May I vent for a moment?
For me, the saddest thing about the Henry Louis Gates incident is that we’re no better off now as a nation than before it happened. Like President Obama, I’d hoped it would become a “teachable moment,” a chance to learn from each other’s experiences and understand both the pressures felt by well-meaning police officers and the pain and indignity felt by African American men in these types of encounters. But even Obama hasn’t been able to finesse the national conversation in a way to get us all on the same page—or least in the same ream of paper.
Those who say Professor Gates was completely wrongheaded and unreasonable aren’t willing to take seriously the history (both distant and recent) that has defined the relationship between African American men and law enforcement. And those who say Officer James Crowley was just a racist, rogue cop are not willing to take seriously this man’s totality of experiences as both a public servant and a human being.
The bottom line: As Eric Holder suggested some months ago, we’re a nation afraid (or simply unwilling) to put in the kind of concerted effort required to truly understand each other across racial lines. I understand that many of us are weary of having to either defend against knee-jerk accusations of racism or educate our fellow citizens on its daily realities. But until we resolve to lay aside our anger, distrust, and cynicism and love our neighbor as Christ commands, nothing is going to change.
Okay, I’m done. I’ll probably read this later and regret hitting publish, but just had to get that out.
It’s OK to vent Ed. And as usual you presented a pretty balanced view – you acknowledge both sides of the issue. Hoping with you that more of us will be able to view issues in this way and that we do make some progress here.
Dude – don’t regret it. Embrace it.
You see it’s the people who publish these kinds of posts – when it is the hardest – who will push forward the “agenda” of true racial reconciliation.
Racial reconciliation is like a marriage constantly on the rocks.
The difference is that many people (not all, otherwise we would not have the divorce rate we have) will work and make efforts to discuss the issues in order to better the marriage and come to a common ground to live together peacefully. It this marriage – which, let’s face it – I did not choose nor did any of us but we are in it all together – there is very little discussion. Only when there are blow ups does the discussion occur – in the heat of the moment and in a highly emotionally charged way. We don’t take advantage of opportunities to advance the cause in non-threatening ways.
Well CNN and Soledad O’Brien are doing a decent job with the Black in America conversation but that is really it.
Could you imagine a real marriage working this way?
Yeah. That’s what I thought.
Great post! I’m sitting in Kenya with a slow internet connection, so I’m limited to a few written on-line articles, but I don’t see any way you make that arrest–no matter what he says to you. (It was like it turned into a personal power game, and the police officer had the cuffs.)
I too have been disappointed with the direction the conversation seems to have taken. The vast majority of white Americans still don’t want to admit that racism continues to be huge problem even if there are other complicating factors.
One thing that pains me when I read some of your posts is sense I get that you don’t feel free to be free–like you are going to get beat up if you say what’s really on your mind. And I can totally envision how that happens (and has happened in the past).
hi ed,
i just found your blog and am (a soon to be!) member at crosstown. i agree that we are not in a post-racist society and that conversation is still needed. however, when i have tried to have this conversation with both whites and blacks, i get a defensive posture and a line about race not being an issue and that they themselves are color-blind. (mainly in bolingbrook, this was not the case when we lived in detroit. people were well aware there were still issues.) but is this really the answer? pretending that history hasn’t happened? pretending that people aren’t acting knowingly or unknowingly from bias everyday?
and once we get to the place where we can agree that conversation is needed, how does that conversation start?
It’s a shame the media seems to try to exacerbate the situation to get ratings.
“Even Obama?” He was one of the first people to jump to conclusions as the President and said the cops acted stupidly before he had one fact about what happened. Then he wants to talk down to rest of us and tell the rest of us what we should learn.
I guess I had to vent too.
Unless you think all cops are liars, I’d encourage people to actually read the police report. Then maybe decide what you think – about this incident.
Judy, with all due respect, your response is one of the reasons why I’m feelings so discouraged about this thing. What has happened is that folks have become more entrenched in the polarized views that they already held. Whites (and others) who dislike Obama and believe blacks are always “playing the race card” see the events one way, and blacks (and others) who support Obama and have an understanding (often personal) of the historically tense relationship between black men and the police in this country see things a different way. I read the rundown of the police report, and I also read the statements from Professor Gates. Frankly, I think the truth probably lies somewhere in between.
Thanks, everyone, for chiming in. Amanda and Denise, I appreciate your encouragement and wisdom. Julana, I agree that the media pushed this one a bit; however, as someone who works in journalism, I must admit it’s a compelling story.
Ben, thanks for checking in all the way from Kenya. Hope you’re having a great trip. You may be right that I hold back sometimes, but only because I’d like to see the conversation continue without my very human emotions or opinions getting in the way.
Cheryl, thanks so much for commenting. It’s nice to see you here. I think the conversation starts when one or both parties are willing to put aside their pride and bitterness, ask forgiveness for their part in the conflict, and ask to hear the other person’s perspective—and then to genuinely listen.
One of my Facebook friends asked me how I thought the Gates situation could’ve been handled better by both parties. Here’s what I wrote there:
“How could it have been handled better? Ideally, it would’ve been great if one (or both) of the parties would’ve stepped up on his own and forgiven whatever perceived offense he felt was lingering. Gates initially said that if Crowley apologized, he would forgive him; however, the right response, in my view, would’ve been to forgive him upfront and also ask forgiveness for anything he did that contributed to the escalation of emotion. Likewise, instead of saying he’d never apologize, Crowley should’ve offered his regrets for the way the situation turned out and apologized for anything about his behavior that might’ve mistakenly led Gates to feel humiliated or targeted. That would’ve been the ideal outcome. But unfortunately, we’re dealing with proud and sinful people & institutions in an overly litigious society.”
That’s not to say I would’ve been Christian enough to handle the situation in that ideal way had I been in one of those gentlemen’s shoes. God help us all.
Image vs. Substance
In 1 on July 26, 2009 at 3:38 am
Harvard Scholar Disorderly
Image vs. Substance
Whether Obama is in the White House, or not, to expect America to be a color blind country is too naive. The question should not focus on the presence of Racist cops in the land. Of course, there are. They are only a reflection of the society at large. The question should be on how the good professor tried to deal with the cops. More on the professor, later.
Whether the president of the U.S. is an African-American or not, according to a report by the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment rate for African-Americans in June of 2009 was 15.3 while for Whites the unemployment rate was 8.8 for the same period.
Whether the President’s father came from Kenya or not, a very high percentage of African-Americans continue to be in prison. In a very good study on the subject, professor Pamela Oliver of the University of Wisconsin at Madison writes, “US imprisonment rates are much higher than the rest of the world, and within the US, African Americans are imprisoned at least eight times as often as European Americans, About a third of African American men are under the supervision of the criminal justice system, and about 12% of African American men in their 20s and 30s are incarcerated.” How sad? But this is the reality.
This is the disparity between image and substance. I am sure a lot of people had wrongly assumed that Obama’s Presidency would overhaul the economic ( anarcho-capitalism) and social problems facing the country. This is nothing but to underestimate the choke hold powerful forces have on the system. The election of the first African-American president in the U.S. had even given false hopes to Africans. While it is nice for the image of the U.S. president to fly to Ghana for photo-ops for less than a twenty four hours stay, in terms of substance, the trip’s usefulness for the benefit and interest of Africa is close to nil. Stop looking at Africa as your step child. You want to help, join forces with the African Union and try to find solution to the problem in Somalia.
As my dear friend Ashley St.Claire is fond of saying, “A conclusion reached based on wrong assumptions is a sign of stupidity”.
Back to the issue of Professor Gates. The president was upset because the police had ”mistreated “ his ” friend”. The President said, “Well, I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don’t know all the facts. Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home”
If the president did not have all the facts, wouldn’t it have been advisable to wait before uttering the unfortunate “stupidity” comment? Less than twenty four hours later, the White House realizing the damage caused, the president told reporters, “My sense is you’ve got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve the incident in the way that it should have been resolved,” Then he let the world know that he had called Sergeant Crawley and has extended an invitation to the White House.So,now, the focus is not on the economy but on the arrest of a dear friend.
As one of the die hard supporters of the president Jon Stewart said, “I wasn’t at the press conference last night, and I also don’t have all the facts, but I think it’s fair to say that Obama handled that question — oh, what’s the word I’m looking for — stupidly?” OOPS.
Professor Gates who most certainly has no clue as to what happens to the average African American on a daily basis, may be, thought of himself so exceptional that he wondered how dare this cops want to check his I.D. As is always the case, ivory towers make professors feel patrician. Certain globe-trotting African-American professors actually have no understanding of the economic and social hell hole a very high percentage of African-Americans are at this moment. But there are those who speak on their behalf (so-called experts) without feeling the pains, and sufferings of the people. This incident wouldn’t have been an issue, if Henry Louis Gates Jr. had cooperated with the police like an average citizen usually does.
This I am sure will be a profitable incident for those who will write, direct, and appear in the up-coming documentary on racism in the police force. Stay tuned. The actions of the jokers at ivory towers never cease to amaze me. Lighten up. Don’t take yourselves too seriously.
Professor Mekonen Haddis
What amazes me is the though that people must “understand pain and indignity felt by African American men in these types of encounters.”
Why should we bother to continue to tolerate misbehavior based on people bitterly clinging to their racism and greivances? How long does being Black get to continue being an excuse for such things?
Blacks commit more crimes, especially violent crimes and drug-related crimes, per capita than any other demographic in America. They may, in fact, commit more crimes period, as opposed to per capita, than anyone else in America. Why is it “Wrong” for the anyone, especially the Police, to take those facts into account during an encounter?
Oh yeah…They’re Black and they got screwed over for a long time. We can’t treat them like normal people; that’ be racist.
jonolan,
your need to end your remarks with sarcasm only proves ed’s point. if we can’t make a point without injecting sarcasm, anger or frustration from either side, then clearly useful (and civil) conversation is still needed.
and i would wholeheartedly disagree that we should not seek to understand another’s pain. in the book of hebrews it says about jesus:
“Since he himself has gone through suffering and testing, he is able to help us when we are being tested.”
apparently empathy and identification were an important part of god’s plan for restoration. why should ours be any different?
Appreciate your post. Adding you to my blogroll.
I can see things from both points of view.
I think what is most interesting is the tussle of power that this incident displays.
Didi Gates overreact? quite probably. He was upset. He felt slighted. He didin’t remain calm.
However…what’s the point of arresting someone simply because they’re upset and not being “nice” to a police officer?
I think the problem lies in the discretion that police officers have in bringing in people who are simply frustrating them, or not being as cooperative as they want them to be.
That’s what’s at stake here. Was Gates behavior, in his own home, constitute any sort of criminal offense?
I can’t imagine anyone seriously thinking so. If it didn’t, then arresting him seems to be born out of a show of power by Crowley.
I appreciate all that police officers do, but some of them do tend to have an attachment to the power that the uniform gives them.
ugh…bad proofreading of my comment
“Did” Gates’ behavior…not was.
I think a large reason why there is such an inability to have teachable moments is because there are no models of such discussions in the mainstream media. I find CNN, Fox, etc. attempts at having dialogues and discussion to further aggravate the problem. How can you spend 5 minutes on of 3 or 4 different people trying to have their say and expect anything of any depth to be truly ‘taught’. I think in recent months, one of the few “teachable” moments was when Rachel Maddow came on her show after she’d had Pat Buchanon on and debunked a lot of the racial myths he’d been spouting.
Also, I don’t think people of color should be relied on as teachers about race unles it’s in a class about race. Personally, I don’t want to “teach” my white friends about race, not because I don’t love or care for them, but because I am not a teacher. And, in my experience, I become relied on as a “race expert” or something, but they never do the hard work or reading and critical thought that I try to do. I do want to help them further their knowledge and I’m happy to give them book suggestions and discuss things with them, but I’m not a teacher, and I don’t think I should be depended on as such. If there is truly a desire to know more and learn, they’ll make the effort, and I’ll be glad to walk alongside the journey, but I don’t want to teach.
I would never deny that racism is still a problem in this country (or around the world, for that matter). In one month we’ve had the pool incident in Philadelphia; Sen. Boxer pulling her little “But I thought all you blacks were supposed to think alike!” stunt with Harry Alford; a case I read about where a publisher insisted on putting a picture of a white girl on the cover of a novel about a black girl; and, I’m sure, many more incidents that I haven’t heard of.
But at some point, each case must be judged solely on its own merits, and every party involved given a fair hearing. And in this case, all I would ask is that the President of the United States wouldn’t publicly accuse a U.S. citizen of “acting stupidly” when — by his own admission — he did not have all the facts.
If that makes seem like a cold and uncaring person, I’m truly sorry. But I simply don’t think that this is an unreasonable standard of conduct for a head of state.
Silvah – great point and funny I find a generational difference raring it’s head.
I am not a teacher by trade but have the gift of influencing and teaching others and quite often have been relied on as the “racial expert”
Right, wrong or indifferent – I embrace this. Because I have learned over the years that experience is the best teacher. One-to-one relationships with people outside our race is the best way to learn and become empathetic to the story that is unfolding before us.
I applaud you for stating that you don’t want to teach but would ask that you consider it when the right opportunity presents itself. You are a great communicator and perhaps you are being called to share your view.
Enough of the old lady giving unsolicited advice 🙂
ED – you are the man! I concur with your response and the FB response. We must continue the dialogue – even when it’s tough and we learn things about those we care about that perhaps we don’t really want to know 🙂
Something I am learning from my little municipal elected office in LITH, persevering toward what is right is never popular or applauded. However, the clean conscience that we have when we do so is priceless. It also fortifies our drive into the future.
The reason that we do not have teachable moments is that as soon as jonolan makes a comment you don’t like, you call him out of order and say you are discouraged. I believe you are trying to sound evenhanded, and very much want to be so, but you are not.
Perhaps the incident did not rise to the level of an arrest for Disorderly Conduct – perhaps – but up until that point Gates’ behavior was reprehensible and Crowley’s exemplary. You don’t mention that. The backhanded “those who say Officer James Crowley was just a racist, rogue cop” – as if that has any evidence to support it – is not promoting reconciliation, but division. After calm reflection – anyone can shoot off their mouth and regret it later – Gates could have made some statement of reconciliation, Obama could have made some vague apology for leaping to conclusions and injecting himself inappropriately into a local matter. Neither did. Both are intent on making it worse. They want victory, not reconciliation. Gates has offered to educate Crowley about the history of racism in America if he will only apologize. Yeah, that’s nice.
Or do Gates and Obama have none of the responsibility for this reconciliation? The Cambridge PD drops the charges. Crowley makes no inflammatory statements. What good faith effort has Gates made?
Sure, let’s not have any divisive language. All those plantation owners had their template, and slaves had theirs, and the truth probably lay somewhere in between, right? The truth is always somewhere in between, say people who want to seem evenhanded. But most of the time truth does not come down at the 50% mark just because we would like it to. Jesus did not preach a message of reconciliation with the Pharisees, but with God. With truth. With knowledge of sin.
I’m not afraid to have a conversation about race. I think Holder had it exactly backwards. We have been discussing race for years without effect because some things must not be said. You hint that Crowley might be racist – that can be said. There is not a hint from you that Gates was racist – that must not be said. That incidents between AA’s and the police always have racial subtext – that can be said. That this situation stripped of its racial element is just another episode from a reality cop show – that must not be said.
Thanks, Assistant Village Idiot. I’m used to the sort of response I got – well, actually I’m used to a lot worse. 😉
There do seem to be things “that must not be said,” irrespective of whether or not their true or a valid argument.
Just look at our host’s comment:
That can be said. Indeed, it is considered very appropriate in this benighted country to explain “polarization” as a conflict between what Whites “believe” and what Blacks “understand.”
If I were to say the same thing, but simply reverse the placement of “believe” and “understand,” that would not be considered appropriate…
As for “Teachable Moments” – there are plenty of them. It’s just that many Blacks and ethno-guiltists are trying to teach the wrong curriculum.
Jonolan and Assistant Village Idiot,
If you seek to understand where your host and others are coming from, why they say some of the things they do, I would recommend reading the book Being White by Paula Harris and Doug Shaupp. It describes how those of us in the majority context can’t comprehend what minorities say about their daily life reality, because we are a part of the majority. It helps explain other things that are going on that we can’t see.
Sure, there are times when the truth isn’t at the 50% middle, but the way to find out what the truth is, is to actually take in all the perspectives and value them and explore them. Some people come to these types of conversations with their minds already made up. It can be hard to be open to understanding, and we often get defensive because we only know what we know, but I think what Ed is arguing for is that all parties involved move through that defensiveness in order to reach mutual understanding.
And as a side note, Jesus didn’t tell the Jews to go to the other extreme of Pharisees, either, and forsake all laws and traditions. There he sought the balance between behaviors/beliefs – to value tradition and the principles of the laws, but not become slaves to it or enslave others with it.
As far as evenhandedness, maybe we just have different thoughts on what that is. I think keeping sarcasm out of both sides of a discussion where people are trying to reach mutual understanding is pretty evenhanded.
Peace.
Thanks AVI for your comments. I consider myself coachable and love opportunities to learn especially from people who see the world differently than I.
“The truth is always somewhere in between, say people who want to seem evenhanded. But most of the time truth does not come down at the 50% mark just because we would like it to. Jesus did not preach a message of reconciliation with the Pharisees, but with God. With truth. With knowledge of sin.”
The quotes above permeate my brain as I read and re-read your post. Especially the part of reconciliation… perhaps that is the answer to this debate. Our reconciliation to our Maker should be the desire of all involved. Then and only then will truth be revealed to us.
I love what you say about the “somethings that must not be said” I think all those things should be said and more. Whatever it takes to get us to a peaceful coexistence – am I saying we’re all gonna be singing kumbaya? Not at all but we need to speak truthfully without fear so that we can get to the heart of the matter and start learning differently.
I appreciate your contribution to this blog.
jonolan – good call out on the language – never saw it that way until you pointed it out. I will ask this, could it be that there are things/situations/experiences that inherently one point of view understands more so than another? My best example would be the military and war – I have several members of my family who are veterans and they have radically different point of views about war and conflict than I – yet my view is based on my “belief” about this topic vs. theirs that is based on first hand knowledge or an “understanding” – one in Korean war, two in Vietnam and one in the current middle east conflict.
Now comparing race relations to war may be stretching it to you but to me it is a logical comparison.
I don’t know and welcome you to enlighten me.
Wow, this is an excellent conversation, folks! Thanks so much for bringing new insight to this topic. It really is so much bigger than the Gates incident. I especially appreciate your willingness to hang in there and share your perspectives, even when you strongly disagree with the other commenters—and with me.
To Jonolan, AVI, Judy, and others who take issue with the semantics of my language or my attempts at “evenhandedness,” thanks for pushing back. I hope it never seems like I’m trying to squelch your perspectives; I want to hear them—I need to hear them. I actually feel honored and humbled that you would choose to share your hearts on this blog, given that my views probably run counter to yours more often than not.
At the same time, I want to make it clear that I’ve never claimed to be totally neutral or evenhanded on this blog. It is my desire to facilitate a discussion around these issues of racial reconciliation, but that certainly doesn’t mean I’m without my own biases or cultural perspectives. I’m an African American who went to mostly white schools and now (by choice) attends a mostly white church. I generally voted Republican all of my voting life until 2004, when I started to mix it up more. My tendency is to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt when he makes ill-considered comments like he did during last week’s press conference; I notice that for others the tendency is to naturally seize upon those types of missteps as proof of Obama’s ignorance or preference for one race over another. Hey, that’s politics! I get that. But differences in political beliefs or affiliation shouldn’t mean we can’t talk, right?
We all come to the table with a different set of perspectives formed by lives filled with deep and complex and varied experiences. What I’d like to see is for us to acknowledge that, take it seriously, see others as fellow human beings and citizens (not as stereotypes or labels), and engage each other with the understanding that I’ve got beliefs, ideas, and experiences that you can learn from and you’ve got beliefs, ideas, and experiences that I can learn from.
But this is also the hardest part, because it’s usually a lot easier to sum up a person based on our personal database of stereotypes and labels. So, when a white person uses a certain word that I understand as “code” for something else, I jump on that and say, “Ah, see, he’s a bigot!” Or when a black person starts to spout off on “that” issue again, some whites will immediately take that as, “There they go, playing the race card.” It happens over and over, every day, on blogs and news sites across the Web. And that’s what I find to be so discouraging—that real communication across racial lines is being squelched because many folks have made up their minds already that another human being is not worth listening to or taking seriously because they fit the profiles in our minds of the “typical” black person or white person or Native American person or Asian person or Hispanic person or Democrat or Republican.
I know that it gets old hearing black folks chiming on about discrimination and racism, or hearing white folks say they don’t see color, but are we willing to hang in there with those people to hear their stories and try to understand why they feel that way? Or is it just not worth it? One of the greatest commandments is to love our neighbor, and I’m coming to believe that this is the toughest one, because it just doesn’t mean being nice to them or selectively choosing the ones that we can tolerate; it means really “loving”—i.e. listening to, being patient with, refusing to label—those who are different from us or with whom we disagree.
I’m certainly not there yet; in fact, I probably take backward steps every day. But, again, that’s why I need to hear the diversity of views expressed on this and other blogs. Thanks, folks, for hanging in there with me.
Peace,
Ed G.
Denise Barreto,
Yes, I agree that there are some things that direct experience thereof provides better understanding. That’s a two-edge sword though; it cuts – or at least it must cut – in both directions.
There is either “belief” on both sides or “understanding” on both sides. The measure must be consistent and the yardstick the same in order to reach any lasting reconciliation between any two parties.
Edward,
I’m truly unsure just how much we fundamentally disagree on many issues. Our interactions haven’t gone on long enough for me to discern that.
You say you tend to give Pres. Obama the benefit of the doubt “when he makes ill-considered comments like he did during last week’s press conference.”
Why? If it had been McCain who made a similar “racially charged” gaffe, would you have had a tendency to give him the benefit of the doubt?
I’m not color-blind, and I have my own prejudices – more based on apparent culture than biology, but prejudices all the same – but I do try to measure all people by the same yardstick.
In other words, if some “cracker-assed,” White GOP or “Dixiecrat” politician is to be rightly reviled for such a statement, so must a Black one.
I think that there’s plenty of room to debate and argue the nature and specifics of that standard, but I don’t we can have any reconciliation while we maintain more than one.
Honestly, it has nothing to do with race. I would find it difficult to give Marion Berry any benefit of the doubt. And there are definitely African American politicans here in the Chicago area that I’d have a hard time putting my confidence in. 🙂
Actually, I would give Senator McCain the benefit of the doubt, and have. Though I may disagree with him on some things, I’ve always believed him to be an honest and forthright gentleman. I also gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt (though not necessarily his vice president), at least until around 2004. I probably wouldn’t include Sarah Palin on my list based on some of the divisive statements she made during the presidential campaign, but to be fair I don’t have much else upon which to base my opinion. And, of course, it’s just my finite opinion.
What divisive racial statements did Palin make?
Thank you for the answer, especially since the question could have been taken as an accusation given the stress inducing nature of the topic.
I can certainly understand believing in someone’s character and giving them the benefit of the doubt over a single issue because of that. I particularly do it, but I can understand it.
Edward, that was fair-spoken and deserves a fair response. Rather than shooting from the hip I will contemplate this over dinner and evening errands and reply later tonight.
To identify me, you should know that I was a 60’s radical of the noisy and condescending type, and remained on the Religious Left until the late 80’s. I am more postliberal than conservative or libertarian. I am the father of five sons and deeply concerned that adults take responsibility for their words and actions. I am a Covenanter, but rather post-evangelical at this point. I have a blogspot blog of my own under this name. I came over on a link from commenter terri, who is one of my regular readers.
By chance, if chance we call it, I read one of my favorite quotes from Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago just after my last post: “Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains … an unuprooted small corner of evil.”
It is a good reminder, that the line oscillates, and in another situation Gates, Obama, or Crowley might be more noble, or less. Whatever we decide about the incident, it is a single incident – much more is needed before we might venture a generalization.
There is always a lot of debris that is lying about at the introduction to such discussions, but trying to clear it all away can be tedious and unnecessary. I’ll deal with it as it comes up.
It would be nice if this could be downplayed and treated as a more individual matter, but that toothpaste can’t go back in the tube now. Every tribe is trying to capture this incident as a symbolic example illustrating their worldview. Real life events seldom fit as neatly into the template as we’d like, so people bend the information and leave things out, trying to force it. Because the event itself now has persuasive power, and whoever can impose his will on the narrative will count it a victory.
The first thing we must do in such situations is to force everyone back to the facts, and not allow anyone to mind-read or attribute motive without evidence.
An important body of knowledge that is being left out of the discussion is why the police do what they do. They are trained to take control of a situation they enter, not because they are pricks or control freaks, but because innocent people get dead if they don’t. The intense lights, the irritating flashing blues, the uniforms, the stances, the words chosen – these are tactics. They are not meant to be like everyday interactions. These techniques are intimidating, not because they think that’s cool, but because it works. It is good police work.
I hate it too when it happens to me. It feels like some punk or yahoo cop is getting his jollies making me sweat because of a taillight. But that’s not what is happening. It feels that way because that’s what the technique is supposed to do. It trades on our normal social responses to put us in a certain place.
Warm-hearted people think this is terrible. They believe it would work much better if the police were more engaging and informal. Many times, it would work better. It often turns out to be unnecessary. But when it is necessary, and the police do not establish control of the situation, lots of bad things happen. People who feel wronged get a vigilante attitude, believing that the police are ineffective. Criminals and sociopaths take immediate advantage of the situation, swifter than thought. Crime increases, against both person and property. Innocent people end up dead. Those who think that it shouldn’t have to be that way because it just feels bad to them, and they’re just sure some gentler way would work, are wishing for life to be something other than it is. They are dangerous.
Notice, in contrast, how quickly the police back off from this attitude if you show yourself to be not dangerous. The second time they come back to your car they are more relaxed. You get more relaxed, too.
Relatedly, notice how Crowley reacted after Gates had shown his ID but was still yelling. He left, telling Gates if he wanted to continue he would have to come outside. That wasn’t a challenge or retreat, that was an intentional test. People who are in control don’t bother to come out. The police leave. Everything’s cool. People who can’t drop it tend to be more dangerous. They are signaling that they cannot calm down. That’s not an infallible test, but it’s pretty darn good. Gates failed it.
Arresting someone for Disorderly Conduct and then dropping the charges soon after is also a common technique. It’s not to punish, but to control the situation. It’s equivalent to the police not pulling you over for speeding because you slowed down when you saw them. Someone who doesn’t slow down, even when spotted, is much more likely to be an overall bad driver.
If I break into my own house, I shouldn’t be surprised if the police show up a few minutes later. If anything, I should feel some gratitude. They’re protecting my house. I expect them to wonder if I’m a criminal, and expect to have to prove I’m not. Gates failed that first test also, identifying himself as a person who at this moment is not thinking clearly.
Do some people get off on the power trip, or seek out the policing profession so they can intimidate others? Sure, and I know some. But to assume that all police are like that, solely on the basis of normal police techniques, is just prejudiced.
Even at that, we all act like jerks sometimes. Apparently Gates was tired from a trip. Fine. Incident over, drop it. But Gates keeps going, and this is where he went really wrong. He is determined to make his personal situation into a national example. That’s more than a little grandiose and entitled. He says he wants to use this to educate the nation about racial profiling. There is not the least hint that he himself has even 1% to learn in this. Even when he says he’s willing to move on, he takes shots at Crowley on his way out.
Gates recently said in another context that he knows every incident of racism in American history. I remember thinking “Dude, that can’t be good for you, marinating like that.” But all too often, liberals think like that. How does that help reconciliation in even the slightest way? Where’s the de-escalation there? Doesn’t that perpetuate the cycle, teaching the next generation to be prickly, assuming that cops doing normal police work are somehow expressing the culture’s racism?
Gone on too long. I won’t make my other points, I don’t think.
Excellent observations, AVI. Thanks for taking the time to share your analysis of the situation. Also, I love the Solzhenitsyn quote.
[…] far, my favorite commentary on the event has been from Edward Gilbreath: Those who say Professor Gates was completely wrongheaded and unreasonable aren’t willing to take […]
What did Sarah Palin say about race during the campaign? I never remember her even remotely addressing it. What did she say that was divisive?
Oops, probably shouldn’t have invoked Gov. Palin’s name here. Actually, again, I never said anything about race. The divisive statements I was referring to were remarks during her RNC speech about “community organizers,” and it wasn’t so much the words as the tone, combined with the even nastier comments from Rudy Giuliani that followed. And, later, parts of Palin’s stump speech regularly implied that the opposition were either terrorists or un-American (”not like us”). One could possibly argue that there was a racial subtext to some of those statements (I believe we hashed that topic out here last fall), but that’s another debate.
One could also argue that every divisive remark she made was in response to Obama or his people being equally divisive. They slammed her mayoral experience, some of them even leaving her governorship out of the picture; she hit back with the “community organizer” crack. If we’re going to take on divisive remarks, well and good, but let’s be evenhanded about it.
As for “not like us,” I’ve done extensive research on Palin, and I can’t find one instance in which she spoke those words. The closest she came, to my knowledge, was “This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America,” and it was a reference to Obama’s association with Bill Ayers, not to race.
Sorry if this is more than you wanted about Palin. But I felt that since the subject was brought up, it was worthy of addressing.
Just for the record, I don’t think that the cop is right or acts correctly in all situations. I just don’t think this incident is a good example of racism and what blacks have had to deal with regarding cops.
I saw another incident where a cop was totally unreasonable with a black man that ended up being an NFL player and the incident got some press. From what I saw I definitely thought the cop was wrong in that incident.
I haven’t dealt with cops too much, mostly just over my lead foot. Most have been nice, but one in particular was an arrogant jerk. I hadn’t even done anything wrong other than driving an old truck that broke down, and he basically accused me of either lying or being stupid because he didn’t believe how long I was broke down on the interstate. So I know cops can be jerks.
I don’t know many demographic groups that can get away with screaming at a cop on a public street and not stopping when warned. That’s why I don’t think this incident is an example of racist cops.
And I just don’t see how or why we would look to Barack Obama to lead us in a meaningful conversation about this situation when he made the most detrimental statement about this situation than anyone. He as the president took sides before he had the facts. Isn’t that what we’re fighting against?
I’m giving this one a little more time. Lots of “scenarios” and “angles of perspective” still unfolding. I liked Glenn Loury’s take in the NYT.
Thanks, Rudy. I’d missed Glenn Loury’s op-ed. It is a very insightful and, I believe, balanced take on the topic.
[…] few days later, on his Reconciliation Blog, Ed vents his frustration: For me, the saddest thing about the Henry Louis Gates incident is that we’re no better off now […]
Loury’s point that there are other, less well-connected black men who have better cause to complain is indeed well-taken, as is his observation that Gates should have striven to make this more about them than about himself.
An interesting parallel: My son joined the Marines in January and has been proud and excited. He’s been rather a chronic complainer at many jobs, so when he called last night upset about how he was being treated I figured he was right on schedule. I mentioned this to a retired Marine at work today, who laughed. “Tell him to get used to being wrong about everything. That’s what his four years will be. Oh, and whatever they told you when you started a job, it will be different before you finish.”
I laugh because it’s easy for me to see that, but hard for the person going through it. People probably are being unfair to him, and treating him badly. He has a “right” to feel resentful and make excuses. But where will that get him? I considered this in light of our conversation here, and figured it’s probably twice as hard for young black Marines. Part of that is the sense of historical mistreatment, part of it the fact that some of your superiors really are prejudiced and like to bust you more.
But the same problem remains. So what if you have a “right?” How does following that path help you? You defeat racism with planned, considered actions. Resentment ruins no one’s life but your own. Check that. If you encourage resentment, you ruin your friends’ lives as well.
Contradictorily, I’m not sure how much we can decide to let things go by effort. A lot of it seems to be natural disposition. The son noted above and the brother just older than he came from a Romanian orphanage – read: “The Mouth of Hell.” Their poverty, abuse, and neglect exceeds what most Americans will ever experience. One of them shrugs it off, reasoning that he’s here now, so it all worked out. He doesn’t dwell on it. The one now in the Marines has brooded over life more. He’s gotten over a lot – love and effort are worth something – but he’s just cut from different cloth.
gina,
since you seemed to be researching in earnest, i’ll just add that the sarah palin reference earlier may have had something to do with the issues at her rallies. it seems that she continued to incite crowds when it had come to her attention that people were beginning to get ugly and scream such remarks as “kill him”. some at the rallies began to report concern that the tone was beginning to mirror that of george wallace’s campaign in the 60’s which led to violent racially motivated acts.
http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=365893
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/mccain-does-nothing-as-cr_n_132366.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2202429/
granted, i know that these are fairly liberal news outlets but there is video on youtube of these rallies and the comments people were screaming. her defense was that she couldn’t control what every individual said but she didn’t seem to make an effort to change the tone or re-direct it. thankfully, mccain did redirect someone later at a town hall meeting when other mischaracterizations of obama were being made.
And did you see these accounts, which claim that the Scranton story was debunked by the Secret Service — and that the Obama campaign knew it? And these sources aren’t exactly conservative either. Even the one guy at the Clearwater rally who was definitely heard saying something like “Kill him” said it right after an Ayers reference, not an Obama reference. And they can’t even prove that’s what he said.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164512
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/10/06/in_fla_palin_goes_for_the_roug.html
I have indeed been researching in earnest. 🙂 (And since Ayers keeps coming up, let me just point out that Palin did not say one word about his “terrorist” activities that was not true.)
I rather feel that I owe Ed an apology by now. I didn’t mean to turn this thread into “The Palin Myth Debunking Hour.” However, I do think that he and I and others here believe that reconciliation, which this blog is all about, can’t happen without a willingness to look for and embrace the truth. And few public figures in recent years have been more lied about than Sarah Palin.
These myths, remember, violated the commandment about bearing false witness. That doesn’t mean only in court, but gossip as well. There’s plenty of unfair accusation to go around these days, some of it bordering on the psychotic, but I agree that people seem willing to believe anything about Palin.
But to move to the more general issue of political myths (snopes is pretty good – I wish the Middle-East had an Arabic version of snopes) I am quite divided. Part of me says that the slow and calm debunking is the best longterm solution, but I don’t know that this is actually true. Reconciliation people want it to be true, just like we want diplomacy to always work, and like to believe that turning the other cheek will ultimately WORK as a strategy. And we like to pretend that Jesus told us it would work, as if He were some Proto-Gandhi whose value was that He was so ahead of His time.
The more aggressive approach – to push back and say “This is not true. Why do you need it to be true? What is happening inside you, then?” has some spectacular failures attached to it. No one likes to receive such confrontation. It is alienating. So we avoid it.
But what if it is the only way home? What if it is only our social cowardice, our unwillingness to be disliked, and our fear of actually being loud and wrong part of the time – which is humiliating – that prevents us?
AVI, I think you’ve been hanging out at this blog too long; folks tend to be a little kinder and gentler here most of the time. 🙂
Who are these non-confrontational Reconciliation people that you speak of? The ones I know on Christian sites around the Web and blogosphere are more than willing to push back and say “This is not true!” The problem, I believe, is we quickly speak our version of “the truth” but are slow to listen to the other guy’s because, of course, if my “truth” is the truth then his cannot be. And so it goes.
Gina, you don’t owe me an apology. I should apologize to everyone else for mentioning Palin in the first place. But I guess one topic can lead to another on these threads.
I’m learning to take political discussions more as entertainment than as serious debate, because at the end of the day no one’s mind is going to change. The Obama/Palin thing is a prime example. Both sides will defend their person. Both sides will throw as many proof texts (or links) out to prove that their person is the one without fault. There are ugly myths lingering out there about both sides, but the ones leveled against my person are always worse. If my cynicism is showing, I apologize again.
So, AVI, to get back to your point: I’m not sure social cowardice is holding us back. I think there’s more than one way to be brave or outspoken.
Oh no — my candidate’s not without fault. Just without the particular fault of wishing her opponent dead, that’s all. 🙂 Thanks for your understanding, Ed.
first, let’s once again be honest and clear. the palin “myth” as some have called it, was not debunked by any of gina’s articles ( i read them through). there IS video, someone did say SOMETHING. the secret service just couldn’t ascertain WHO it was or if it was “tell him” or “kill him” or if the “kill him” was referring to ayers and not obama. debatable not debunked. either way, it’s clearly not the focus of our discussion.
but i do agree with your questions AVI on how to find the best (or most effective, biblical, etc.?) way into and out of our discussions on reconciliation. looking to jesus’ example, i’m pretty sure the answer is not trying to be right. because let’s face it, he could have been right all the time. yet when he was questioned by authorities, he was at times, silent. which is why i think this idea of rightness is actually killing the christian right and the left and anyone in between. it’s devoiding us of the very essence of the gospel and any reconciliation, which is love. if jesus tried to show us anything, it was that love wins.
perhaps it’s oversimplified but i think it’s a reminder to me that in discussions like this,: have i first tried to love before i’ve tried to be right? if not, i’m probably in a lose-lose situation.
Cheryl, thanks for your words. If I had seen your comment before sending my last one above, I would’ve just kept my silence. Love definitely trumps the need to be “right.”
gina-your comment made me laugh! 🙂
great point about any of our “people” or “positions”.
It was a simple matter of one “mans” pride and ego over another “mans. Too much testosterone makes “men” overcompensate for the sake of their manhood being threatend. Both men acted wrongly, one man used his badge to save his precious ego and the other shamelessly pulled the “Race Card”. Race had nothing to do with it, it was simply a weapon Gates used to win. But at what a cost. To use a real and horrible truth in America to save face is appaling and detrimental to the whole process of discussing the race issue. It really is sad to see an obviously non racial situation used in this manner. It cheapens the entire struggle and it makes me sad. Ever since I was a small child old enough to learn of racial inequality I was ashamed, and sickened by the the horrible offences commited on the black race. I remember thinking how glad I was that this whole racism thing would be a distant memory by the time I was an adult. We have, or perhaps had made great strides over the years in my opinion. Being priveledged because of my race I can’t understand the whole struggle, but I have devoted much of my life to trying to understand it the best that I can. I’ve shed many tears learning of the struggle, and I often wonder how much better off we would be if MLK had not been assasinated. I feel we have lost sight of the simple but wonderful dream of the day when a man would be judged on the content of his character and not the color of his skin. I still do hope and pray I see it in my lifetime, but situations like this really make me wonder. Thank and God bless you Ed for this forum, I think it is great to have a place like this to discuss this important issue. It beats the heck out of 3 to 5 people screaming over each other on cable news for ten minutes.
There is a bit on a different interpretation of turning the other cheek shows that it can be quite a subversive activity (Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:29). A normal insulting slap was backhanded. By turning the other cheek, you forced the person to hit you with their open hand thereby treating you more as an equal. (In that cultural context you slapped people below you backhanded). If an evildoer forced you to give them your coat, and you gave them your inner garment too; you essentially stripped naked in front of them shaming them for their blatent corruption, and in an honor-shame culture this was no small thing. Finally, if an evildoer forced you to walk one mile, walk two. In this context, the people that forced someone to walk a mile were Roman soldiers who would conscript someone to carry their stuff a mile, but forcing someone to walk two miles was against regulations; they had to conscript someone else. If you walked the second mile, you exposed his injustice in full public view. It’s like the kindness the heaps coals on the head of your enemy (Proverbs 25:21,22). [Just goes to show that a little more cultural context can completely change how you understand something you read.]
In response to G (previous comment), I’m not entirely sure that “race had nothing to do with it.” John Shea, author of the Painter, in the first comment in response to the next post gets at this. Both Gates and Crowley would have probably reacted differently if the race of each other was different. Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post asks the question, if an arrogant Harvard professor who happened to be white had given the police officer some of the same angry lip, would he have been arrested? I doubt it (see again Shea’s comment in the next blog entry).
Still, I have seen the difference first hand. One April in Washington, DC, we were at a picnic concert by the Tidal Basis and had a bottle of wine. A Park Police officer came and told us that was against the regulations, we said something like, “What’s wrong with a little wine at a picnic?” but put it away.” Not even two minutes later, he said the same thing to another couple–an Arab looking young man with a white girlfriend. The guy with a slight accent said, “I’m sorry, we didn’t know” and even poured it out. Suddenly, for no apparent reason to us, the officer started berating him and arrested him. I personally tried to intervene, but I felt helpless–it seemed like total injustice.
With discussions about race (as Ed notes with politics), both sides seem fully entrenched; very little genuine discussion seems to take place. We mostly just reaffirmation the points we already believe. I’ve sometimes wondered why American discourse seems to be so either/or, so black OR white, so left OR right, so right OR wrong. Where is the middle ground? Where is the complexity? I can almost tell within within a few sentences what someone’s entire views about everything related to politics or race will be; we seem buy the whole package.
But in my lifetime, I’ve switched sides. How did that happen? After college, I spent a lot of time in majority black contexts. I was mentored by a black pastor in a white church and another in a black church, and I saw some of the dramatic differences–the kinds of issues Ed highlights in Reconciliation Blues. It took nearly five years of intense personal relationships and intentional study, but I feel like I finally began to understand–though not experience in the same way. I now see my white privileges everywhere–right down to the color of bandaids in the drugstore in a black neighborhood. I’ve had to learn to step back from the counter when the cashier (even a black cashier) ignores the old black couple next to me and looks at me first. (And that’s just one example I now recognize repeatedly in different ways in different contexts.)
. . . and still I don’t get it; still, I perpetuate the problems. It is a journey.
So I join G and others in thanking God for this forum where we have to re-examine some of our assumptions, where we can explore some of the complexity, and where dialog from all “sides” is encouraged and celebrated–even if it is painful at times.
Thanks Ben for your contributions. You really reiterated something I posted earlier.
One-on-one relationships and a true heart humble and open for understanding will enable people to gain insight into the complexity that is race relations.
Funny – one time a friend of mine asked me – why black people keep the “race thing” going? Inside I seethed but remembered to continue to put myself in his/her shoes and then I relaxed and gave my point of view calmly and humbly. That is really the only way – one-to-one experiences with people different than us.
We (black people) don’t ‘keep’ the race thing going, unfortunately as a society we all ‘keep’ it going and I’m ok with that. As long as we intently try to understand one another and alter our beliefs, I am open to talking about race. When I say “alter our beliefs” – I mean come to the table one way and be open to leave the table differently. We’ve seen it written here on this blog that people are entrenched in their positions – I am not saying don’t have a POV – just be ready to alter it as you learn more and more.
Thanks again for all the discussion
I love the the constant speculation, if it were a white proffesor it would have been different. I doubt it would have if the white proffesor came outside yelling at the white officer you have no idea who you are messing with ! etc. etc. sir you need to calm down or you will be placed under arrest. You hate me because I’m an intellectual, I’ll have you badge for this you bigot !! I don’t think the police are very fond of that type of behavior and I certainly will never test that theory out if a police officer of any color ever questions me. How come no one ever speculates about what would have happened if the officer was black? how would that have played out? I’m sorry officer you see my door is broken from a previous break in attempt and my driver was helping me open it. Here is my identification, thank you so much and once again sorry for the confusion. Perhaps I am mistaken, possibly race did have something to do with it after all?
Thanks, Denise. One of the white privileges I learned I had was being able to “check out” of the race discussion pretty much whenever I felt like it. I don’t usually have to live with it always in my face, unless I choose to open my eyes.
I really appreciate those like you, who took the time to bring me along, and were patient with me. In hindsight, I realized what a burden it must have been to try to teach yet another white guy.
I guess that gives me more responsibility to help open up my fellow white brothers and sisters who are earlier in the journey even though I still have a long way to go myself.
These talks of “journeys” by Whites and “White Privilege” are, to my mind mind a part of the problem, not a part of any real solution. Where are talks of “journeys” by Blacks and the acceptance that Blacks have their own sort of “Privilege.”
There is little talk from Blacks and the Whites who’ve bought into the consciously unwilling, guilty oppressor mindset of the need for Blacks to take a journey away from bigotry, bitterness, and recrimination and towards the understanding of the White’s perspective.
There’s no talk of “Black Privilege” – no talk of at all of the fact that the Blacks can simply blame any failure they experience on the Whites’ racism. No, there’s no talk at all about the fact that the definition of racism was changed in order to describe it as a White-only problem.
There’s no talk at all about how Conservative Blacks and many other financial successful Blacks are called Oreos, Uncle Toms, and Sell Outs because they don’t fit into the “Black Community.”
If I, as a White man, see a Black who is dressed “street” – read thug – and shift to a more defensive mindset or posture, I’m supposedly being racist.
If a Black man sees a White cop and shifts to a more defensive mindset or posture, he supposedly isn’t.
Think about that inconsistency and the underlying assumptions it shows.
Reconciliation, if such a thing exists between men, is a the result of a “journey” toward each other, not a penitents crawl by one party to another.
Jonolan, if the language I used puts you off, then I’d be happy to redraw the conversation if that were possible. However, I would really push back that you need to get out of your comfort zone and walk in some different shoes. Come half-way before demanding that of others. Even if you want to downplay it or are tired of hearing about it, the historical track record in America matters. From what I see of your comments here and the tone of your blog (and I could be very wrong here), I don’t suspect you genuinely want to make that half-way step first. (I’d love for you to prove me wrong.)
If I were anywhere near you, I’d offer to get together and have it out face-to-face. Otherwise, it’s just too difficult to tell where you are really coming from, what common ground we share, where we can negotiate, agree or disagree, what kind of language or reasoning strategy we want to use, and whether or not there’s the possibility of a real honest and open discussion between us (and I mean that both ways–on my part too.) There is a cost benefit to these kinds of discussions, and if there is no relational benefit, the costs–namely time investment and emotional energy–probably aren’t worth it. Just being honest.
PS, and I don’t mean defending liberalspeak or pulling the race card at every opportunity.
Ben – do we share a brain?
jonolan – I am wondering something similar as Ben- I just visited your site and from what I can see you are a talented communicator and have quite a few followers.
“Reconciliation, if such a thing exists between men, is a the result of a “journey” toward each other, not a penitents crawl by one party to another.”
I agree with your quote except one thing – I believe that the potential of reconciliation between men exists – for sure because I have the power to work through my bias’ and look at facts and evolve as a human and move and work towards it.
Is it naive of me to think that we can journey toward each other? Maybe but I know I cannot ask you to do that if -in fact – I am not doing so myself.
I look at your comments and your blog and while I am not in agreement with you on many things – I am at least open to learning why you feel the way you do and gaining an understanding that can lead us to peaceful coexistence.
Again do I want to hold hands and sing kumbaya? No but I want to respectfully discuss issues with someone who is attempting to see my point of view.
Sorry for the delay in responding to you, Denise. I totally missed your comment. 😦
I’m confused though; how is what you claim an exception to my comment? It doesn’t seem so to me.
I just thought you blew me off because it wasn’t so inflammatory 🙂
I just mean that I believe reconciliation is possible – with each individual effort. I don’t speak it with an “if that exists” because I believe it does.
I have see what I would call “miracles” as it related to people and their hearts about racial issues and it all happened because of personal relationships.
That’s all. You seem to be skeptical that it is possible.
I believe that reconciliation is possible too, Denise, at least on a societal scale. I’m quite skeptical about the time-frame for it though, especially on the personal level through local levels.
I also believe that that reconciliation will only happen after we, as a society, either walk away from our “dead wood” – either literally or figuratively – or silence them.
Ben, your language is the language of the public debate on the matter; it does not, in and of itself, put me off. In fact, I find the language better representative of the underlying constructs than is normally the case when discussing societal issues and social engineering.
It is those underlying constructs and the attitudes they represent that put me off.
As for not being to willing to travel towards the midpoint first – though I’m not yet willing to say that the meeting point is, or should be, at the midpoint or nearer one side or the other – I don’t know; maybe. We’d have to first reach an agreement on what things were steps in that trek. 😉
Some would say that being willing to discuss the matter at all was a step, especially in the face of often less-than-cordial opposition or dismissal.
In that case, it sounds like we could have a very healthy (and sometimes heated;-) discussion. You are absolutely right; underlying constructs and attitudes are exactly where we would have to start. There’d be a lot of great push and pull.
Still, that’s a conversation I’d rather have face-to-face where I can read your body language, nuance, and prob your nuances better. It’s not that it’s impossible in this kind of forum, but my wife would kill me if I invested the amount time on the interaction it would require.
Next time you are in Nairobi, look me up ;-).
Peace.
Sorry, the previous comment was by me, Ben Byerly. I’m briefly logged into my wife’s computer.
Yes, a conversation without body language is stilted at best, Ben.
Perhaps next spring; I’ll likely be heading to the Masai Mara in March or April and, if I remember correctly, that’s only 5 hours or so from Nairobi.
Cool. Nairobi would be your arrival point for Masai Mara. You might even get to see what real abuse of police privilege looks like while you are here.
On a drive out to the airport tonight (picking someone up), I got to thinking that rather than totally copping out on the conversation, maybe you had some books or articles or long explanations you’ve written somewhere that articulate more or less where you are coming from on the subject of race and racism. I’m not thinking so much of the stuff that bashes other viewpoints; I’m thinking more of something where you can say, “this expresses what I think about what it means to be who I am in America given our nation’s racial past, present, and future.” I haven’t yet formulated that question very well, but it might be educational for me to find our more of where you are coming from. What kinds of ideas have shaped your thinking and fuel the kinds of reactions you have? What kinds of life experiences have you personally had that help shape the way you see things?
The last time I checked, the prodigal son wronged his father and had to repent and come to him with shame and apologize.
The father realizing that is what he was coming to do, was so over joyed he would hear none of it, and in fact ran to meet his son in the field.
What you are asking blacks to do is forget all we know to be true and coming running after you in the pig pen, and let you through their feces at us.
Its not up to us to make amends. We did not do anything to you or your people, remember?
The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) is quite apropos to the discussion, though it has very little in common with your description of the parable in question, Renee.
As you can see, the prodigal son wanted what was coming to him. He got it and squandered it. It then chose – to return to his father.
I think that what group and/or concept each of us thinks plays the parts of Prodigal Son, Father, and Dutiful Son in the context of race relations in America would say a lot about us.
Wow ! Now “I” am discouraged. A passage about a son who had wronged his father and came to realize his mistakes and came to his father to beg for forgiveness, but the father so overjoyed to see his son came to him instead, was transformed into the white devil throwing feces in the face of all blacks?
Don’t ever forget where you came from, but do allow yourself to rejoice greatly in the steps that have been taken to provide a far better today than yesterday. Don’t for one second allow the past to destroy today. People (black and white) fought very hard in the face of ridicule, bodily harm and even death to get us to where we are, not to keep us where we were. Try to understand that there are countless numbers of white people today that are trying to make ammends for our grandfathers mistakes. The people who wear their white guilt over things that they had personally never done or would even tolerate in their lifetime are trying to come to you to keep the dream alive. There still may be a few out there who dedicate their entire lives to trying to keep the black man down, but that number is far less than it once was, and it is greatly outnumbered by blacks who have simply refused to be kept down in the face of many difficult challenges. I want to continue the struggle to create a road towards racial equality, but until we can see each other as people and not as colors, and the media starts covering stories of people from different races coming together with the same zeal as they cover conflicts between the races it seems we have a longer road than I had hoped.
I think jonolan said it best “Reconciliation, if such a thing exists between men, is a the result of a “journey” toward each other, not a penitents crawl by one party to another.”
G, good words. Thank you.
Thanks to you Ed, I had a beer summit of my own last nite and woke up this morning feeling I may have come across as a being a bit unruly.
What a great discussion. Very thought provoking and illuminating. I printed it off this afternoon and am through 18 of the 31 pages of comments. And now it is longer still.
While we are venting …
I totally agree with Judy, that the issue many white folk (speaking for myself anyway) see with the President’s comments is the lack of concern with what actually happened. Racism, the a priori assumption that someone is guilty based on his race, is wrong. But is copism, the assumption that police invariably act in an overtly racially motivated manner, any better?
It’s not that there aren’t abuses. There are. But based on what we know so far, this isn’t a good example of either racial profiling or police abuse of power.
When the president made the calls the next day it was a classy and a shrewd move to regain the initiative for his broader agenda.
The same basic argument can be made about Professor Gates. Whose actions were racially motivated from the outset? Did he judge officer Crowley based on the “content of his character?”
AVI’s comments about the police methods for making our legs go all wobbly were interesting and match my own experience.
A couple of weeks ago I was detained for taking a picture of a train station. I know, “The horror.” While my friend and I resisted the request to throw our expensive cameras over two fences too the officer, we offered a reasonable alternative to meet him where we could hand them to him. When he asked for us to toss him our IDs, we complied even though it was very irritating and took 30+ minutes for him to return them. Professor, if you want to be treated with respect, offering it is a good place to start and yelling at people with guns is NEVER a good idea.
That an erudite Harvard professor couldn’t manage to calmly talk his way through the situation makes one wonder. Did he have some other agenda in provoking an incident?
For those who understand Professor Gates perspective better than I do, I’m curious what Officer Crowley could have done to diffuse the situation and still get his job done?
Gina, no need to apologize to Ed about Sara Palin. After all he mentioned her first. The left totally went after Palin’s ‘limited’ experience as a small town mayor and the line in her speech simply pointed out with finesse and humor that she had more executive experience than the opposition candidate. It was probably the most artful line to come out of the McCain campaign. That it still bothers Ed amuses and frustrates me at the same time. Actually it’s my own inability to convince him that she was within the pale that irritates me but I never took the time to really research it. Glad that you did.
What have we learned here?
1. Pew is a genius, and only partly (75%) because he totally agreed with me. 😉
2. Look for cops the next time you take a picture of a train station. I just bought a nice camera (garage sale steal) and got a little sick just thinking about tossing that thing.
3. Sarah Palin is awesome. She is the logo for my fantasy football team. That is how awesome she is. Yes, I’m a girl with a fantasy football team. How’s that for blowing up a stereotype??????
4. It’s 1am and I need not write anything more.
Peace y’all 🙂
Its obvious that we are the wronged father, who not only does not have to take him back, but deserves an apology and for ammends to be made.
Knowing that his son was coming back and had to be contrite is what brought the father out into the field.
Before this point he was in the pig pen when he came to his sinces. The point I was making, it that you would have the father come to the pig pen and plead and beg with his awful son before repentance even took place.
This would be unacceptable in the parable, and it is also unacceptable to claim blacks, are played and equal role in creating the racial strife in this country, or that we have to meet anyone one half way.
If we wanted to, we could stay in the house and not ever come into the field to meet the son if we wanted to. The fact that we are willing to be like the father and come, if real repentance takes place is the biggest part of my previous statement.
It’s interesting that you think of Whites as the Prodigal Son and Blacks as the Father, Renee. It’s also interesting that you think the Father required repentance from his son.
I would have placed Blacks and Whites as the two sons. I’m not sure who or what I’d place as the Father though in this particular context.
But…in your view of things, Blacks as Father and Whites the Prodigal Son, what could the Prodigal Whites truly need that their Black Father can provide?
The Prodigal Son came back home because he needed something. But Whites aren’t starving in another’s land and dreaming of how much better our father’s workers have it than we do. We have no reason to go home to the Father in the parable.
What “coin” can Blacks offer Whites in exchange for our repentance and supplication?
Forgiveness? We don’t need it and many of us would be insulted if you gave it. Peace & Quiet? We can have that just by ceasing to listen to you. Safety? Let’s not even go into the foolishness of that discussion. Wealth, Prosperity, Legitimacy? We already have those things and Blacks couldn’t offer them to us if we didn’t.
Think about it; what harm would Whites suffer and what pain would Whites feel if Blacksdid choose to “stay in the house and not ever come into the field to meet the son” – as long as you truly stayed in the house and didn’t shout out the windows as it were?
If the above seems harsh, it is because there is no softer way that I can see to say these facts.
No. I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere that we’d want to go by approaching race relations and reconciliation from a position that requires a penitent or supplicant and someone to sit in judgment over him.
well..if we want to twist Scripture to make political points…maybe I’ll add something.
There is no proof that the prodigal son was truly contrite. His motivation was hunger, not feeling badly for the way he treated his father. It’s possible he did feel badly for that, but restoring the relationship with his father is not primary in his mind, so much as his neediness.
As far as I know….God walks among many pig pens, looking to see if there might be some lost sheep who might have wandered off there.
I’m all for talks about race and what should or should happen, but lets not take an illustration about God’s love and turn it into an allegory about race relations. Casting either race in the role of “God” or feces-throwing son is surely not the route to a productive conversation…after all, who can argue with God?
terri,
A parable, by its very nature is a teaching tool that is meant to be used as an allegory. Knowing we’re flawed, I’m fairly sure He will forgive those of us who use it poorly.
As for who can argue with God? Have you ever spoken at length with a Jesuit? 😉
I know a parable can be an allegory…but it isn’t always an allegory, in the strictest sense of the word….that would require a 1 to 1 correspondence for every element in the story…but now I digress into biblical interpretation.
God is a Jesuit? Hmm….that must be why I never actually see Him. I’m hanging out in the wrong places! 🙂
I was more thinking of the Jesuits as being people who could argue with God.
ah… i get it now.
You are still missing the point, your people wronged our people in the past and continue to wrong us. You refuse to apologize and make amends for what you have done, and any time we bring it up you get defensive. Then you set up all kinds of backword and unbiblical law and customes in the present time to keep us oppressed. So like I said, I dont owe you anything and I am not coming out into the field. if you want forgivness be contrite and come up to my door and knock. And while youre at it, stop all your current racist policies and all the new ones your people enjoy making up.
Now as a disclaimer, for those who arent actively taking part in the racist ideas and behaviors that are drowing this country, you are not part of the present “you people”, but like the Egyptians of old who held the jews in bondange, they had to give up nearly all they had according to GOD to make it right.
And I suppose you demand that the Blacks take ownership of what that which the Whites must give up?
We’re keeping you oppressed? America’s door, with all the promise behind it, has been open to Blacks for decades. All you have to do is walk through it.
Instead so many Blacks cling to anti-social ways and behavior, all the while claiming oppression. Hellfire, many of you save your worst vitriol for those among you who “dare” to move forward, claim what is there’s, and don’t look back at those who refuse to do so.
Perhaps you and you White counterparts should “stay in the house.” You and they can than joyfully chew on each other while the rest of us actually make something together that has value.
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”
Or hold a grudge, Let hate and malice rule your world. Let it fester in your heart and allow your self to be kept down, all the while blaming others for your inabilitiy to suceed.
What would Jesus do?
What would satan delight in?
The choice is yours.
I can see that the discussion is migrating in different directions. Oh well, I will throw my hat in the ring.
As I have been discussing this Gates/Crowley thing with white and black friends, I see a pattern.
For some, to validate Gates’ position is to admit that institutional racism still exists. To admit that begs the deeper questions of why and who benefit.
What I find interesting about these discussions I have is that some of my white friends will admit to the possibility of individual racism which Crowley would bear the responisibility of.
I only bring this up because institutional racism is hard to detect and expose in todays society. Usually when a story emerges, the polarization happens immediately. The same thing happend with the Huntingdon Valley Swim Club incident.
I would submit that institutional racism is harder for people who have not experienced it to identify with. It is like today’s bogeyman. But for African Americans, it has been a part of our collective history since we were brought her. There are times when we will never know what the truth is.
What bothers me most is that some whites wont admit that some situations could possibly be institutional racism and that some blacks won’t admit that some situations could possibly be other issues showing themselves other than racism.
I just needed to say that I found your site via Goolge and I am glad I did. Keep up the good work and I will make sure to bookmark you for when I have more free time away from the books. Thanks again!