Nov 30, 2021.
The lead story was the trial, just concluded, of the murderers of Ahmaud Arbery. Remember that? He’s a black man who was jogging in a mostly white neighborhood, stopped to look in a house under construction, and was murdered by three white men. They were convicted in the trial.
Here’s how the Times began the story.
The most effective way to achieve racial justice can sometimes be to downplay race.
That may seem like a counterintuitive idea. And it can certainly feel unsatisfying to people who are committed to reducing the toll of racism in the United States. But it is one of the lessons of the murder convictions last week of three white men in Georgia, in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man.
In previous posts about racism and how to end it, I brought up the idea that it takes many approaches to end racism. I differentiated between racism, the ending of which requires changes in the hearts of people, and racist acts, against which legislation, policies, and an honest justice system can make a big dent in.
The Times story indicated that the prosecutor’s strategy was considered controversial because she mostly ignored race and made it a simple murder trial. Three men killed an innocent man, thinking they would take the law in their own hands. Critics thought she should make the trial about the racism of the three killers, their racism spilling over into a horrible racist act. Had she lost the case, she would have been soundly excoriated.
This prosecutor decided, rightly so, that a non-racism approach was the right approach. Sometimes it’s right to be color blind. That’s how I want to live my life. That’s how Mom and Dad taught us kids. Of course, they never told us we were mixed race, but that’s a story for another post.
Later in the newsletter article, the NYT further endorsed this multiple strategies needed approach.
The Arbery trial offers a reminder that calling out racism is not the only way to battle it. Sometimes, a more effective approach involves appealing to universal notions of fairness and justice. [Emphasis added]
If different approaches are what’s needed, then I suppose I should not criticize those who make race a defining characteristic in almost every human interaction. To me that seems wrong, but I won’t say those that take a different approach than me are wrong. May both approaches work together toward the goal of ending racist acts and eradicating racism from the hearts of men.
I must preface this by saying, while I’m technically mixed-race, I’m white. I look white and was raised white. I was late middle-aged when I learned my racial makeup. No one ever denied me a job due to the color of my skin, or threw racial slurs my way. I think that’s important to say, because my observations may not be the same as someone who is black. That may help you to decide on the importance of my observations.
In May we drove to Orlando to meet our daughter’s family for vacation. I posted about that already. With the I-40 bridge over the Mississippi closed, we took a more southerly route. We crossed at Helena Arkansas, drove state highways through northern Mississippi to Jackson, more state highways to Hattiesburg and the Gulf coast, then interstates across the panhandles and on down to Orlando. On the return trip in early June we came back by interstates to Mobile then took state highways to Hattiesburg, interstate to Jackson, then reverse course to Helena and on home.
Our entire route was through the former Confederacy, mostly through what has been called the “deep South”. As we drove we stopped—at gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, hotels, markets. We drove through lots of rural areas, giving me a chance observe houses, people in yards, and communities.
As we traveled, I observed interactions between whites and blacks. Now, I have to digress to say that I hate looking at anyone for their skin color. I’m a believer that we should be color blind. No one is to be looked down upon because of their color, no one is to be elevated because of their color. I realize that’s not the current narrative being pushed on us, which is we need to look at race and make evaluations based on that. I’ve written before on the blog about racism, separating racism from racist acts. You can see them at this link.
If my belief in a color-blind society is what we should be working towards, where people of all skin colors and ethnic backgrounds live together in harmony, caring nothing about skin color, then I ought to see people of all skin colors interacting in harmony on this trip. Seeing that might indicate that society at large has moved a long way towards that state of things.
That’s exactly what I saw. Store clerks were white and black, working side by side. Customers were black and white, socially distancing together, making their purchases, chatting with each other, walking in and out the same doors, holding the doors for each other without regard to color of skin. I observed Hispanics and whites not caring that they were next to each other. Whites served Hispanics when they came to the register and Hispanics served white or blacks when they came to the register.
In hotels, at the breakfast room (yes, some were open again post-pandemic), the hotel guests were of all skin colors and ethnic groups. Nobody seemed to care that they were white and those at the table to their right were black and at the table to their left were Hispanic. It was wonderful to behold. I liked what I saw and traveled through.
All of which gives me hope that we, the USA, have come a long way towards color-blindness. To me that’s a good thing. That may also mean that racism is less of a problem than you would believe from reading the media. If you read my former posts on race relations, you will know I separate racists acts from racism. Racism being that which is in a person’s heart and racist acts being what they do or say as a result of their racism. Maybe, just maybe, racism is much less of a problem and racists are a dying breed.
Again, I say this as a white man. A black man making the same trip as me might observe things I didn’t, or might interpret differently the same exact thing I observed. I can only report what I observed and draw conclusions from what I saw. What I saw was good and encouraging. May the USA continue on this good path and continue to deal with and eliminate what flaws we still have based on skin color and ethnicity.
My series on racism is drawing to a close. I’ll have this post and, depending on how wordy I am with it, possibly one more. I think I have made a convincing case that combatting racism requires looking at two things: racist acts, and racism that gives rise to racist acts. You can legislate against racist acts but you can’t legislate against racism.
Further, I believe I made a case that the role of any given person in this fight will be different than everyone else. Not everyone can or should be shouting “Black lives matter!” on Facebook or other social media every day or every hour.
Now I come to the matter of protests. How do you combat racism? A segment of the population is doing that through protests. The protests seem to be mainly gatherings in public places with much talk, repeating of slogans, denunciations, etc. Sometimes this involves blocking public places to prevent access. We have seen that where protesters block highways, preventing all vehicles from passing, including emergency vehicles.
In the speeches I’ve seen—which admittedly has only been on television and not so many there—have a “death to America” ring to them. The protesters seem to not just want change, but want to tear down our government and…do what? Start over with a different form of government? Have anarchy instead of government? The rhetoric seems not to be designed to solve the problem, but only to define it. The autonomous zone established in Seattle, later abandoned, seemed one of these types of protests.
Complicating the protests has been the violence. In certain major cities around the nation, violence, destruction of property, and looting have taken place. Again, the goal doesn’t seem to be to fix the problems in the system, but merely to rage against it.
I say that because the combination of protests and violence seem to be causing people to turn a deaf ear against the protesters. “Oh, you want to burn police cars, smash storefronts, loot businesses, and prevent free access on public streets? The heck with you and whatever it is you’re protesting.” That’s what I see happening. The protests have turned counterproductive. The very people the protesters need to change the system are turning against them. As a result the nation is going backwards in race relations, not forward.
Surely there is a way to protest racist acts in a way that will bring about positive change. That will help those in power at public institutions and at businesses to see how racism has crept in and caused racist acts to occur. Those can be changed. But will they ever be changed when all that we see is violence and looting? I fear not.
It is now close to three months since the death of George Floyd, the last in a line of acts that appear to be racist, where black men, for minor infractions, have wound up dead at the hands of police. Protests have been taking place daily in major cities around the USA. For a while they took place in smaller cities as well. Some changes have been made in how policing is done and how much policing these cities will have. Policing is in part being replaced with social working. How effective this will be in improving conditions for racial minorities in the cities will play out over time, time that will have to be measured in years before we will know the effectiveness of new procedures.
The protests—peaceful protests—have perhaps done some good in terms of racist acts. As a nation, we understand a little better how racist acts happen, and are making some changes. But as to racism, I think we are going backwards. White people look at the violence and pull away from admitting that racism exists. Hearts of men and women are not being changed, or, if they are being changed, it is to become more racist.
I never want to state or define problems and stop there. I want to develop solutions and state them clearly in a way that will convince people of the correctness of those solutions. In this case, however, I’m not sure what the solution is. There is a way to protest against racist acts and bring about improvement, and that doesn’t include violence. There is a way to change people’s hearts and help them to see that their racism, latent or open, is real and that they can change, and that doesn’t include violence. You can’t loot a store and say “Looting is reparations for slavery” and expect racists to turn into non-racists. Maybe you feel better having done the looting, but you have made the world worse, not better.
One of the reasons the civil rights protests of the 1960s were so effective is because they were non-violent. People could see the difference between the mostly black protesters and the white racists who committed violence against the protesters. The morality of one side and the immorality of the other was obvious. Progress was made as a result, and legislation was passed to put an end to a wide array of racist acts. At the same time, I believe we saw some hearts changed, and people who were racists came to the realization they were being stupid, that skin color didn’t matter. Not as many as needed to be changed, but some.
Violence now is being committed, not by those who want to preserve a racist system, but by those who want to change it. Or, perhaps, much of the violence is by those who seek to benefit without even trying to change what they see is a racist system.
End the violence. Protest peacefully. Show the world that your grievances are real, that you want honest change. As you do, also speak out against the violence. Denounce the looting and the violence against people and property. Help others to know that isn’t you, isn’t your group, isn’t your aim. I think that combination, ending the violence and maintenance of peaceful protests, will go a long way to achieving a less-racist system.
A racist act in progress. Sorry that I couldn’t find the photographer’s name to give proper credit, but hope they would find this use acceptable.
And, after a fair number of posts about racism, talking about the difference between racism and racist acts, about the existence of latent racism, I’m finally at the point of discussing racism itself. If you remember, in prior posts I have differentiated between racist acts—things done or said in the open—and racism—the condition of the heart that gives rise to racist acts.
This may be splitting hairs. Others may not see the difference. I do, however, because I think the way to combat them, to eradicate them, is different. Racist acts can be legislated against. When implementation of laws fails, steps can be taken to improve things. That’s not necessarily easy, but a path forward exists.
But racism, the condition of a person’s heart that may be held inside for long periods and only infrequently give rise to racist acts. How do you combat that? How do you change a person from the inside out? How do you convince them 1) that those with a different skin color are human; 2) they have equal natural rights endowed on them by God; 3) that your inner condition of racism will someday come out with a (or many) racist act(s); and 4) they can change if only they want to.
I’m sure someone will respond that I’m crazy. People can’t change, and they sure can’t change on their own. I would reply that’s true. My own belief is that only God can change the heart. Many people don’t believe in God, or don’t think of Him as a personal God who interacts with people. Would those people say that a racist can’t change? I don’t think so, at least not all people who live without a belief in a personal God believe that.
That brings us to a question of what our role is in combating racism. If God is the one who actually changes the heart, does that leave me out of the equation, or do I have a role to play? If so, what is that role?
I’ve thought a lot about this, and believe my role is to move people to a place where God can change them. How do I do this? As I said briefly in a prior post, by example, education, and persuasion. I may not be qualified in each of those. I may have one out of those I can do well. Maybe I can educate someone as to equality and the lack of difference in the person simply because of skin color. Maybe, after that education, I can persuade them that they can and should change. Their heart won’t change because of my words, but maybe they will think about it, move a little closer to God, and be in a place where he can change their heart.
What about change by example? I hope, hope, hope I was a good example to my children of a person who is not a racist. I hope that is continuing with my grandchildren. But, I have many more people I can persuade than just those. With the corona virus self-quarantine/reduced activities, chances for in-person interaction are greatly reduced, but they are still there. Included in those might be a few opportunities to model acceptance of people of all races.
Social media gives a chance for interaction, however. In fact, right now that’s perhaps the main chance. I have lots of chances to model full acceptance of all races as equal, as endowed by God with the same rights I am endowed with. To my way of thinking, the main contribution I can make to any discussion is calm reasoning. Someone on either side of the racial divide commits a racist act on social media (which, of course, is limited to speech). I can pour water or gasoline on the situation. I can also ignore it, which I often do. But when I sense someone’s posts which seem benign enough are actually a mild racist act, I try to counter them with calm reasoning.
I’ve done that a couple of times in the last three or four days. It’s a first attempt with each of the individuals. I don’t know that my words did any good. But it’s a first attempt. I’ll make another attempt and then another. At some point I’ll make my calm reasoning a little stronger. Maybe they will be nudged a little closer to the One who can work a change in them. That’s my goal. I think that I’m happy with my efforts, though thus far they are too few. We’ll see how this works going forward.
My prior posts in this series have laid out a case, however correct or incorrect, that racism and racist acts are two different things, the latter springing from the former, and that many people who are racists don’t realize they are racists. Needless to say, we ought to be eradicating racism from our country. We ought to be eradicating racist acts from our country. We all who detest racism ought to be engaged in the process of eradication. And, not everyone will have the same role in the eradication.
Now I come to a discussion of how we accomplish that eradication. First, what do we do about racist acts?
We have laws on the books against racist acts. Housing and employment cannot be denied on the basis of race. The right to vote has been established by law and regulation without consideration of race. Other laws have been enacted, supported by regulations. Enforcement efforts exist at the state and Federal level. Court cases have backed-up most of these laws and regulations.
Are they perfect? I’m sure they aren’t. We can always take a look at our laws, many of them passed in the 1960s, and see how they can be strengthened. That’s a job for lawmakers at different levels of government. For them to know this is needed they need the input of those tasked with implementing the laws and regulations. They need input from those who have been on the receiving end of racist acts. From the data received the legislators can make informed decisions on how to strengthen that which is intended to prevent racist acts.
But even if the laws and regulations are made perfect, their implementation will probably not be perfect because they will be implemented by imperfect people—people who may or may not be racists, or may be latent racists. What will correct this? Policies by institutions and businesses will help. These policies must be well written, widely disseminated, and fully explained to those who must abide by them. Each of those steps have lots of room for imperfection, and constant vigilance is needed by those who work with the policies and those who manage the policies.
This diligence is obviously needed at all levels of law enforcement. Officers and administrators much watch to see that racist acts don’t creep in, almost unrecognized, such that suddenly the law is being administered in a racist way. Again, administrators need feedback to know that their diligence isn’t sufficient.
Feedback. What do I mean by that? It can be data, data such as “unarmed blacks are three times more likely to be killed in an encounter with police than are unarmed whites.” Both races sometimes get killed. The numbers of unarmed men who are killed by police are small (maybe 30 people per year for all races), but the disparity is real. Such data needs to be gathered, examined, and lead to changes in administration. Yes, data is important feedback.
What other type of feedback? How about protests? Protests are a way to bring lack of equal enforcement to public notice so that something can be done about it. Administrators, no matter how well-intentioned, how well-trained, how diligent, are fallible. They can easily miss something going on during their watch. A protest can alert them to this. A protest can also generate public awareness that will put pressure on administrators to correct unlawful situations. This can apply to businesses as well as government.
This covers racist acts. Correct laws and regulations properly implemented and acidulously watched should put an end to racist acts. As a nation we aren’t there. Plus, that’s only part of the problem. We still have racism to deal with. That will be the subject of the next post in this series.
Some racism is obvious, and some people know they are racists in their hearts. Some know they commit racist acts. A couple of encounters I had with racists years ago were with people in this category. They are like drivers who purposely speed. They know the speed limit but have decided they will not be governed by it. When caught speeding, they are typically defiant and unremorseful, sorry for getting caught but not for speeding.
But I believe some people who are racists don’t realize they hold racist beliefs. They rarely commit racist acts. When they do it is most likely to be spoken racism, not some physical act. They are like drivers who generally follow the speed limit generally but are often careless and drive had a speed that is comfortable even though they exceed the speed limit. When caught speeding they are remorseful, but may not believe they were really speeding.
I call people who don’t realize they are racists “latent racists”, and their brand of racism is “latent racism”. This is my own definition. I’m sure there’s a more formal, official term for this, but I don’t know what it is.
I like the term latent racism. I developed it from a term used in the HVAC industry that I encountered many years ago when I did structural design of buildings. The HVAC guys were talking about “latent heat”. I asked what it was, and they said it was the heat that bodies give off just as a matter of living. It had nothing to do with the sun. For designing heating systems, they could take advantage of latent heat; but for designing air conditioning they had to overcome latent heat in addition to the sun’s rays.
Latent racists don’t realize they are racists. Somewhere in the past, perhaps from parents, other relatives, or acquaintances, they saw racism modeled. They never made a conscious decision to look down on someone not of their color, but their subconscious absorption of racist examples cause them to feel that way about people of a different color. They won’t commit a racist act, other than racist statements might pop out of their mouths from time to time.
That time in North Carolina that I wrote about in a prior post was active racism, by young white men who said if whites would just band together “we can keep the blacks in their place.” Despicable. These are the type of people who carry torches in homage to Confederate statues.
But I can think of other times when I’ve encountered racism by people who don’t realize they are being racist. I want to be careful how I word this so as not to identify anyone. An older man in the church once said, in my presence, that he was organizing the neighborhood to “keep the Hispanics out” by making sure no one selling their home dropped the price to a threshold at which Hispanics would buy. This is actually a good man and, I’m sure, doesn’t see himself as racist. Keeping the racial homogeneity of the neighborhood was not, to his way of thinking, racist. He was a latent racist committing a latent racist statement in front of me. Whether he actually did what he said—organize the neighborhood—I don’t know. It wasn’t long after that I lost contact with him.
That may not be the best example of latent racism. Let me give another example, being equally vague about the circumstances and the person. This person said to me, during the 2016 presidential campaign, “Do you think Hillary will have her black people with her [at that event]?” I was shocked, for this was a godly person. I realized this person had grown up in an area where there were no people of color, had never (or almost never) lived around or even been around people of color. Obviously, with a statement like that there was racism in the person’s heart, but I don’t think the person even realized it.
Or, another example, being equally vague, of someone connected with a school district, began spouting off how the blacks won’t learn, the Hispanics won’t learn, you can’t teach them, they won’t behave, etc. etc. I got angry that time and said something and got the person to stop. This person, if you asked him/her, would say they were not racist, yet they clearly were.
I should add that, of late, I have seen an awful lot of latent racist statements on social media, people saying things they don’t realize are racist. If you confronted them they would say, “That’s not racist, I’m not a racist.” They might even say, “There is no racism.” Coming to a conclusion that there is no racism is, I believe, a sign that a person is a latent racist.
Why am I going on about this? I’ve been building up to a conclusion about how I think we should deal with racism but I felt I needed to set the stage of how I see racism. If we are going to combat it we have to understand it. How does a person become a latent racist? I think obviously by example of others, both open racists and latent racists. It’s learned by “osmosis”, not by active teaching.
So, I’m at the end of my post. And I’m pretty much at the end of setting the stage, explaining the problem. In my next post in the series, I’ll start talking about what I see are solutions to the problem. I don’t know if that will be in my next post or if I will have to take a little more time to pull it all together.
In prior posts in this series, I discussed the difference between racism (what occurs in the hearts of men) and racist acts (what is done in the open as a result of racism in the heart—actually, I suppose racist acts can be done privately), which includes speech.
Why do I differentiate between racism and racist acts? Because it is possible to deal with racist acts through legislation, regulations, corporate policy, and public pressure. Racism, however, cannot be dealt with in the same way. Since racism is inside a person, ending racism requires a change of the heart. Racism gives rise to racist acts.
So, if racism and racist acts are different, the former giving rise to the latter, and if different means are necessary to combat them, then obviously you need people who can work the different approaches.
I say this because of statements I see on Facebook about the needs to scream out “Justice for George Floyds” or “I can’t breath” or “Black lives matter”. One friend, a woman fellow-writer I know only from on-line writer groups, went as far as to say:
If you aren’t outraged over this, if you aren’t willing to shout Black Lives Matter on Facebook, then go ahead and unfriend me now.
That’s an approximate quote. I commented on her post, went back recently on her timeline, to review her post and the comments I and she made to it. Here’s her post.
No disrespect to anyone, if you found out I unfriended you. This isn’t coming from hatred, but anyone who posts All Lives Matter, anyone who posts negative comments toward the protestors, anyone who hasn’t mentioned anything about what’s going on AND hasn’t even liked any of my posts to show they care are being deleted off my FB.
You don’t need me in your life, and quite frankly I don’t need you either
I pointed out to her, lovingly I believe, that this essentially says, “Unless you fight racism the way I’m fighting racism you’re doing it wrong and we can’t be friends.” She’s giving a one-size-fits-all approach. I simply can’t agree with that.
Some people are called to fight racism through legislation. Some people must work on regulations. Some have to strengthen these. Some have to see them properly and diligently implemented from administrative positions. Some need to do the same from a law enforcement position. Some need to attack it from the judicial system.
All of those in the previous paragraph relate to racist acts, not racism. Clearly one person isn’t able to do all those things in the fight to achieve racial equality. The pathway is clear, I believe, in how to combat racist acts. We as a society may disagree in a few particulars, but the general approach can be figured out and tackled.
Concerning racism, the means of combating it is also clear, though more difficult. You have to change men’s hearts. You have to help them come to an understanding that all races are equal before God and thus should be in society. An honest belief that is true. A belief that results in their changing their behavior. Needless to say, before you can help another to come to this belief you must have that as your own belief. You must change your own heart.
Except, as a Christian I don’t believe that changing the heart is something man can do. Only God can change a heart.
That doesn’t mean that man has no part in dealing with racism in the heart. What man can do is help other men to see the error of their beliefs and urge them to bring the matter before God, asking for God’s help, His intervention. That’s our part in this equation.
How do we do that? What can we do to help people see the racism within them and do something about it? How can we help a person who has nothing to do with God to seek His help in the matter? I’m not sure I have all the answers to this. But I’m sure that if one size doesn’t fit all in the grand approach to combating racism, then one size doesn’t fit all in dealing with the range of people who hold racist views. What helps one person won’t help another.
Where does that leave us? Where are we on the spectrum of combating racism? Where am I? I’ll deal with this in my next post. For now I’ll just say that my friend’s approach, a one-size-fits-all approach, is insufficient to end racism. I’d like to think my comments made a difference in what she believes. A post she made later suggests that she agrees with me, and that her earlier post didn’t accurately reflect what she thinks about combating racism.
I wrote a post some time ago about Colin Kaepernick’s protest during the playing of the national anthem at the start of NFL games. Since then, many other players have joined the protest. They won’t stand for the anthem, looking at the flag with their hand over their heart. Instead, they stand, kneel, sit, or raise a fist. What Kaepernick started has grown significantly. No end is in sight.
The protest is mostly by black players. It concerns unfair treatment of black Americans by police forces throughout the nation. They say that police are harsher in their dealings with Blacks, and are more likely to shoot and shoot to kill, whereas with Whites the police try more extensively to work it out with verbal commands. I hope I’ve stated this position correctly.
The protest is very visible, as they intend for it to be. It has also produced considerable response from NFL fans, a response that is, perhaps, exactly opposite of what the protesters want. Fans are tuning out in anger. Attendance at NFL games is down this year. Television ratings are down. Both of these drops seem to be more than statistical anomalies, and rather reflect that something’s going on. The NFL has suggested it’s due to over-saturation, and that they’ve gone too far in pushing the NFL out to the public. Most people, however, believe the drop in attendance and viewership is fan backlash against the protests.
You could say that the fans are making their own protest, a private protest against the protesting players and against the league, which is allowing them to do this. But is a silent protest any good? Shouldn’t protests be visible? Otherwise, how to you bring about the change in the situation you’re protesting? To not do a thing is passive. To do a thing is active. Players are actively protesting, and fans are passively protesting the active protest of the players.
I haven’t heard any fans who say the players have no case, or are protesting a problem that doesn’t exist. Fans are simply saying the protests are at the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong way. Or, perhaps another way of interpreting this, is fans truly aren’t sympathetic to the protest, i.e. they don’t see the same problem as the players see, and thus don’t want to hear about it. They don’t say this, but they believe this. Who knows which is correct.
Into this mix, throw in the concept of free speech. The players have a right to protest, a God-given right of free speech protected from government interference by the Constitution. Yes, this is true. Also true is that everyone who works for a living gives up some of their rights when they enter their employer’s place of business. Some even give up some of this right outside of the place of business. A public school teacher who posts nude photos of themself online, outside of normal working hours, will almost certainly be fired. Long ago I realized that I shouldn’t put political bumper stickers on my vehicle, since my employer seeks to win public projects and any political display by me might hurt those prospects. My employer never said don’t display political leanings in a way that would harm us. It wasn’t necessary to mention it; I was smart enough to know not to. But, had my employer said that, my rights would not have been restricted. It was an employer saying that, not the government.
So where am I going with this? I look at the protesting NFL players. Their employer—either the teams or the league—could restrict their free speech as a condition of employment. But the teams haven’t, and the league hasn’t. What’s going on, however, is they are losing their audience. Their protests are backfiring. Because the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees you a right to free speech (i.e. no government infringement on free speech) but it does not guarantee you an audience. You have to earn an audience, earn it by the way you protest and the words you say. Earn it by making plain what it is you are protesting, not just grandstand the problem. Earn it by trying to actually make a change, not just call attention to it.
Someone might say, “Some are in a position to make changes; others are in a position to call attention to the changes needed but not necessarily to bring about the changes.” That’s a valid argument. However, everyone needs to consider the effectiveness of their work (in this case their protest), and decide if the audience is getting the message, which would suggest that change is coming. If the audience isn’t getting the message, or if the audience is rejecting the message, it’s time to reconsider the protest methods and perhaps do something else.
This is where we are right now, it seems to me. The NFL players who are protesting are losing their audience. Meaning they aren’t bringing about the change they desire. It might be time to change tactics.
I assume the NFL players are trying to make me see the need for a change: that I’m part of their target audience. I don’t know for sure if that’s what they want, but I think that’s the case. I’m just a part of who they want to reach. They want to reach the whole country. I’m part of that demographic.
I would say to the players: Look around you. See how your protests are being received. Is your message getting through? If not, change what you’re doing. Protest in another manner. Or, better yet, rather than just calling attention to a problem, DO SOMETHING to solve the problem. Your platform is huge; your influence is great. If you would work to solve the problem, rather than just call attention to it, maybe, just maybe, you will change the world.
The Confederate monument on the square in downtown Bentonville
Once again, removal of Confederate monuments, symbols, and references from the states that were part of the Confederacy is hot in the news, even in the city I work in, Bentonville, Arkansas. Actually, it’s not just the states of the Confederacy that have such monuments. The border states, the ones that were slave-holding but stayed in the Union, also have a fair number of Confederate monuments. And, a few such monuments exist in states that made up the Union side—not many, but a few.
In addition to monuments, you have: schools named for leaders of the Confederacy; military bases named for leaders of the Confederacy; US Navy ships named for leaders of the Confederacy; streets named for…you get the picture. These are everywhere, at the Federal, state, and local level.
It’s hard to see, but behind the landscaping recently added, in big, bold letters is “CONFEDERATE”
Should they be removed? And, if so, how far should you go? In the city of Lowell, Arkansas, which is in the county where I live and work, a street is named for William Henry Harrison, 9th president of the USA. At two city council meetings I attended in that city, during public comment time, a certain man stood up and demanded that the street be renamed, because Harrison was a slave owner (I got the impression this man did this in every city council meeting). Is that a good idea? If so, you should also rename streets named after George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, etc., who were also slave owners.
How this monument gives praise to a public servant.
But focusing for a moment on the monument issue, should they be removed from public land? Most such monuments are to the leaders of the Confederacy, such as General Robert E. Lee and President Jefferson Davis. But not all of them are. The monument in the square in Bentonville is to a man named James H. Berry. Originally from Alabama, he was raised in Bentonville and eventually became a legislator, governor, and U.S. senator. But, before that, during the Civil War, he enlisted and became a junior officer. Being wounded in one of his first battles, he came home and took no further part in the war. The monument, however, isn’t really about him. The statue is of him, and his name appears, with a plaque that details his years of public service. But elsewhere on the monument is this inscription: “1861-1865 To the Southern soldiers” On the base of the monument, on each of the four sides, the word “Confederate” is prominently displayed. This was erected in 1908, forty-three years after the end of the Civil War. On the base of the statue, on all four sides, “CONFEDERATE” appears in the largest letters on the statue.
A movement is now afoot to remove this monument. Should it be removed? The funny thing about this, there was absolutely no clamor about removing this monument until Sunday, August 13, 2017. In light of what had happened in Charlottesville, Virginia on the two previous days, a group of concerned people got together in Bentonville to make a public statement against hate. They did this in the center of the city, which is the square in front of the courthouse, the square where this monument is. As they got together, they stood on the paved path that encircles monument. They held hands as they sang and prayed for unity, peace, and giving up hate. I was unable to go due to an after-church meeting. From what I can tell based on reports, the “demonstration” was beautiful. The venue, however, was the worst possible place in the city to hold such a gathering. You decry racism and hate while encircling a Confederate monument? The event organizers should have thought that one through a little more. At the end of the “demonstration,” a number of people started chanting “Tear it down!” What else could you expect?
What it says on the monument around the corner. The other reason for it, perhaps the main reason.
But I ask again, should this monument be removed? As I said in an earlier post on this blog, I say no: don’t tear down this monument, or any other. I say that as a man of mixed race but who knew nothing of the black component of my heritage until I was 46 years old, who never faced racial prejudice, who was raised in the north but who has spent most of his adult life in the south. This monument wasn’t erected to be a symbol against me or my people. So I can certainly understand that the feelings of others that are contrary to mine are valid, and perhaps more valid than mine.
Again I suggest that we not tear down this monument in Bentonville, or those in other places. Rather, add to them to tell the full history. To this monument in Bentonville, I suggest adding these words. If they won’t fit on the monument itself, find another way to prominently display them so that they will be seen equally with what’s already there.
This man, while honorable and a public servant, fought to preserve slavery. That may or may not have been his intent, but that’s what he did. That’s what all the enlisted soldiers did. They fought to preserve white ownership of blacks for no other reason than skin color. Remember this. Learn from it. Never let such an injustice happen again.
The print book is now available.
Do that in Bentonville. Do that in Charlottesville. Do that in Richmond. Do that at Stone Mountain, Georgia, along with an image of a white overseer whipping black slaves. Do this, and the full history will be told. Do this, and maybe, just maybe, we will make sure no such injustice happens again. And maybe, just maybe, the hate that these monuments seem to promote will be lessened, or even done away with.
We won’t expunge history, but will tell it fully and openly. We won’t forget it. And learn from it.
At the spray park on Memorial Day, there was no black or white—only people having a good time.
This past weekend, a four-day weekend for me, we went to Oklahoma City to be with our daughter and her family. We had missed a birthday weekend for two grandchildren earlier in the month, so we sort of made up for it with this weekend. Our time was full of typical holiday weekend stuff. I even slept out in a tent in the backyard one night with the three older grandkids.
One bad things that happened: When I woke up from a Sunday afternoon nap, sitting in a chair on their patio, with my head back against a pillar, my knee was hurting really badly. No reason for it. I didn’t trip, didn’t wrench it. Within three days it was back to normal, which includes some underlying pain until I get it replaced. Very weird. That’s actually not part of the story, but I thought you might be interested.
The story is my observations at the local spray park on Memorial Day. This is a neat park, across the street from the grandkids elementary school. We got there around 10:30 in the morning. No other cars were there, and the water wasn’t going. I thought perhaps the park was closed. However, I soon found out you turn the water on by rubbing your hand over a sensor. The water runs on a timer, and must be restarted every five minutes or so. I thought that was nice, with no wasted water. That’s quite good.
Within 15 minutes, other cars began arriving. Within an hour, the parking lot was half full and the park was awash with kids, of all ages, having a great time with the different jets, with spray guns and water balloons. In the two hours we were there, I didn’t see anyone hurt. We left there with three happy, but tired, kids, and two tired adults.
That’s not much of a story, you say, not worthy of a blog post. No, but let me finish. On this weekend, for reading material, I brought the printed first-draft of my work-in-progress, Documenting America: Civil War Edition. I started reading/editing it Sunday afternoon. I made good progress despite my nap and my knee. I was reading chapters I’d written almost three years ago, chapters about the early days of the Civil War, when the Union and Confederacy were laying out their war aims. Soon I’ll be reading later chapters. In all of these, race is a factor.
Race, first as in slavery, then as in segregation, all with the belief that the black race was inferior to the white race, and thus bondage for them was the normal condition. Short of that, segregation was next best. As I wrote in the book, the source materials I had to go through to write this were painful to read, and painful to write about. We’ve sure come a long way as a nation. I’m not saying we’ve come as far as we should, or can, but I’m glad for what progress we have made.
Which brings me back to the spray park. We were the first family there that day. The second family was a black woman with four children. Later conversation revealed one was her child, three were nephews or nieces. The third and fourth families were black. The fifth family was white. After that I lost count, or rather didn’t bother to count, because I didn’t really care. I was so happy that the white and black race can mix like that. When the park was quite well populated, I’d say the races were pretty well balanced. No one seemed to care. Splash and play feels about the same for whites as it does for blacks.
I thought of how fifty or sixty years ago, spray parks like this would have been segregated, and wouldn’t have been built in black neighborhoods at all. Yes, we have made progress.
I’ll get through this round of edits, print it again, and read it again. I’d say I’m a little more than a month away from having a finished book, ready for publication. The pain of reading the old, racist materials will pass. Hopefully the words I added to the source words will make a difference with someone, and will improve race relations just a little. That’s what I hope for.
