Paul R. Lehman, Arizona Rep. Stringer’s comments on (im) migration show a lack of understanding of democracy

June 21, 2018 at 2:50 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Indian, American Racism, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, desegregation, discrimination, education, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, immigration, Pilgrims, Prejudice, Puritans, race, respect, skin color, social conditioning, The Associated Press, tolerance, white supremacy, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When the Puritans came to America in 1630, they came with the idea that God had given this land to them based on the Mayflower Compact that John Winthrop drew-up while on board the Arbela during a storm. The Compact was not preplanned but was deemed a necessary safeguard against death and destruction. Winthrop stated that “Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God.” So, the possibility of being shipwrecked prompted the compact which stated these requirements: “For we must consider that we shall be a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world.”(John Winthrop, “A Model of Christian Charity”)

The “we” of which Winthrop spoke was not a diverse ethnic group, but Anglo-Saxons who believed that God gave America to them. The idea of America being the country of Anglo-Saxons and later European Americans (whites) continued throughout America’s history. The discriminatory treatment of the African Americans has been a never-ending story. Some Americans came to the belief that the European American was the God-ordained superior human being on the planet and would eventually rule the world. The idea of the superiority was based on the belief of a race by skin color with the Anglo-Saxon (white) being the highest order of mankind. All the laws and practices supported that concept of Anglo-Saxon or Nordic supremacy. The challenge for the Anglo-Saxons in America was knowing how to control the population so as to keep the race as pure as possible.

In the late 1800 and early 1900’s, a fear among many Nordic (white) Americans were the expansion of power by people of color over them. One concerned European American, Lothrop Stoddard, stated in 1920 the fear that wars between white countries would provide an opportunity for people of color to take over power in those countries. He added: “However, such colored triumphs of arms are less to be dreaded than more enduring conquest like migrations which would swamp whole populations and turn countries now white into colored man’s lands irretrievably lost to the white world.”He saw migration as the destruction of whites.

Echoing the same fear of migration of people of color as the enemy of the Nordic people, Madison Grant stated that “Democratic ideals among an homogenous population of Nordic blood, as in England or America, is one thing, but it is quite another for the white man to share his blood with, or intrust his ideals to, brown, yellow, black, or red men.” In effect, measures must be taken to control the population of immigrants in order to protect the Anglo-Saxon or Nordic racial superiority. Grant was a lawyer, writer and more importantly, a eugenicist. He was responsible for one of the most important works of scientific racism and along with Stoddard played a significant part in promoting anti-immigration and anti-miscegenation legislation in America.

The results of Stoddard and Grant’s efforts were the Immigration Act of 1924 or Johnson-Reed Act. This was a federal law that effectively excluded Asians from immigrating to America. In addition, it established quotas on the number of immigrants coming from specific countries and included money to make certain the ban on non-white immigrants was firmly in place. Because of the fear of race contamination, the law focused on “decreasing immigration of Southern Europeans, countries with Roman Catholic majorities, Eastern Europeans, Arabs, and Jews. The law affirmed the longstanding ban on the immigration of other non-white persons, with the exception of black African immigrants.”The immigrants from these countries except for Africa, were later to be called Caucasians, not white.

The point for providing this historical background on a small portion of America’s immigration actions involves a news report in The Associated Press (2/1/2018) regarding Rep. David Stringer, a Republican from Prescott, Arizona.  Stringer was reported to have made a number of statements that mirror the attitude on immigration discussed earlier. Following are a few of his comments: “Sixty percent of public school children in the state of Arizona today are minorities. That complicates racial integration because there aren’t enough white kids to go around.” He also stated that “immigration is politically destabilizing” and “immigration today represents an existential threat to the United States.”

He issued a note of warning when he said that “If we don’t do something about immigration very, very soon, the demographics of our country will be irrevocably changed and we will be a very different country and we will not be the country you were born into.”

In summing up his fears  Stringer stated that “I maybe touched a third rail of politics but what I said is accurate. Anybody that talks about this in this way is shut down and called a racist. I’m speaking the truth.” He added: “Diversity may be a great thing, there might be a lot of advantages, I’m not arguing against diversity at all, but no country can be demographically transformed without any political or social consequences.” His statement is definitely true, and what is also true is that America is changing demographically.

Many Americans love to say that we have come a long way in accepting our diversity and addressing our socially constructed biases, but after reading Stringer’s comments we must confess that some of us still have not taken that first step towards accepting democracy and  America as a country indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Advertisements

Paul R. Lehman, Mesa,Arizona, and the police beatings of people of color go on and on and on

June 8, 2018 at 11:35 pm | Posted in African American, Bigotry in America, blacks, Constitutional rights, criminal justice, discrimination, Disrespect, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, fairness, justice, law enforcement agencies, minority, Oklahoma, police force, Prejudice, Race in America, Tulsa, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Four Mesa, Arizona police officers have been placed on paid leave while an investigation into their use of excessive force against an unarmed African American is being conducted. Fortunately, a video of the incident was available so viewers could see for themselves what took place. Apparently, someone from an apartment building called the police to report a disturbance at that location. A young African American man, Robert Johnson, was waiting for an elevator and talking on his cell phone when he was approached by several police officers. Without any conversation, they began to frisk him, and then apparently, ordered the young man to move to another location away from the elevator, which he did while continuing to talk on his phone. Once he moved to the location where he had been ordered by the officer, he was then ordered to sit on the floor. Showing some hesitation in sliding down the wall to the floor, several officers began punching him in the face. Since he was leaning against the wall, he could not fall freely to the floor, so an officer bent down and pulled his legs out from under him at which time he landed on the floor. The officers continued to beat him until his hands were secured behind him. At no time did he offer any resistance.

The old saying that “a picture is worth a thousand words” could easily apply here in that the conduct of the officers was in question from the very beginning. Not once before the officer began their assault on the young man did they attempt to engage him in a civil conversation. Their attitude was seemingly that of a big bully that demanded immediate action when an order was given. The officers apparently had a perceived notion to enter into an altercation with the young man since they wasted no time in initiating their punches. At no time did any of the other officers present seek to stop the assault or advise the officers of their conduct relative to their actions. So, what do these pictures tell us about some police officers?

One of the first things this video tells us about these officers is that they have no respect for the young African American man. He was not treated respectfully like citizens should expect to be treated if they are minding their own affairs and causing attention to themselves. They showed a total disregard for his Constitutional rights by beginning their search of his body for something without cause. Johnson had no weapons, only a cell phone. The officers next used their authority as bullies to order Johnson to a wall on the opposite side of the area while still not informing him of anything that he did or was suspected of doing. Since he was surrounded by four fully armed and anxious officers, Johnson readily complied with the officers’ order to move. As soon as he removed his cell phone from his ear, the beating began.

We might ask the question of why the police officers acted towards Johnson in this type of aggressive manner. They knew that Johnson poised no problem of violence or having a weapon on him after they searched him and he complied with their orders. Yet, the officers felt that they were well within their rights to beat an unarmed man for no reason except for the fact that he was a person of color. One thing is certain from the actions of the officers, and that is reason played no part in their decision to beat Johnson. We know from many past similar experiences that the excuses of being afraid for their lives or feeling threatened or not being respected or obeyed were used to justify their actions. A simple answer to why they use excessive force and murder against people of color is because they do not consider them to be human beings.

We might also ask the question of why is the society in general not outraged by the repeated unacceptable actions of these police officers against people of color. Could it be that they also do not see people of color as human beings? One reason for our making that assumption rests on the history of the repercussions experienced by many of the officers who committed atrocious acts against people of color. We would be incorrect in labeling the treatment many of the officers received for the actions as repercussions. The four officers from the Mesa Police Department were placed on paid leave. In others words, they received a paid vacation for their efforts, but no negative consequences. In the case of Betty Shelby, the female Tulsa, Oklahoma officer who shot and killed Terrance Crutcher in the back while he was walking away from her, after her department’s report stated that she should not be allowed to serve as an officer dealing with the public, she was given a job in a city a few miles north of Tulsa. She was recently featured in a newspaper article where she had received a promotion and now offers classes to teach officers how to beat charges of abuse and excessive force. The list of officers not being held responsible for their misdeeds is too long to include here.

While the general American public remains silent relative to these officers’ display of abuse of people of color accompanied with a chevalier attitude, they do not seem to realize that although the officers do not have to assume responsibility for their actions, the citizens for whom the officers work must pay large settlement payments to the victims and/or their families. The ethnic demographics are rapidly changing the makeup of American society and with those changes will come the need to redirect the focus and objectives of law enforcement. Some departments are making changes now because they understand that the amount of money being paid for officer’s mistakes could be put to better use in educating them to treat all citizens fairly.

We have not seen the last video of police abuse of unarmed African American citizens simply because the system does not require them to take responsibility for their actions. The system must be replaced.

 

Paul R. Lehman, Why European Americans call 911 when they see people of color

May 14, 2018 at 3:29 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, blacks, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, justice, police force, Prejudice, race, Race in America, skin color, skin complexion, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The recent rash of incidents involving European Americans calling the police after seeing African Americans doing something they thought suspect should come as no surprise based on the ethnically biased social conditioning that is a part of their everyday American life experience.

The very first element of a European Americans life experience is the idea that they and all people who look like they look are the centers of the universe. From their skin complexion to their standards and values, society leads them to see themselves as superior to all people not like them. Everything in their immediate environment serves to support that concept. As their social environment begins to expand from the home to the neighborhood, church, and school, they are made to realize that they have privileges over people who are not like them.  The awareness of their specialness begins in the home where little if any interactions with people of color take place, but often negative references, actions, and reactions are observed as a normal part of their daily experiences.

The European American lady at Starbuck, the lady at Yale, the lady who saw the three African American women leaving the Airbnb all felt within their rights to call the police because they witnessed something their social conditioning told them was not normal. Apparently, none of these European American women gave any thought to their action before calling the police. Because of their conditioning relative to fear and danger associated with people of color, the primary thing to trigger their concern was the skin color of the people representing the threat to their sense of normalcy. I.e., ethnic bias against people of color by European Americans is triggered by skin color.

A European American female called the police when she observed an African American female asleep in her dorm’s common room. The student, a graduate student at Yale was awakened when the European American female told her she had no right to sleep there. The reason the European American female called the police was that of the fear and dread she felt by seeing a person of color in a place that was usually reserved, in the females mind, for European Americans. The brown color of the graduate student’s complexion sent a warning signal to the brain of the European American female, so she acted on it without any serious consideration regarding repercussions. She evidently felt unsafe in her home environment with a person of color present.

In another case, a European American female called police because two African American men were sitting in Starbucks without having purchased anything. We see again the reaction of a European American female to the presence of two men of color. Her social conditioning provides an uneasy feeling regarding them in this public but social setting. The two men were actually waiting for another person to join them, something common in Starbuck stores. Nevertheless, the police came, arrested the two men and took them to jail where they remained for around eight hours; no charges were filed against them.

A European American female in Rialto, California called police when she thought several African American women who were leaving an Airbnb rental looked out of place. That is, she thought it unusual for women of color to be in that neighborhood. When she noticed that they were loading baggage into a vehicle, she assumed that they were burglars. Shortly after the 911 call was made several police cars arrived on the scene. In addition, a helicopter flew overhead while the women were being questioned. Once again, the biased social conditioning this woman received relative to skin color helped to trigger her response to people of color being where she did not expect them to be by calling 911.

In all three of these incidents, the social conditioning of cultural biases played a significant role in the actions of the three European American females involved. Little or no thoughts were given to the well-fair of the African Americans because their social value was never in question. In each situation, the European American female seemingly believed seeing African Americans in the settings they were in was not normal. So, the automatic response was to call the police and have the discomfort removed.

The ethnic bias of the European American females was reinforced by the police who arrived on the scene already favoring the callers. The rights of the African Americans are immediately suspect as noted in the actions of the police officers and their immediate treatment of the African Americans. Rather than taking the time to assess the situation prior to any detaining or arresting actions, the police arrived on the scene already suspecting the African Americans of wrongdoings. The complicit police actions supported the biases of the European American females toward the African Americans.

Comments emanating from the police establishment of the three incidents mentioned above all suggest that the police were simply doing their jobs. Yes, they were doing their jobs, but only in support of the European American callers. The rights of the African American men and women were given little or no preference equal to that of the callers. The actions of the police seem to suggest that a call 911 is taken as fact without question, so doing their job means not giving the African American citizens involved their respect, rights or privileges. Many European Americans, as well as many police officer do not realize that America is a diverse society.

Because many European Americans live with an ethnic bias of which they are not cognizant, or their biases are implicit, the first order of business in replacing that bias is discovering that they have a cultural bias against people of color. Next, they need to confront their bias with the thought of replacing it with a more appropriate concept of a diverse humanity. Finally, once they know their bias and know how it is triggered, they can work towards overcoming it. While all Americans can address their bias using this process, European American in positions involving serving the public must certainly experience this form of education.

The problem of cultural ethnic bias as a part of social conditioning cannot be resolved easily or quickly because it involves commitment, discipline, and consistency. All three steps must be followed if success is to occur. Once we understand that bigotry is a part of a system, we will realize that biases do not exist in isolation, but they must be replaced individually.

Paul R. Lehman, The Starbucks incident involving the arrest of two African American men shows the need for implicit education as well as training.

April 16, 2018 at 11:43 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, blacks, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, justice, law enforcement agencies, Prejudice, Race in America, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The recent arrest of two African American males at a Starbucks coffee shop in Philadelphia by police for no apparent reason has generated a plethora of questions regarding cultural bias and social justice. The situations, from media reports, involved two African American men who went to this Starbucks store to meet with someone. They apparently arrived before the party with whom they were to meet and so decided to sit and wait for their party. They asked to use the bathroom but were told by the employees that they could not use it because they had not purchased anything. At some point afterward they were asked by the employees to leave, but they refused.

 

The reports noted that a statement from the Philadelphia Police Department Commissioner Richard Ross confirmed: “that on Thursday afternoon at 4:40 p.m., Philadelphia police received a 911 call from the Starbucks at 18th and Spruce Streets alleging disturbance and trespassing.” The two men were arrested, handcuffed, and taken to jail where they were placed in a holding cage for approximately eight hours, then released. No charges were made against them. A number of the people in the store at the time made known to the officers that the men were doing nothing wrong.

 

Fortunately, the men were unarmed and cooperated with the police or the outcome of the incident could have been tragic owning to the experiences of other men of color interacting with police officers. However, the primary question is why were they arrested, cuffed, and taken to jail in the first place? We cannot be certain of the specific reasons, but we can certainly address some possibilities that led to the incident. One reason has to do with implicit cultural bias. The person who called 911 and informed the police that the two men were creating a disturbance and trespassing did so because of the perception and judgment of the men. Perhaps men of color did not frequent that particular Starbucks, so their presence was unusual for the caller to experience. So their presence in the store created in her a sense of fear.

 

After the incident, both Philadelphia’s mayor and the police Commissioner made statements relative to their concerns about the incident. The Commissioner commented that his officers did nothing wrong; they simply followed orders requested by Starbucks. He also underscored the point that all his commanders received implicit bias training. He also stated that all the new recruits visit both the National Museum of African American History and Culture and the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. The visits to these museums are supposed to show the recruits ethnic atrocities committed by policing

 

The mayor commented that seeing the headlines of the Starbucks incident in the headlines

was disheartening to him and the incident “appears to exemplify what racial discrimination looks like in 2018.”He also suggested that Starbucks’ apology was not enough to satisfy his concerns about the incident and that he would look into whether the employees at Starbucks’ should receive more implicit bias training.

 

The one key phrase used by both the Commissioner and the Mayor was “implicit bias training.”To be sure, training is necessary when developing a skill is important, but what is more important and should come before the training is education. Both training and education are parts of the learning experience. However, most of the research over the last decade and longer indicate that people in general only have conscious access to 5 percent of our brains and that much of our brain’s work happens on the unconscious level. In other words, when implicit bias occurs, that does not mean that people are hiding their ethnic and cultural biases; in essence, they do not know they have these biases.

 

Training helps to develop skills while education helps one to understand the skills and how they should be implemented. Training officers, as well as people in general, might help them do their job in some aspect of human relations, but education is needed for them to understand the presence of implicit cultural biases in their perceptions of people. So, the reference to officers and employees receiving more implicit training seems to be counterproductive if the objective is for them to be cognizant of what they are doing when they are doing it.

 

An example of implicit bias might serve to underscore the point of training and education relative to implicit bias training. An incident occurred a year or so ago where an inmate form a medical facility had left the grounds and was sitting in the middle of the street playing with some object. Someone called 911 and the police arrived. When the attendant who was also in the street talking to the inmate saw the police, he lies on his back and put both hands in the air to show he was not armed or represented a threat to the officers. When an officer approached him with his gun drawn, the attended told him that he worked at the facility and was presently trying to talk the inmate back onto the facility grounds. The European American officer shot the African American attendant in the leg. When the attendant asked the officer why he shot him since he had no weapon and represented to threat to him, the officer answered, “I don’t know.”We might assume that the officer was not thinking but simply reacted to the bias common among European American law officers—a fear of African American males.

 

While we appreciate and applaud the efforts of the Philadelphia Mayor and Police Commissioner relative to the need for implicit bias training, what we feel is more important in addition to the training is implicit bias education. All human beings have biases and prejudices, implicit as well as explicit, but the implicit ones are often unknown to them. With education, they have the opportunity to learn why the training is so important for them and all concerned. First, a bias must be discovered, then embraced, and overcome before success can be achieved. Training to overcome an unperceived bias is wasted time and effort. The officers who viewed the ethnic museums must learn that the experience was not entertainment, but lessons that underscore the fact that were are all implicated in the actions of all human beings.

Paul R. Lehman, Reasons why European American (white) police shoot and kill African Americans

March 31, 2018 at 7:30 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American Racism, amygdala, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, Breaking Ranks, criminal justice, discrimination, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, justice, justice system, law enforcement agencies, Norm Stamper, Race in America, social conditioning, the Black Codes, white supremacy, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The police officers shooting and killing an unarmed African American man in Sacramento, California recently should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the news the last four to five years. The excuses for the shootings are always the same: the officers reveal that they feared for their lives or they felt their lives were threatened, or the victim made a threatening gesture or movement towards them or they thought he or she had a gun in their hands. All of these reasons are viewed as justifiable for the shooting of a suspect. On the other hand, the family of the victim always asks the questions: why did you not wait to assess the situation before you fired shots? Why did you not use another of the tools available to you like the tazer, rubber bullets, nightstick, and bean bags? Why could you not have shot him or her in the arm or leg or some non-deadly place? Why did you not give the victim time to respond to your commands?

The fact that this scenario keeps happening over and over again is not an accident or the action of a few bad officers but part of a culture that permeates the entire criminal justice system. Most officers know that regardless of their actions, their department and union will always take their word as valid over any citizen, so the fear of serious repercussions for a wrong deed does not represent an impediment to their actions. The American public has witnessed many times the results of a police shooting via video that contradicts the report of the officers. Yet, the officers walk away without being held responsible for the misdeeds committed. To blame be officers for not being held responsible for their deeds is not their fault but the system that supports them including the Attorney General, District attorney, prosecutor, judge, jury, and society.

What many African Americans understand about the criminal justice system in American is that it has always been biased against them as clearly recorded by history from before Reconstruction, the Black Codes, and Jim Crow. Many European Americans generally support law enforcement actions without question and by doing so allow injustices to continue against people of color. Some present and former police officers have readily admitted that a culture of hate, fear, anger, and bigotry against African Americans exist in law enforcement.  From where do these feelings derive? The most obvious answer identifies social conditioning as the primary contributor to ethnic bias in American society that is retained by people who become part of the criminal justice system directly and indirectly.

Norm Stamper, a former police officer and author of the book Breaking Rank (2005) underscored the European American law officers’ perception of the African Americans: “Simply put, white cops are afraid of black men. We don’t talk about it, we pretend it doesn’t exist, we claim ‘colorblindness,’ we say white officers treat black men the same way they treat white men. But that’s a lie.”These feelings are not reserved for European American law enforcers only. Paul Butler, in his book Choke Hold (2017), noted that recent scientific research shed some light on how many African Americans are generally perceived: “When people see black men they don’t know, they have a physical response that is different from their response to other people. Their blood pressure goes up and they sweat more. When a white person sees an unfamiliar black male face, the amygdala, the part of the brain that processes fear, activates.” Earlier studies also indicated that the negative reactions of European American law officers towards African American males may because by unconscious social bias rather than deliberate actions.

Michelle Alexander in her book The New Jim Crow (2013) noted that a number of studies showed how some European Americans reacted to images of European Americans and African Americans in an exercise that considered observation, interpretation, and reaction. She noted, “that racial schemas operated not only as part of conscious, rational deliberations, but also automatically—without awareness or intent.” This study might possibly explain why some European American police officers act irrationally when having to deal with African Americans and people of color in general:

One study, for example, involved a video game that placed photographs of white and black individuals holding either a gun or other object (such as a wallet, soda can or cell phone into various photographic backgrounds. Participants were told to decide as quickly as possible whether to shoot the target. Consistent with earlier studies, participants were more likely to mistake a black target as armed when he was not, and mistake a white target as unarmed, when in fact he was armed. This pattern of discrimination reflected automatic, unconscious thought processes, not careful deliberations (p. 107)

The fact that ethnic bias is central to the social conditioning in America accounts for the unconscious bias of many European Americans; that bias can be manifested either implicitly, explicitly or both. Consequently, many European Americans can honestly believe that they are not biased against African Americans because many of their friends, relatives, and associates are African American, however, that fact does not mean they are free of biases.  Alexander noted that “Implicit bias test may still show that you [European Americans] hold negative attitudes and stereotypes about blacks, even though you do not believe you do and do not want to. In the study described above, for example, black participants showed an amount of ‘shooter bias’ similar to that shown by whites” (107). Of course, fewer European Americans are shot and killed by African American police officers than by European American officers.

Armed with the scientific information from the various studies mentioned, we can assert that much more than police training is necessary to replace the biased ethnic culture in our criminal justice system. The problem of ethnic bias must be the first item on the agenda to be addressed, not through training, but education. Society must fully understand and reject the bias before it can begin to replace it.

Paul R. Lehman, The folly and phoniness of diversity training programs

February 12, 2018 at 2:36 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, black inferiority, blacks, Civil Right's Act 1964, discrimination, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, minority, Prejudice, Race in America, white supremacy, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

Prior President Truman desegregating the armed forces and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v Topeka, European Americans (whites)had little reason to know or want to know anything in particular Prior to President Truman desegregating the armed forces and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v about anyone in society but themselves. Changes in society in the late 1950’s that brought African Americans and women into the workforce placed a challenge on the European American (white)male to learn how to get along with the new people in the workplace. A decade later, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went into effect, the need for Americans to learn how to live and work together in a diverse environment became a necessity. One of the tools introduced to help accomplish that feat was called diversity training.

In an article in Time (2/8/2018) entitled “How diversity training infuriates men and fails women,” Joanne Lipman wrote the following description: “decades before Anita Hill, Gretchen Carlson or #Me Too, American companies dreamed up ‘diversity training,’ typically a course that last anywhere from an hour to a couple of days, with the goal of wiping out biases against women and others from underrepresented groups.” Please note that she identified American companies as being the instigators of diversity training. She continued: “For most of its history, diversity training has been pretty much a cudgel, pounding white men into submission with a mix of finger-wagging and guilt-mongering.”

The early diversity training seemed little more than an experimental effort, but Lipman noted that after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the training took on more urgency: “Within a decade, it had morphed into a knee-jerk response to legal actions, after a series of high-profile sex-discrimination suits.”Basically, companies invented diversity training as a safeguard against lawsuits that focused on some form of discrimination and also, a way to maintain the status quo. The more diverse Americans entered into the social institutions of society including education, civil service, medicine, politics, government employment, state, local, a federal, and business, the more the need for diversity training became important. Lipman noted that “I don’t recall ever hearing the phrase until the 1990s. By then, it had been reconstituted as a feel-good exercise in consciousness-raising. White men were told they should include women and minorities because it’s the right thing to do. It was all about the importance of “inclusion.” She added: “But here’s the thing about diversity training: It doesn’t work.”Whether it worked or not actually depended on the desired objectives of the promoters.

Lipman’s statement about diversity training not working was viewed from the perspective of wanting to see diverse people included on a fair-minded basis. She noted that Harvard professor Frank Dobbins and others looked into the data and discovered “that for white women and black men and women in management positions, it actually made things worse. That’s right: companies that introduced diversity training would actually employ more women and black men today if they had never had diversity training at all.”While many reasons exist for the failure of the programs, the primary reason is due to the expectations of a program that was not designed to address those expectations. Why?

American society has always been diverse; however, that diversity did not mean that all Americans enjoyed the same rights and privileges. The founding fathers were Anglo-Saxons from Europe and invented for American two races, one black and one white, based on the false premise of a race by color. Since they were in control of society, including government, they could impose their concept of race on the people of America, which they did. So, most European Americans (whites)grew-up in America viewing themselves as normal while all people not looking like them as inferior, especially, African Americans. The point of this historical information is to underscore the enormous challenge that any program whose objective was to change the European Americans(white) perception of themselves as not being superior to other people would face. What the programs in diversity training did was to encourage the European American (white)males to treat other people with courtesy, respect, and fairness as they saw it, but not relinquish their sense of superiority. How was that achieved? Well, when the program stressed the differences among the other people whether cultural, ethnic, religious, or gender, the perception of the other people came from the perception of the European American(white), not from just another ethnic American. So, whatever the outcome of the diversity program, the European American (white)male still retained his sense of place in society, although he might be upset.

In her article, Lipman referred to a portion of Dobbin’s study that noted reasons for programs failure: “He singled out three situations in which training is doomed to fail: when it’s mandatory; when it so much as mentions the law; or when it is specific to managers, as opposed to being offered to all employees.”  In addition, Lipman added that “Perhaps more to the point is the fact that the training infuriates the people it’s intended to educate: white men. ‘Many interpreted the key learning point as having to walk on eggshells around women and minorities—choosing words carefully so as not to offend.’”Any numbers of program interpretations do not necessarily favor the happiness of the European American (white) males.

The primary problems with programs of diversity training are that they have an unreasonable objective and little clarity of what they seek to achieve. The fact that their focus involves looking at the various differences among people and underscoring those differences would be cause for anyone to feel uncomfortable. But as Lipman noted earlier, only the feelings of the European American (white) man was of any concern relative to the program’s success. So, if the European American (white) males are not happy at the program’s conclusion, then it was a failure. Since most programs are designed to point out biases, it is a certainty that European American (white) males will not leave happy.

What programs designed to deal with social biases must do is identify the objective of the program, and not diversity training, but teaching about and understanding cultural biases. People, regardless of their cultural differences do not want to be set apart from other people because of their differences. According to Lipman: “ Women and minorities often leave training sessions thinking their co-workers must be even more biased than they had previously imagined. In a more troubling development, it turns out that telling people about others’ biases can actually heighten their own.”

One of the concerns Lipmann’s article exposed relative to diversity programs was the use of language that still serves to separate people rather than unite them—terms like minorities, white and black people. If the language and the object of the programs do not change, neither will the results of the programs.

 

Paul R. Lehman, President Trump is not a racist, but he seemingly does not mind being called one

January 13, 2018 at 1:10 am | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, President Trump, Race in America, racism, skin color, skin complexion, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What strikes some Americans as interesting and humorous is the reaction to President Trump’s bigoted remarks in general, but the recent remarks about countries of brown people. Trump has been a bigot all his life, so why would he change at this late date in his life. He would not and possibly could not because this bigotry was part of the normal flavor of his entire social environment.

Many people are asking the question: Is President Trump a racist? The answer is no; he is not a racist. Being called a racist for people with an ethnic bias towards people of color is not a criticism of them, but a compliment. The reason is simple. The term racist represents the view of a large group of people holding the same beliefs of a race by color or white (European American) supremacy and African American (black) inferiority. The term racist actually underscores the belief the group holds, so the label reasserts that bias belief. Since the term racist is a derivative of the word race, and the word race relative to the invention of a so-called black race and a white race is bogus, then the concept of individuals being racist, believing that the European Americans are superior is false regardless of the fact that it is used as a part of the American parlance. So, what is President Trump if he is not a racist?

President Trump is a bigot and has been since his formative years in America. His bigotry was not something that was taught him specifically but was a part of his social environment. What too many Americans fail to realize is that America is a bigoted society and has been since the founding fathers invented the system of European American supremacy. We do not have to guess about the truthfulness of this bigotry, all we need to do is look at the history of the African American experience is American and the challenges of the civil rights activists to verify the existence of bigotry. The problem that exists and notably with Trump is that the bigotry was obtained as a natural characteristic or feature of his social, private and public environment. That being the case, he as well as other Americans do not recognize the abuse, unjust, inhumane, and un-American treatment of African Americans and people of color as abnormal.

The social system under which Trump and many other European Americans grew-up under did not recognize African Americans and people of color as well as poor European American people as having any social value worthy of attention. So, for the most part, people of color, in particular, became invisible to European Americans unless they were in daily contact with them. The contact, however, was more often than not experienced as occurring between superior European Americans and inferior people of color.

The many negative stereotypes of not only African Americans but also people of color in other parts of the world prevailed in the bigoted American psyche. For example, the visual and mental descriptions of Africans as ignorant, barbaric, cannibals with bones in their hair, running around in circles half naked were deliberate and vile examples of ethnic bigotry. Nonetheless, those images and descriptions were taken as facts and incorporated into the mind of many European Americans like Trump. The results of these negative stereotypes of African Americans and people of color served to support the lack of social value afforded them by European Americans. The negative stereotypes were presented to American society in such a way that the European Americans, as well as some of the people of color, did not recognize the pictures that were being painted. One of the major influences of American bigotry was in the motion picture industry in that African Americans were not seen on the big screen except in rolls of servitude or villains.

The point here is that many of the European Americans today who say they are surprised and or offended by Trumps bigoted comments need to take a look at the society in which they live and when and where they have objected to the injustice, abuse, discrimination, and bigotry of African Americans and turned a blind eye, a deaf ear, and a closed mouth at what they observed. Many European Americans are hypocrites if anything about bigotry in society because they know it exists and chose to ignore it.

What is so disheartening about the situation in America today is that many reasonable, intelligent, patriotic Americans recognized the bigotry in Trump years ago but still do nothing but stand by and let the values, positive leadership and integrity of America slip by the wayside. No, Trump is not a racist but many people will try and argue the point when nothing is to be gained from their efforts. Hardly anyone, it seems, is offended by being called a racist because that term identifies a member of a group, not simply an individual. However, when a person is called a bigot, they then must accept direct responsibility and defend themselves or admit to the charge. Either way, the biased mindset is not placed in a group, but the individual in question. That is why Trump is not a racist, but a bigot.

The recent derogatory remarks made by Trump regarding Haiti and Africa immigrants underscore the hypocrisy that exists not only in Congress but in society as well. Why was it only two of the six-plus senators had the courage to speak up and call the remarks offensive and biased? A probable answer is because the other senators saw nothing unusual or out of the ordinary about the comments. Even after word of the remarks had been made public the general reaction of some senators was like this was simply business, as usual, no need to get upset about what the President said.

Ethnic bigotry is a common fact in American life and little has affected many European Americans’ view of African Americans and people of color. Fortunately, change continues to force glimmers of light and reality through the darkness of biased ignorance that tries to hold back progress. Time and change are on the side of light.

Paul R. Lehman, Ethnic bigotry of some European Americans seen as a characteristic of the Reptilian Brain

October 8, 2017 at 12:21 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, blacks, Colin Kaepernick, Constitutional rights, discrimination, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, Football, justice, justice system, NFL, police force, Prejudice, protest, Race in America, racism, The Oklahoman, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

European Americans called racists will generally react defensively because they are familiar with that term; however, if they are called bigots, their reactions will be different. If they are asked to define bigot, chances are they will have to go to a reference book to look it up. More often than not, both words are used as though they were interchangeable; they are not. Racist is the incorrect term because it places no responsibility on the individual for the biased perception. European Americans were socially conditioned to be bigots without them knowing it; the discrimination, prejudice, segregation, injustice, and abuse suffered by African Americans and people of color by European Americans hardly got a notice unless the media called attention to it. The bigotry against African Americans by European Americans always resulted in the African Americans being viewed as the villain regardless of the situation and the facts. An example of how European American bigotry manifest itself today can be seen in the attitudes and comments relative to the protests of professional athletes today.

The reaction of many European Americans to the protest by professional athletes can be associated with what social scientist, Paul D. MacLean, refer to as the “Reptilian Brain” that describes a stage of the human brain development. One of the characteristics of the Reptilian Brain is the defensive behavior that is based on self-preservation with little need for thought, just reaction. The threat of danger is enough to cause a defensive reaction. So, for the bigot, any threat to the concept of European American supremacy has to be dealt with and discouraged immediately. One way to address the threat of danger to the bigots is to change the focus of the threat away from the problem and towards an area or subject that will garner support from other with Reptilian Brains.

An example of how this bigotry works can be seen in the comment of an “Opinion” writer from the Oklahoman (10/7/2017) entitled “Misunderstood?” What the writer does is offer the NFL executives a way to handle the athletes involved in protests. But first, the writer shows a total lack of understanding relative to the subject. The first statement reads: “Some NFL executives have complained that people misunderstood the point the players’ national anthem protest. Perhaps that’s because of quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who started the protests.” The writer never mentions the reason for Kaepernick’s protest, but proceeds to assassinate his character by making reference to the following: “Kaepernick’s foundation recently gave $25,000 to Assata’s Daughters, a Chicago organization that honors Assata Shakur, a former Black Liberation Army member convicted of killing a New Jersey state trooper in 1973. Shakur later escaped from prison and fled to Cuba.” The reference to Kaepernick’s donation to the Assata’s Daughters organization is a tactic aimed at having Kaepernick viewed by association with a group the writer believes shares his bigoted views. A brief sketch of Shakur’s life and experiences are presented in an effort to implicate Kaepernick in violence and hatred towards police.

Never once does the writer mention that fact that the NFL players were not disrespecting the flag or national anthem, but criminal and police injustice towards African Americans and people of color because that would indicate that reasonable thought was taking place. Instead, the writer doubles down on Kaepernick’s protest: “So, Kaepernick, who previously wore socks to practice that depicted policemen as cartoon pigs, is a fan of a cop-killer and an organization devoted to the ‘legacy’ of one. How could anyone think his motives are less than pure?” The language and seeming intent of the writer is to convince the reader that the NFL executives, the players, and everyone associated with the protest initiated by Kaepernick are all fans of a cop-killer and therefore are unpatriotic, undemocratic, and even un-American. The writer’s posture is an example of the Reptilian Brain’s effort to defend his bigotry against legitimate protest sanctioned by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Whether the reader agrees or disagrees with the purpose of the protest, the one thing all Americans should agree on is the right of the Americans to protest. If the writer would stop and give just a little thought to the reason for the protests rather than trying to discover as much negative information about the protester, the writer might realize that protest are used to make corrections in the system to make it a better system for all concerned, not to destroy it or criticize it unjustly. But, his bigoted Reptilian Brain does not support reasonable thought, just acts of self-preservation.

Common sense dictates that it would be foolhardy for anyone to protest by disrespecting the flag and the anthem for no other reason than to disrespect the flag and anthem. That sentiment, however, seems to be the focus of the bigots who criticize the protesters. No place in the Constitution has there listed a reference to the flag and an anthem and how citizens should address them. Too many of the people who claim that others are disrespecting them (flag and anthem) are hypocrites themselves unless the stand with their hats off and their hands over their hearts no matter where they are when they hear the anthem and see the flag. Their criticism is selective and meant to underscore their bigotry by painting themselves in red, white, and blue of patriotism while accusing the people who disagree with them of being un-American and unpatriotic.

Ethnic bigotry manifests itself in many ways in our society but not all people recognize it when they see or experience it. The bigotry aspect of the reptilian brain of many European Americans that view African Americans and people of color as bad and fearful, began in childhood, but was not something deliberately taught. All that was needed was for the children to observe the behavior of their family, neighbors, community, churches, and other European Americans in general. The result as we can detect from the “Opinion” writer is that bigotry is easily recognized and labeled in others, but seldom, implicates them because they do not practice or embrace bigotry in their minds.

Paul R. Lehman, Georgia cop’s statement “We only shoot blacks,” underscores culture bigotry

September 7, 2017 at 2:01 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, black inferiority, blacks, criminal activity, Department of Justice, discrimination, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, justice, justice system, law, law enforcement agencies, Media and Race, Norm Stamper, police force, Prejudice, Race in America, respect, skin color, skin complexion, social conditioning, social justice system, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Many European Americans are beginning to see and realize the attitude and treatment received by African Americans from law enforcement. For too many years African Americans have been made to look like the evil and dangerous villains that deserve the abuse and even death they receive from law enforcement. When African Americans complained about the injustice and bigotry of the criminal justice system, many European Americans turned a blind eye and deaf ear to those complaints. Today, with the benefit of video technology the public is able to witness the behavior of law enforcement agents and their treatment of people of color. A recent incident involving a police officer and an assumed European American woman provides evidence to support the problem of ethnic bigotry in America.

An article by Terence Cullen in the New York Daily News (8/31/2017) told about the incident that underscores many of the claims against law enforcement and the deaths of many African Americans. The officer involved in the incident was Cobb County (Georgia) Lt. Greg Abbott and the article noted that “Abbott pulled the sedan over on suspicion of driving under the influence and told a woman in the passenger seat to use the cell phone in her lap. The woman tells the 28-year veteran she’s afraid to move her hands. ‘I’ve just seen way too many videos of cop,’ the woman says before Abbott cuts her off. ‘But you’re not black’ he says. ‘Remember, we only shoot black people.” The officer’s comments tell us much about him and our society.

One of the first things the officer does with respect to his comment about the woman not being black is to show his biased social conditioning relative to the concept of races. He does not question the authenticity of the concept; he simply accepts it and proceeds with his beliefs. All Americans have been conditioned to accept the concept of races, black and white, as legitimate when we know that the concept is false, an invention to control society. By the officer identifying the woman as white, he has made a judgment about her that gives her power and privilege over people of color whether she wants it or not. The only reasonable assumption we can make about this officer’s comment relative to the woman not being black is to consider her skin complexion. We can safely assume that her complexion is deemed by the officer acceptable enough to be considered white. Whether the woman is European American or a member of some other ethnic group, we do not know. However, that determination is of little consequence to the officer who has already made his judgment relative to her identity.

American society has conditioned European Americans to view African Americans as inferior to them. As such, the need to show respect and curtsey to them is never an issue because no repercussions result from disrespecting and abusing them. This attitude of bigotry is not something taught to each generation, but shown in our way of life as being natural and normal. We ignore the facts that we are one race of people, facts given to us through the sciences, history, and even the Bible. Because the people who invented this system of bigotry also controlled all the institutions in society, they were able to keep the system alive and well. Today, many European Americans would not know their identity if they were told that they were not white; that is how extensive the social conditioning has become. They also believe that regardless of the educational, economic and political status people of color attain, the European Americans with no comparable credits is made to believe they are better. So, the color white is important to the officer as well as to the woman in the car.

Community relations have never been good between the African American community and the law enforcement community because law enforcement has always viewed African Americans as inferior. When one side of a community has preconceived ideas about the other that places them at a disadvantage, no reasonable or mutually just solution to any problem will be forth –coming. Most community relation programs instituted by law enforcement for the African American community always favor law enforcement because of their conditioned biases. Although some members of law enforcement desire to faithfully perform their jobs, they cannot deny that the culture inside of law enforcement is anti-black (African American) and that sentiment is reflected in the officer’s statement: “Remember, we only shoot black people.”

Norm Stamper, a retired European American police officer, noted in his book, Breaking Rank, (2005) that contrary to what European Americans believe, “Simply put, white cops are afraid of black men. We don’t talk about it, we pretend it doesn’t exist, we claim ‘color blindness,’ we say white officers treat black men the same way they treat white men. But that’s a lie.”Stamper’s comments are underscored by another former member of law enforcement. In his book, Choke Hold, (2017) Paul Butler, an African American former federal prosecutor and law professor at Georgetown University, defined chokehold as laws and social practices made to control African American men: “It is a two-step process. Part one is the social and legal construction of every black man as a criminal or potential criminal. Part two is the legal and policy response to contain the threat—to put down African American men literally and figuratively.” Given their experiences in law enforcement, these two individuals have no reason to make false statements about the culture of law enforcement regarding African Americans.

Officer Abbott, a 28-year veteran on the Police force, exhibited the ethnic bias that is part of the culture in which he works. Since he was conditioned by society to be biased against people of color, joining the police force did nothing to relieve him of his biases but, evidently, provided an environment in which they could be exercised with impunity. Removing Abbott from the force will not eliminate the problem of bigotry since it is societal. Whether we interpret Abbott’s statements as sarcastic or not, they flowed freely from his mouth without hesitation.  Abbott does not simply represent law enforcement, he represents American society. Until American society can label this biased culture despicable and stand together demanding justice for all our citizens, we must share in the responsibility of what this culture produces.

 

Paul R. Lehman, Trump and Goldberg uninformed on Confederacy monument removal

August 24, 2017 at 2:52 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, Baltimore, Bigotry in America, blacks, Catherine Pugh, criminal activity, Criticism, Democrats, discrimination, Disrespect, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, extremists, fairness, justice, justice system, language, law, Leftists, Media and Race, political power, politicians, Prejudice, President Trump, protest, Race in America, racism, respect, Slavery, social justice system, The Oklahoman, The U.S. Constitution, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Bernard Goldberg commentary “Where Does current Movement End?  Question posed by Trump is one worth considering,” (The Oklahoman 8/23/17) gave pause for concern. The part of the title is a question that President Trump asked while making comments relative to the Charlottesville protest recently. The second part of the title makes the statement that the question was worth asking. For someone knowledgeable of history both question and statement would seem disingenuous. Nonetheless, we will examine both concerns as best we can.

Goldberg begins his comments by relating an incident from his youth, the 1960s when his family drove South from New Jersey to Florida. He recalls his reaction to his father stopping at a restaurant that feathered a “Whites only” sign by refusing to go in and eat. His family decided not to eat there. From this experience, Goldberg makes the statement that “My parents weren’t bigots. They were appalled at what they saw on TV coming out of places like Mississippi and Alabama.”Goldberg still does not realize that all Americans, European Americans, as well as African Americans, were conditioned to see bigotry as something natural. One wonders why Goldberg chose the South to use as an example of ethnic bigotry when he could have just as easily selected any part of New Jersey with its isolated ethnic populated communities. That is, of course, unless he did not live in a segregated community, attend a segregated school, worship in a segregated church, which he possible could have. But one thing was clear from his story; he and his family saw themselves as white. As a white person in America, viewing people of color as inferior was natural and commonly accepted by whites. That conditioning allows European Americans North and South to see bigotry in others, but not in themselves. That might be why Goldberg could say that his parents were not bigots.

He subsequently, made the comment that a case can be made for Trump asking the question: “Where does it end?” He continued: Is taking down a statue of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson or Jefferson Davis enough?” Goldberg, evidently, does not understand the reasons for removing the statues and monuments in the first place. New Orléans major, Mitch Landrieu,  offered a host of reasons for the removal, for example, he noted that “ New Orleans was America’s largest slave market: a port where hundreds of thousands of souls were brought, sold and shipped up the Mississippi River to lives of forced labor of misery of rape, of torture.” He added that “America was the place where nearly 4,000 of our fellow citizens were lynched, 540 alone in Louisiana; where the courts enshrined ‘separate but equal’; where Freedom riders coming to New Orleans were beaten to a bloody pulp.”Speaking specifically regarding the monuments he stated: “So when people say to me that the monuments in question are history, well what I just described is real history as well, and it is the searing truth.”

In addition to Mayor Landrieu, Baltimore, Maryland, mayor Catherine Pugh, had several statutes removed under the cover of darkness to avoid protesters and possible violence. One statue was “A monument of Taney, the supreme court justice who oversaw the 1857 Dred Scott case declaring that black people could not be American citizens, was to Pugh particularly disgraceful. She remarked: “How does a statue like that, a supreme court judge who oversaw the Dred Scott case, even exist? Why does someone like that even deserve a statue? Why should people have to feel that kind of pain every day?”Many other local and state officials have joined the movement to remove the offensive statues and monuments.

Goldberg shows his bias when he posed the question: “Is that where it ends—with a mob deciding what statues stay and which one go?” Evidently, Goldberg has not been watching or reading the news reports of how the mayors in several Southern cities decided to remove some statues honoring Confederate men. The references to two mayors of two major cities should more than underscore who makes the decisions to remove the statues and monuments. Why would Goldberg think the decisions are made by mobs? If Goldberg and Trump fully understood the reason for the movement of remove the statues and monuments, the question of “where does the movement end” turns rhetorical. The movement has its bases in history, not conjecture or assumed notions of correcting a wrong. The wrongs committed cannot be correct, but a constant reminder wrongs perpetrated against a people can be removed.

Another of Goldberg’s comments seems to go beyond the boundaries of common sense and logic: “Asking who’s next and where does it end doesn’t make you a white supremacist, or even unreasonable.” One would hope that before questions of the nature posed that a working knowledge of the movement in question might be acquired. Asking questions would never make a person anything by seems informed or uninformed about the subject matter. The answer to the question “who’s next” would depend on whose asking the question and what Confederate statue or monument is being considered. The history of the statue or monument relative to the time and place it occupies and why it was erected. A question important to the significance of the statue or monument would be does this monument honor the Confederacy or reflect some aspect of ethnic bigotry? In any case its presence on public property would be of concern.

What Goldberg seems to suggest is that the people who find the monuments the Confederacy offensive and sensitive are somehow taking their 1st Amendment rights too far. He added: “Leftist already shut down speech they don’t like on college campuses, including public universities funded by taxpayers. Is it such a stretch to silence people we detest from the public square?” Identifying but not defining some people as “Leftists,”  Goldberg, apparently, believe these people go about indiscriminately creating and causing problems simply because they do not like something. Also, why would he think these people are not taxpayers? Goldberg totally missed the point of the movement and its proponents and it shows in his uninformed comments and questions. Most people in the movement do not want to silence anyone, but they do want to exercise their rights to protest and seek to remove anything that historically has been shown to be offensive and hurtful to them and other citizens.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.