Paul R. Lehman, A suggestion of how Rachel Dolezal can resolve her problem of a black/African American identity

May 19, 2018 at 12:26 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, discrimination, DNA, education, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, identity, interpretations, liberty, minority, passing, race, Race in America, racism, skin color, skin complexion, Slavery, tolerance, white supremacy, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

All the criticism, complaints, and negative comments about Rachel Dolezal need to stop because she has the right to live her life as she chooses. However, we need to clarify her position and those of her critics so an understanding of this situation can be fully realized. In a recent article by Clarence Page (The Oklahoman, 5/12/2018), the title asks the question: “Why Rachel Dolezal still tries to bend racial rules” relative to the defense of her black identity. The article is basically a review of the movie, “The Rachel Divide,” which Page describes as a “Netflix documentary on which director Laura Brownson began to work shortly after the scandal broke [and it] peels away more layers of that mystery by giving us a closer look at Dolezal’s troubled family and upbringing.” He added that “It may not answer all of the questions as to why she wanted so desperately to be black, but it offers a more complete picture of the life she was trying to escape, along with the social construct of race as the rest of us know it.”More than likely, the movie adds more confusion to Dolezal’s situation and to that of her critics because of one simple word—race.

The problem of Ms. Dolezal’s critics is that they have fallen victim to accepting the concept of race as valid and accurate and because of this acceptance they view everything through a black and white lens. The problem with Dolezal is that she also has fallen victim to accepting the concept of a black race and a white race. Confusion relative to race exists on both sides– Dolezal’s and her critics because they both accept the concept of race by color as valid. Race as Page mentioned is a social construct; i.e., a myth.

When the captured Africans were brought to America, one of the first orders of business for the masters was to take away any sense or feeling of self-worth or value. That was accomplished by taking away their personal identity and providing them with a new identity. The effect of calling the Africans blacks or negroes, which means black, was to deprive them not only of their cultural and ancestral identity but also of their history. By referring to the African captives as blacks or negroes, their history begins with their experience as slaves.

The constructing of a black and a white race by the founding fathers was the basis of what is known as the system of white (European American) supremacy, a system that has the European Americans view themselves as the most important people on the planet. American society supported the supremacy concept by having all the social institutions comply with that concept. Consequently, many Americans believe the concept of a black and a white race to be true. Two facts about the concept of race remain: one, race by color has never been defined; second, race by color cannot be defined because the colors are not consistent or definite (fixed). Therefore, the system of European American supremacy can only exist by law, or agreement, voluntary or forced. According to recent scientific findings, all human beings belong to the same family or race known as Homo Sapiens; no other race of human beings exist on the planet.

The problem, as well as the confusion regarding Dolezal and her critics, is that both sides accept the black/white race concept as legitimate. Both sides are wrong in their thinking about race. The point that needs to be underscored in this matter is that all human beings have two identities—one cultural, one ancestral. The cultural identity is the one that the individual selects, usually based on the culture and/or geographic location in which they lived or were born into. An example shows the difference as when a person who, for example,  was born and raised in Haiti immigrated to America and became a citizen. That person’s cultural identity would be American with no reference to skin color or any other physical characteristics; that person’s ancestral or ethnic identity would be Haitian. If that Haitian person married an American and a child was born to them, the child’s cultural identity would be American, with no reference to skin color; however, the child’s ancestral or ethnic identity would be Haitian and American to reflect the identities of both parents. The ancestral identity is not usually viewed as a necessary or primary part of a person’s cultural identity. For example, when a person of color comes to America, only their cultural identity is necessary such as German, English, French, Nigerian, Egyptian, and Jamaican etc.

Dolezal’s problem with her identity is based on her reference to an ancestral identity that does not exist for her since both her biological parents are Americans of European heritage. As long as she identifies herself as an American, regardless of the ethnic cultural she chooses, she should have few conflicts. However, because she wants to identify her cultural identity which is American, as an ancestral identity, which to her is black/African American, a problem is created with the critics who realize that that identity would be false.  One way to avoid the problem which Dolezal found herself in is to simply identify herself as an American woman of color. No reference to an ancestral identity is necessary and no feelings will be hurt. After all, all human beings originated in Africa and that is part of our DNA. Besides, all people are brown, just different shades of brown.

The acceptance of race as valid and correct is and has been the problem for centuries. The language we use helps to keep us ignorant of who we are and what we are—all human being belong to one race. The fact that ethnic identity is usually based on geography does not mean that a biological difference exists among people. David Reich, a Harvard University paleogeneticist whose new book called Who We Are and How We Got Here, noted that “There are not fixed traits associated with specific geographic locations, Reich says, because as often as isolation has created differences among populations, migration and mixing have blurred or erased them.”In essence, no separate homogeneous race exists.

What this all means is that no one person or group has a monopoly on race regardless of skin color. So, if Dolezal wants to identify herself as an American woman of color, she has every right to do so, because references to an identity on a cultural basis are purely voluntary. Biologically, skin color is just that, skin color.

Advertisements

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, Why Steve Bannon wants to be called a racist and wear it as a badge of honor

March 17, 2018 at 2:23 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, discrimination, DNA, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, Human Genome, Media and Race, Prejudice, President Obama, race, Race in America, skin color, skin complexion, Steve Bannon, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For almost a decade this blog has advised readers to stop using the word racist because it was inaccurate and counterproductive.  The fact is that when someone who has a bias against people of ethnicities different from his or her own is called a racist that serves to underscore, support, and compliment them and their beliefs. When people speak and behave in bias ways that show their bigotry towards other people, they can usually hide behind the word racist. Let us look briefly at what forms the basis of the word racist.

When the word race came into popular usage by the Anglo and Saxons with reference to the British, no concern for physical appearance was at issue. The word was used to signify a difference in character and social behavior. The British were referred to as “brutes” by the Anglo and Saxons with the understanding that their ancestries were totally different and not akin; that is, they did not want to be associated with them in any way. A change in the use and significance of the word race came into effect when slavery was introduced in Europe, and especially in England. As long as all people regardless of their skin complexion and social status were viewed as human beings treatment of them showed respect for their humanity. Once, however, some people could be viewed as less than human, then, less humane treatment of them could be justified. So, the word race began to take on a different usage, one that took into consideration not only the character, and social status of people but also their skin color.

When the founding fathers introduced the concept of race by skin color, they did so base on nothing more than their desire to avoid having to justify slavery. The bias against people of low social and economic status was already in place before they left England. In order to have people of color viewed as inferior, the European American or Anglo-Saxons had to be seen as superior, hence, white supremacy. As long as European Americans controlled society, they could also control the concept of European American supremacy which they did through all the social institutions as well as through the churches. What the founding fathers did not realize was that their concept of race by skin color was flawed and based on simply a false concept that could not withstand the test of time, and their control would not last forever.

Consequently, today many European Americans conditioned by society to see themselves only through their skin color are being impolitely awakened to the reality of their delusion—no such thing as a black race and a white race exists. In fact, the only race of human in existence today, as far as we know, is human beings. Unfortunately, many European Americans who have for many years viewed themselves as superior to all people of color are unwilling to accept the fact that they were deceived about race. The deception has been such an integral part of American society that having to come to grips with reality is a monumental challenge.

For years, many groups in America have based their identity and social significance on the color of their skin and the concept of skin complexion being the basis of a biological race which they wish to preserve. The total number of groups are too numerous to name here, but a few that are generally known as white nationalist groups, focus on white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, and they often focus on the alleged inferiority of people of color. A few of these groups include Ku Klux Klan, neo-Confederate, neo-Nazi, racist skinhead, Christian Identity, and Aryan nation among many more. These kinds of groups are not restricted to America but exist in parts of the world where the concept of a white race is cultivated. These groups are now experiencing pressure from the changing demographics around the world that debunk the concept of race. Their natural inclination is to fight back, which is what they are trying to do primarily through propaganda in a variety of forms.

In a recent article by Daniel Politi in The Slatest (3/10/2018) “Let Them Call You Racist…Wear it as a Badge of Honor,” we learn that President Trump’s “former chief strategist Steve Bannon told a gathering of the far-right in France that they should be proud of being called racists.” Speaking to members of the French National Front party Bannon added: “Let them call you xenophobes. Let them call you nativists. Wear it as a badge of honor.” Each of the labels focuses on the idea or concept of a mythical race of so-called white people. Bannon attempted to justify his advice to these far-right groups in general: “Why should members of the far-right wear the racist label as a badge of honor? ‘Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker,’ Bannon told the crowd. In his travels throughout the world, Bannon has learned that ‘history is on our side’ because ‘globalists have no answers to freedom.’” Bannon’s philosophy defies rational and common sense in that he does not identify or define who the “other side “and the “globalists” are nor does he state the group’s objective.

When Barak Obama became President of the United States, the fact that he was a man of color, an African American, sent a shock wave through the bigots of America and around the world. The shock was to their belief in European American/white superiority. While the myth of race and skin color representing symbols of superiority and inferiority have been debunked for many years, bigots have no rational way of accepting the reality that all human beings are brown; just different shades of brown. Hence, the foundation of their philosophy and belief in a white race and its superiority have no basis on which to sustain itself other than propaganda. With 80% of the observable world’s population being people of color, and the rapidly changing demographics representing mixed ethnic populations, the numbers are greatly against Bannon and his like-minded followers.

Bannon and his followers enjoy being called racist because that word supports their philosophy of a white race; however, the use of that word also removes any direct responsibility of bias from the individual and assigns it to the so-called white race of which the individual is only a representative. The fact is that Bannon is not a racist, but a bigot, a word he does not use. He does not use it because it is accurate and places all responsibility for the bigotry on the individual, not a group, and it does not support a superiority concept. So, for the record, Bannon is not a racist, but a bigot.

 

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, Trump’s use of the s—hole word more than a slip of the tongue

January 27, 2018 at 1:46 pm | Posted in Africa, democracy, ethnic stereotypes, European Americans, political tactic, President Trump, racism, respect, The Oklahoman | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

A recent statement published in the “Your Views” section of The Oklahoman (1/24/2018) by Georgia Newton showed how brief statements can reveal more about us than we might think. The title of the statement is “Grow up,” which can suggest a number of interpretations. Although the statement is brief, it provides a considerable amount of food for thought.

The first sentence stated: “President Trump’s alleged question about  ‘s—hole countries’ reminds me of something that happened when I was 12.” We know that Newton is an adult and has an opinion concerning the question allegedly made by Trump concerning countries inhabited primarily by people of color. We also know that she will compare Trump’s use of that “s” word to something remembered from her past. We know, in addition, from the title, that she has an emotional connection to the word.

In her second sentence, we are told about her experience when she was 12: “My cousin and I were playing a game of Monopoly and something didn’t go my way, and I said the same bad word.”  We now know that her experience involved playing a board game with her cousin during which she encountered a bad experience. As a result of that experience, she uttered the same ‘s’ word which she labeled as bad. We learned that sometimes when things did not go her way she reacted by using bad words.

Her third sentence indicated that “My cousin said she was going to tell on me—and she did.” From the actions of her cousin, we learned that the ‘s’ word was not socially acceptable in her family. Had the word been acceptable, telling an adult would serve no purpose. We were not informed of the repercussion she encountered from her cousin telling on her.

Her fourth sentence told us more about Newton: “Our lawmakers are making such a big deal over this!” This sentence indicated a lack of understanding relative to the significance of the ‘s’ word used in a negative context and with direct reference to countries of people of color. The political implications relating to the diplomatic relations that America has with those countries were underscored by the “Lawmakers making a big deal over “ it because they understood the possible repercussions from such a negative characterization.

Newton’s next utterance of “Really?” showed that her attention was simply on the use of a “bad word” as opposed to who used the word, namely, Trump, when and where he used it. Had she been fully aware of the history of Trump and his history with people of color, she might have given it a second thought. The fact that she asked the question indicated that she did not place any diplomatic significance on the lawmakers’ reactions to Trump’s use of the word in conjunction with the negative associations of his biases.

Newton’s final words were:”Grow up!” We can only assume that her command was directed towards the lawmakers who were making a big deal of the use of the bad word. However, her choice of phrase reflected more on her arrogance and lack of understanding relative to the situation than to the lack of maturity on the part of the lawmakers. The phrase “Grow up” means to progress toward or arrive at the full stature of physical and/or mental maturity, or to develop from childhood towards adulthood. Evidently, that definition is not what Newton had in mind when addressing the lawmakers since the qualifications for officer holders are well-established for adults. Her use of that phrase was probably meant to challenge their intellectual growth.

The fact that Newton would criticize the lawmakers for taking offense at Trump’s use of the ‘s’ words in the context in which it was used indicated that she was not conversant with the diplomatic history of the situation. The command also indicated that she had no problem with the use of “bad words” in general since they represent no big deal. The fact that ethnic bigotry and the social value of people of color was not readily apparent to Newton indicated that she simply viewed the ‘s’ word in isolation. Evidently, she believes that using socially unacceptable language is fine if one is upset or things are not going his or her way. That attitude suggests behavior more akin to a child than an adult.

An indication of the level of maturity questioned in Newton’s statement occurred when she used and compared a childhood incident in which she used the ‘s’ word to the one used by the President of the United States. She, unlike the lawmakers, saw no difference in the use of the word. The fact that she equated the use of the word in both cases as similar speaks volumes about her intellectual maturity. No one questions Newton’s right to speak freely about whatever she wants to address; however, once she has spoken, and publically, the readers have the freedom to comment on what was said, and view it critically.

Newton’s command to “grow up” at the end of her statement suggested that she was a grown up and that she judged the lawmakers, and subsequently, those who believed as did the lawmakers, not to be grown-ups.  Unfortunately, the fact that she did not understand the seriousness of Trump’s use of the ‘s’ word and the political impact it would have on our diplomatic relations with the countries included in his statement showed a lack of knowledge regarding the situation. Her lack of knowledge, nevertheless, did not prevent her from assuming a lack of intellectual maturity on the part of the lawmakers. What we readers discovered from Newton’s statement was the lack of information, knowledge, perception, and maturity from her as an adult.

As she continues to mature our hope is that Newton realizes that words do not exist in a vacuum and depending on how they are used, they have consequences that can range from soft and sweet to dangerous. Words also have histories, and knowledge of that history can be very important when used in a certain context. Really? Really.

 

Paul R. Lehman, What’s wrong with white people (European Americans)

October 27, 2017 at 7:48 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, blacks, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, justice, Prejudice, Race in America, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Some European American people are in a quandary about what to do about their knowledge of bigotry and how it affects them. A number of things to consider in attempting to address this conundrum involve an awareness of reality, and an awareness of language. To deal with reality is to understand that many European Americans do not realize that society has conditioned them to view themselves as the model of humanity or see themselves as not belonging to a race but as representative of the human race. That conditioning also has them view all people not like them as inferior to them. This conditioning is something that is acquired from living in a society that controls the social atmosphere and shows the European Americans how to see other people, what to think about other people, and how to behave around other people. Therefore, being biased against non-European people comes naturally and seems normal, nothing out of the unusual. For European Americans seeing themselves as the center of the universe is also normal. The awareness is that all the conditioning is base in falseness, myth, lies, illusion and it is bigoted.

They could not see the illusion because society presented everything to them as occurring naturally. The bigotry, segregation, discrimination and other abuses were present in society, but because they were viewed as normal to many European Americans, they did not feel compelled to do anything to address them as social and human wrongs. When the African Americans protested for civil rights, many of the European Americans remained silent although many of them were aware of the injustices African Americans were experiencing. Regarding civil rights legislation, not a single act or law was directed specifically to African Americans, but all Americans. Never the less, African Americans were implicated in every piece of civil rights legislation that included the word race; an action used to make certain the concept of races continued.

One of the ironies relative to bigotry in America involves the efforts of the civil rights organizations. While many European Americans did not support the protests of the civil rights activists, the major segment of society to reap the greatest benefits from the civil rights gains is the European American women as a result of Title lX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Today, some fifty years after the Civil Rights Act, African Americans experience the least success from Affirmative Action. For example, “The median white [European American] household has 13x as much wealth as the medium black [African American] household; and 10x as much as the medium Hispanic household. Even with a college education: The medium white [European American] person has 7.2x the wealth of a similarly educated black [African American] person.” (The Nation, September 2017, p.5)

The challenge for many European Americans comes from finding ways to deconstruct the illusion they have lived under all their lives. Their initial response to this awareness might come as a shock, not wanting to believe that their lives have been a game of pretending. Shock is the appropriate term because the other stages of awareness follow the Kubler-Ross stages of grief. These stages are important because for European Americans coming to the awareness of their lives being an illusion and replacing that illusion with reality is similar to losing someone to death. The stages are shock, denial, anger, rejection, examination, understanding and acceptance.

Once the acceptance of reality has been achieved next comes how to deal with the reality. Language is the biggest threshold to overcome because we never questioned the language since we grew up with it. So, if European Americans called themselves white now, what will they call themselves instead of white? The ideal would be that they call themselves Americans. Here we must introduce the two identities we all have: a cultural and an ancestral identity. The cultural identity is the one that we choose; the ancestral identity is based on the ethnicity of our birth parents. However, when the founding fathers invented the concept of race by color, both the cultural and ancestral identities was taken away and put in their place were the colors black and white. For many Europeans, the opportunity to call themselves white was worth giving up their identities; for African Americans, the choice was not available.

Unfortunately, many European Americans do not know that they have an ancestral and cultural identity; the only identity they know of is white. If that white identity is taken from them, they are left without a sense of value and worth. For those European Americans who know the value of white supremacy and white privilege, the fear of losing that white identity represents their reason for living. So, they become defensive when they believe that identity is threatened. Any social progress by African Americans and people of color represent to the bigots, a threat to their white privilege.

The constant challenge for America is that people of color see themselves as human beings, even when European Americans see only themselves as normal human beings; they see everyone else as different and abnormal. The problem is how they, the European Americans, see themselves and others, not how others see themselves and European Americans. European Americans have been socially conditioned to see people who do not look like them as inferior to them, and that conditioning, however, feels natural to them.  Undoing the bigoted social conditioning of European Americans must be the responsibility of enlightened and knowable European Americans who know and understand the system of white supremacy. The primary starting point for undoing the social conditioning is with language, beginning with the words race, black and white. Once those words have been debunked, then the process of replacing the bigoted concept of white (European American) supremacy can begin.

In looking at the topic of this essay, how it is interpreted depends on what word or words are emphasized—wrong or white people (European American), and who is doing the interpreting.

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.

Paul R. Lehman, Steve Bannon accidently reveals secret of extremists use of language for control

August 18, 2017 at 4:27 am | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, blacks, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, extremists, justice, Kevin Drum American Prospect, Mother Jones, politicians, Prejudice, President, Race in America, racism, white supremacy, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The two most important elements of the system of white supremacy are race and racism; they are like wet and water. Without these two elements, the system would fall apart. The system was constructed in a way that keeps it running smoothly by the people it promotes and those it oppresses. For example, when a right-wing extremist is referred to as a racist rather than serving as an insult, it, in fact, serves to underscore his self-concept, working the same as a compliment. The system is supported and promoted every time the words race and racism are used because they underscore its existence. The fact that many Americans have tried to combat racism for several hundred years without any success is an indication of how clever the system was constructed. The key to the system’s strength and longevity is in the language it uses. By everyone using the system’s language without knowing its effect guarantees its uninterrupted continuance.

Today, like several hundred years ago, people speak about race and racism as if they have full knowledge of their impact. The fact of the matter is that what many users of those words do not realize is that by the very use of the words, the system of white supremacy is being validated. The system and how it works was detailed in my book: The system of European American (white) Supremacy and African American (black) Inferiority (2016). In that book the statement was made that racism cannot be defeated; it must be replaced. One reason it cannot be defeated is that one would be forced to reconcile the system by using the system’s language and that is always a losing proposition. Regardless of what anyone says about race and racism both remain undisturbed in the system they support. For that reason, people, especially politicians, can rant and rave about the negative effects and consequences of racism with impunity.

Americans have become accustomed to the parade of televised panels of race experts and scholars giving their assessment of the latest incident of social unrest or print media articles touting the ills of racism and its effect on society. In some instances, some good has come from some of those experiences relative to social and human relations in the national community. However, when the next incident of civil and social unrest occur involving race and racism, it seems that everything must go back to the beginning of a conversation relative to race.

A number of prominent individuals travel the country speaking and teaching about the ills of racism and attempting to show audiences what it feels like to be discriminated against because of one’s skin color. In addition to the good that comes from these experiences, little to nothing is done to replace racism. What these individuals do not realize is that they are using the system’s language, so while the knowledge of a system of white supremacy might be communicated, any opportunity to replace that system is lost.

An article appeared recently (8/16/2017) in Mother Jones by Kevin Drum, that read “Steve Bannon: Fighting Racism is for Losers.”  The article recounted an incident where Steve Bannon called the  American Prospect to “chew the fat.” During the conversation, Bannon was asked what he thought about combating racism and white supremacy. Bannon responded: “The Democrats,” he said, “the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”Here we have the words right from the mouth of one of the people associated with an alleged extremist group, a person who works in the White House as an advisor to the President.

So, why would Bannon state that he wants the Democrats, and one suspects, everybody else, to talk about racism. He knows that any talk about race and racism will lead to a dead-end and in so doing waste time and energy in a foolhardy enterprise. What Bannon knows is that race used as identity, black and white, is a lie, but Americans have been conditioned to accept it as fact. Once race has been accepted then additional aspects of it can be added to it, like racism, racial, mixed –race, biracial etc. While these words all look legitimate, they are just as bogus as race. Bannon knows this and enjoys the game because as long as he manipulates the language, he wins. The irony of it all is that as long as Americans identify with either black or white, they lose because race separates and unites simultaneously.

What the extremists know is that whenever the word black is used or the word white is used they both are followed by the word race whether stated or not. The use of each word serves the same purpose –to divide and unify since they are both followed by the word race. If society would stop using words black and white in favor of African American and European American respectfully, the divide would no longer exist. Using the words ethnic group or ethnicity instead of race would remove the divide caused by the language. However, because we have been socially conditioned, we are implicitly biased, and the bigotry comes naturally and therefore is difficult to replace.

Only when we as a society come to understand how the system of ethnic bigotry dominates our lives can we start to see reality. Bannon and his followers in the extremist movement do not want us to know that we have been and continue to be manipulated into believing that race by color and racism are legitimate. They do not want us to stop and think about the language we use which support and underscore their bigoted ideology. That is why they provoke and encourage the constant use of the words race and racism because all the effort and energy exerted to try to destroy them only serve to support and promote them. Once we come to our understanding about the system of European American supremacy and its language, we will be able to agree with Bannon that fighting racism is for losers and we know better than to continue down that path.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.