Racism and Bad Statistics

I once spoke of my hope for a dystopian utopia, where all races and ethnicities bonded together against “the Man”. Sadly, today we’re possibly even more divided and contentious than before, with each side blaming the other for our societal issues. Even people who would normally be on the fence feel the need to take sides, often without (or even in the face of) critical thought and education.

One of the most frustrating behaviors is the presentation of statistics to prove our point… that “our” beliefs are more valid than “theirs”. Of course, arm chair experts spouting data is about as reliable and valid as someone using WebMD to diagnose their problems. (I know… my hypochondriac behind regularly does the latter). So, here I am to point out a couple of statistical claims and how they’re being used poorly to fit one’s personal perceptions or agenda.

A) More Whites are killed by Police than Blacks

Numerically, yes. According to a year-long study by the Washington Post, 990 people were killed by police officers in 2015. Of those, 494 were White and 258 were Black, confirming the above error… but only superficially. Most people with a knowledge of statistics in social sciences know you usually don’t look at raw population, but per capita numbers.

In America, the population is 63.7% White and 12.2% Black, so it would make sense mathematically for more Whites to be involved in a police-related incident than Blacks. Yet 50% of those killed were White while 26% were Black, which doesn’t match the population demographics. Statistically, more of the Black population were killed than White, showing a disparity between population and police-involved killings.

So yes, by raw numbers, more Whites are killed by police than Blacks. That makes sense considering our population consists of more White citizens than Blacks. It would be like going to Hawai`i and saying, “Man, I see more Asians and Polynesians here than elsewhere.” Yet, from a per capita perspective, Blacks are killed more often than Whites, and there’s no denying that.

B) More Police Officers are killed by Blacks than Whites

The latest now tries to flip the script on that per capita perspective. New arguments show that Blacks per capita kill a larger amount of police officers than their White counterparts. The 2004-2013 FBI statistics confirm this, with 51% of officer fatalities at the hands of Whites compared to 43% by Blacks. That seems to support the above allegations, but once more knowing numbers and applying them are two different things.

Most sociologists or psychologists know not to generalize, but instead to use the numbers as a guide to determine underlying factors. They wouldn’t use the data above to generalize that police are more likely to be killed by Blacks, but instead to ask why there’s a disparity between population and police fatalities involving Black individuals.

Could it be that minority communities are often relegated to poorer, more crime-ridden areas thanks to decades of segregationist practices, meaning interactions there are potentially more dangerous? Could it be that a millennia of oppression has lead to less trust and more miscommunication between minorities and law enforcement, creating the potential for violent interactions? Could it be the unethical and unjust practices of a poor justice system and for-profit, revolving door prisons that put known offenders back on the street and poison neighborhoods? These are answers that would require more complex studies than the simplistic and fallacious black-and-white thinking of most who simply spout numbers to fulfill their personal biases.

The point is, don’t spout numbers unless you know how to properly interpret and apply them.

When a scientist performs a statistical analysis, they often include conclusions that discuss the possible implications as well as other factors that should be explored. They try not to generalize or misinterpret, and often ask more questions upon discovering data than they do making final conclusions. Numbers are used to ask why, not to declare causal or other fallacious relationships.

This is doubly so when exploring race, ethnicity, and other demographics. It’s false use of statistics that has contributed to discrimination throughout history, from the pseudo-science of phrenology to studies that denigrated LGBT parents. When someone spouts those erroneous numbers, especially among like-minded individuals, they’re guilty of confirmation bias and being in an echo chamber. Worse, they often contribute to the same ignorant or racist behaviors that pervade society by perpetuating the underlying beliefs and perceptions.

As with all things involving critical thought, think before you speak. Numbers don’t always tell the whole picture, especially when you don’t fully comprehend them.

Racial Issues are Real – Your Arguments are Invalid

In this ever divisive society, exacerbated by the sounding board that is the Internet, there have been a lot of arguments against movements to help racial disparities in society. Most of the arguments against these movements are from White individuals who espouse a variety of perceptions and beliefs why the other side is wrong. Sadly, many of these arguments are based in ignorance or logical fallacy, supporting a maladapted schema about racial issues. Here are some of the most common claims and why they hold no water…

• All Lives Matter

One of the biggest arguments against the Black Lives Matter movement is that the name itself is divisive and racist. After all, shouldn’t all lives matter? Are supporters claiming that Black lives are more important than the other races?

The problem is that latter question is a strawman. No one is saying that Black lives are more important; instead, they’re bringing attention to the fact that society seems to treat Black lives with less importance. Statistically, the race that is most likely to be killed are African-Americans, whether by police, medical reasons, etc. This disparity is often tied to societal practices and systems, whether it’s profiling by law enforcement and non-Blacks, unequal treatment by judicial systems, the prevalence of poverty and crime in Black neighborhoods, or a lack of proper treatment for mental and physical illnesses.

When someone wants to remind people that “Black lives matter”, they’re attempting to bring attention to this disparity and the underlying causes. Supporters are saying that the attention needed for Black issues is more important than other demographics, not the Black lives themselves. “Oh, but you just admitted it, they want more attention!” Well… yes. Why wouldn’t they? There’s a cartoon that easily explains this…

As you can see, those who are suffering more deserve more attention. Whites are not statistically more likely to be killed; even Asians and Latinos fare better, with Middle Easterners only beginning to face similar problems because of Islamophobia. This doesn’t mean that each group doesn’t have its own problems, but that the biggest problems require more help. If you have a group of people with one cut, one shot, and the rest are untouched… who should the EMT look at first? Would you try and suggest the people standing around unharmed, require attention? “I’m sorry, but could you please stop and talk to me as I’m suffering mental distress from witnessing this incident. I mean, we all matter equally, don’t we?”

Black lives matter because they are currently the ones suffering the most. They’re not more important than other races, but their situation generally is.

• Every Race can be Racist

This isn’t exactly untrue, as the literal definition of the term racism is objective and doesn’t care about the perpetrator. You can find individuals of any race who espouse beliefs or practice behaviors that race is a determinant of characteristics and/or a race is inferior (or superior) to others. What this ignores, however, is the influence of racist acts on society by certain demographics (historically and currently).

Even if 50% of Whites practiced racism and 50% of Blacks did the same, what impact would each have on society and its systems? 110 million Whites that discriminate against 38 million Blacks, in a society where Blacks are at a disadvantage… versus 17 million Blacks who might discriminate against 220 million Whites in that same societal system. The only way it would be close to equal numerically would be if 100% of Blacks were anti-White and only 17% of Whites felt the same way. Given recent polling data, I highly doubt that sort of mentality is equal, and that’s still ignoring the fact that the majority of people in positions of authority (from legislators to judges) are White. Which is where structural racism, as opposed to individual acts, comes into play…

In sociology, and similar academics, there is a different definition of racism as a societal structure that makes the “playing field” unfair for certain races. Some demographics do not have adequate representation and often suffer under unequal institutional policies. They may be subject to stereotypes, labels, and (conscious or subconscious) reactions based on these generalizations and misperceptions. These problems are not just on an individual level but ingrained in society as a whole, thanks to generations of societal norms and continued inaction by those in positions of authority. This is why racism cannot be “reversed”, because a single racist act by a Black against a White is nothing compared to the structure of a society where Blacks experience systemic racism on a daily basis.

So, yes, every person can be racist regardless of race. Yet that doesn’t mean that African-Americans don’t have it worst when it comes to the racism game, from simply being outnumbered to being subject to a complex societal structure that puts them at a constant disadvantage. That’s why “racism” in this country generally runs one way, at least on a societal level.

• Africans were Guilty of Slavery Too

Now that we’ve explained why Black lives matter and how the system of racism generally puts Blacks at a disadvantage, we get to the next misinformed arguments. That usually involves historical examples of how Blacks treated themselves or the subjugation of other demographics. Of course, this is all irrelevant as it doesn’t address the problems African-Americans face today or the sources of those issues. That being said, let’s look at the first of two common historical arguments: the actions of Africans.

Historically, much of the African slave trade originated in Africa by Africans. This is an indisputable truth and no one denies this practice (that is still common in war-torn countries even today). Of course, it ignores several historical truths that put the slave trade of the Americas into a different context when compared to the practice of slavery throughout historical Africa.

Prior to the presence of foreigners, African slavery was a varied practice where slaves were treated as anything from future tribal members to third-class citizens. Often these slaves were sold through commerce or won through conquests, yet in the end they were still treated with some sense of humanity. This ingrained a certain expectation that when a slave was sold to someone else, they’d be treated in the same manner as the seller’s culture. Things would change, however, when slaves were taken or traded to foreign powers.

Starting with the Arabic invasions that brought slaves to northern Africa and the Middle East, some slaves were treated as disposable labor or soldiers. Still, even with the wars and expansions of these kingdoms, slaves still held onto cultures and were treated as human (even if lesser). It wasn’t until the rise of the European powers that slavery took on a new face, treating enslaved Africans like chattel and beasts of burden. Africans probably thought their fellows would be kept similar to their own culture, not squeezed into ships, tortured into submission, and discarded like refuse.

So yes, Africans sold slaves to Europeans and no one is excusing that unethical cultural practice. However, few expected them to be treated like animals or objects. The atrocities committed during the European slave trade rivaled those committed during the genocide of the indigenous American peoples, and laid the groundwork for future prejudices and the structural racism of American society.

• The Irish were Slaves Too

A more recent argument, that is even more fallacious, is the discussion of enslaved Irish. Like the discussion of the African slave trade, this is based on fact without considering the context or consequences. During the 17^th through 19^th centuries, Britain invaded and oppressed Ireland, murdering or enslaving most of its people. Many Irish were shipped to plantations in the Caribbean, where they initially were even interbred with the African slaves (explaining the many slaves of mixed-heritage). Although these practices were later curbed, the process of enslaving the Irish wasn’t abolished until 1839 and hundreds of thousands had been through the same experiences as Africans.

Although atrocious, the comparative experiences and lasting consequences are far different for each population. Hundreds of thousands of Irish are compared to millions of Africans, who were being shipped overseas two centuries earlier and who experienced consequences long after their emancipation in 1863. African slaves were far more widespread, outnumbered Irish at least 20-to-1 and had been enslaved for so long their culture was all but forgotten.

Another big difference is that, upon freedom, those descended from Irish alone could blend right back into society… only linguistics and culture divided them from the rest of the Euro-dominant world. Despite some continued prejudice during the immigrations of the later 19^th century, by the early 20^th most Irish were part of the majority culture and just another part of the White demographic. By the modern era, Irish heritage is often displayed as a badge of pride and celebrated annually by people of all types.

Compare that to African-Americans, who created a demographic unto themselves because of a difference in skin color. After “freedom” they still struggled for acceptance and equal opportunity, facing White supremacists, Jim Crow segregation, fights for civil rights, the loss of their original culture, and stereotyping in everything from civilian society to law enforcement. Even into the 21^st century, Blacks still face discrimination and unequal treatment. Can anyone honestly compare the post-slavery experiences of Irish and Blacks and claim they are equal?

So, once more, yes… factually the existence of Irish slaves is completely true. Yet, comparatively, the experience was nothing compared to African slaves. In addition, the descendants of the latter still face consequences compared to the pride and normalization of those of Irish descent. In fact, those modern experiences are why historical events are of little consequence when discussing racism today.

• I’m not Racist

This is a catch-all for a variety of self-assurances that the individual arguing against equality movements is not a racist. “I never owned slaves or treated a Black person poorly”, “I don’t see color”, “I have Black friends”, and any number of claims are spouted to point out how non-racist the individual is… all to justify their arguments. After all, if the individual arguing against these movements is not a racist, then their argument (no matter how ignorant or fallacious) must be just as valid as the movements themselves.

This may even be coupled with talks about what the person has gone through. “I’ve experienced racism and know what it’s like”, “I’m poor, and therefore I have no privilege”, etc. are all used to deny a society-wide problem because of individual anecdotes. Since the claimant has suffered at some point in their life, they’re on the same level as anyone else who’s suffered… right?

What the claimant seems to not notice is the very egocentrism of their own words. Notice what word they use? “I”… repeatedly. It’s all about what they did, rather than discussing what others do or the inherent unfairness of society itself. This is the crux of most arguments, as the person only wants to think about the immediate picture rather than expand their schema to include a larger picture and their role in it.

A popular movie quote stated, “Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.” By ignoring one’s position in society, including one’s advantages, authority, and participation in unfair systems, the individual becomes just as culpable as those who flagrantly practice racist beliefs and behaviors. In essence, the claimant contributes to racism by refusing to acknowledge racism.

So, while you might not be racist, that doesn’t mean your perceptions and actions don’t contribute to racist systems and policies. Not to mention, when people talk about these issues, it’s not all about you.

• I Shouldn’t be Forced to Feel Guilt

This last is not so much as an argument against racial equality movements, but a general statement that crops up. When you attempt to confront someone arguing against racial issues, they fall back on how you are trying to make them feel guilty when they did nothing wrong. Interestingly, this emotion they feel has nothing to do with what you are doing and everything to do with their own psychological mechanisms.

An individual who experiences a disparity between what they believe and reality, often suffer a form of psychological distress known as cognitive dissonance. They cannot handle the difference between their worldview and the facts in front of them, so they experience emotions similar to guilt. This often triggers psychological defense mechanisms including minimization (“Racism is not that big an issue”), denial (“It’s not happening around here”), and projection (“You’re the one that keeps bringing up race!”).  Thus, when confronted with a societal reality (wherein they have an advantage), they resort to fallacious and ignorant statements.

Here’s the thing… no one is saying you should feel guilt. If you feel guilt it’s probably because you are experiencing some sort of mental distress when faced with these issues. Which is good! No one should look at the disparity of how society treats African-Americans and feel positive. They should be upset, outraged, or any other negative emotion. That’s normal!

What’s not normal is then choosing to deny the issue and make all sorts of claims why it’s not an issue. That’s just plain ignorant… and ignorance is a major factor behind society-wide racism.

Nerd Culture – Supporting Inappropriate Behavior?

Before I start this, let me emphasize the difference between “Geeks” and “Nerds”. Geeks are hobbyists, often obsessed with some popular entertainment or fiction. Geek culture is at a high point right now, with comics, fantasy, and science-fiction all acceptable (and profitable) parts of modern society. Even normally marginalized practices, like gaming and cosplay, are not nearly as ostracized as they once were. This discussion is not about geeks or “geek culture”… it’s about nerds.

“Nerd” has many different definitions, but in most of them it’s recognized as someone who is socially awkward. Psychologically, this could be understood as a lack of social intelligence and/or emotional maturity. This means many nerds often suffer from a lack of self-awareness, awareness (or acceptance) of social norms, lack of adaptation to social change, maladaptive emotional development, poor emotional control, or any combination of these psychological issues. Many nerds pursue geek hobbies… but not all geeks are socially-inept like nerds. Thus my distinction between the larger “geek culture” and the more defined “nerd culture”, even if the two are often intertwined (or stereotyped onto each other).

Prior to the advent of the Internet, nerds most likely were limited by their geographical area. Certainly there have been conventions, magazines, etc. for decades that allowed like-minded individuals to gather, but most “nerd cultures” would likely have developed among local social groups. If someone practiced negative social or emotional behaviors, they more easily faced negative consequences that would punish the inappropriate behavior. This might have led to changes in behavior or simple exclusion of the individual, but there was minimal reinforcement for the behavior in question.

The Internet, especially into the 21st century, changed all that. Suddenly like-minded groups could discuss similar perspectives over great distances. Social media allowed real-time sharing, and support, of each other’s perceptions, cognition, and behaviors. Socially-inept groups that might have been limited to a half-dozen friends in a county suddenly exploded into hundreds or thousands. These negative social and emotional perspectives were socially reinforced by similar individuals. Worse, with the acceptance of many geek hobbies as mainstream pursuits, suddenly these groups felt their perceptions and opinions were valid in mainstream society.

So, today “nerd culture” is the source for such indefensible movements as GamerGate, Sad Puppies, and other groups that tout themselves as promoting ethics when they are doing anything but that. Decades ago if someone had spouted something misogynistic, racist, or similarly inappropriate in a geek group, most often they would have been ostracized. Now, though, they have the sounding board of forums and blogs that only reinforce these maladaptive cognitions. It’s like giving a child with a violent, destructive temperament a lighter and letting them loose with other psychopathic children.

It’s a sad case when things so positive, including the creativity of geek pursuits and the Internet itself, can be turned into something so socially and psychologically destructive. Sadly, these individuals not only ruin the quality of life for the majority but also will never receive the mental help they so desperately need. We simply need to strive to create a new balance among nerd and geek cultures, to once more teach the socially inept and emotionally immature proper behavior.

Race Exists (Whether You Acknowledge It or Not)

Dear White friends,

I know you want to live in a utopia where race doesn’t matter. Every time the discussion comes up, you say, “Well, I don’t see color.” When there’s a riot or a speech by some activist, you decry them as the racist. “You’re the one bringing it up, making it all about race.” You sincerely believe that if we just stop labeling, accusing, or thinking about the topic, it will go away.

Well, you’re wrong. Race exists, and is important, whether you like it or not.

At the very least, it’s a factor that makes someone different. Maybe it’s physical, like someone who is left-handed, short, or deaf. You don’t ignore these aspects when you know someone, so why would you ignore their race? Maybe it doesn’t come up all the time, or it’s the butt of friendly jokes, or it’s a serious part of their lives. Yet it exists and people have to acknowledge it. You don’t ask your short friend to get something off the shelf or tell someone deaf to go to concerts; why would you tell your Black friend to not worry about situations where skin color matters?

On the other hand, maybe it’s an intricate part of their lives, rooted in culture, history, and development. “Race” is a social construct, as we’re all the same species, consisting of physical features, historical occurrences, cultural ties, and individual experiences. Someone who is Native American is more than their looks; their development may be influenced by the ancient teachings of their nation, historic oppression, modern poverty, and their personal views and relationships. If you ignore “race”, you are denying more than their skin color; you are ignoring history, society, and self-identity.

So, that makes me a “racist” because I refuse to ignore that factor? Well, no.

Racism occurs when you take those differences and aspects, and use them to denigrate another. Racists use “race” to label others inferior while making themselves appear superior. They use labels, traits, and culture ties in a harmful, exclusive manner. (There’s also “positive” stereotypes, which still constitutes a form of racism, but that’s a topic for another time).

You can acknowledge race, and all that comes with it, without being “racist”. All you’re doing is saying, “Oh, you’re different; maybe I should think before I say or do something based on that difference.” You already do this for friends because of their personal experiences or beliefs, so why wouldn’t you do it because of race? Why would you avoid casual use of the word “rape” around a victim, but think it’s acceptable to use the N-word because “Black people do it”? If you can support LGBT-rights, because they’re born that way, why is it so hard to acknowledge higher rates of police brutality against those born with non-Caucasian skin?

Now, of course there are those who try to argue about racism because they feel it’s been flipped back on White people. “If you give special treatment to Blacks or Latinos, then you’re a racist!” These same people often ignore the concept of equity versus equality, a topic I posted about in-depth before. The goal is to provide everyone with an equal opportunity, and that doesn’t necessarily mean everyone is treated the same. Someone with a handicap needs accommodations to be able to do the things the abled can already do. The same is true for non-Whites in America, where they require things like race-based organizations, advocacy groups, months focusing on their history, and laws that discourage racist practices… all so they can get the same opportunities that Whites usually have. It’s not racism to require special treatment so non-Whites can have equal chances and to level the playing field; these are done because of racism, even if new problems may arise.

Also, that doesn’t mean that all Whites have opportunity and equity. There are still many other factors besides race that can cause oppression and injustice. Economy, crime, politics, etc. can all cause problems, and even the aforementioned race-based legislation or organizations may contribute (whether accidentally or not). The point of racial acknowledgement is not to deny the issues faced by others because of class, faith, etc… but to focus on the very real issues that exist because of race.

Also important is this: no one is asking you to feel guilt over racial issues because you’re White. Do you feel guilt because you can reach the top shelf and your wife can’t? Do you take it personally whenever a Sarah McLachlan ad about animals comes on? Well, you shouldn’t necessarily feel guilt… but I certainly hope you still feel. You acknowledge something in those cases, from the smallest home problem to the largest social issue, and you probably act. You buy a footstool for the height challenged or you feel anger or sadness at pet abuse. If you can recognize these issues, experience some sort of non-guilt emotion, and possibly change your perception or actions… why is it so hard to do the same because of racial issues?

The point of acknowledgement is not to continue the racial divide, make an issue out of a non-issue, or “oppress the majority”. The whole purpose of racial recognition is to help create a better society, one that is more open-minded and inclusive and strives to prevent racism. By sticking our heads in the sand and turning our back on the issue as if it doesn’t exist, we only contribute to the problem. A popular movie once said, “there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.”

Dear White friends, no one is denying your experiences, your problems, or your identity. So, why would you do that to others?

Why You’re Probably “Privileged”

One of the most frustrating topics to discuss is the concept of “privilege”. Far too many people can’t seem to grasp this word, especially those who have it. I usually see the following arguments why the term doesn’t apply:

1) “I’m poor and struggling, therefore I’m not privileged.”

There is a tendency to equate privilege solely with money or economic class. Wealth is but a single factor in whether you are privileged or not, and not having money doesn’t mean you aren’t privileged. You can be poor and still have an advantage over others just as you can be wealthy and disadvantaged. For example, a homeless man probably doesn’t have to worry about rape every time he sleeps in an alleyway compared to his female counterpart. Similarly, there are anecdotes of rich African-Americans being followed in stores, something their White counterparts (even with lesser money) don’t have to deal with.

2) “I’ve experienced X social stigma in the past because of my faith or social status, therefore I’m not privileged.”

Too many times people equate privilege with whether you are (or have been) disadvantaged. Quite simply, you cannot negate privilege because of a lack in other areas; you still maintain some form of advantage regardless of the disadvantage from others. For example, you can be female (a disadvantaged category in a male-dominant society) and still have advantage because of the color of your skin. Even more blatant are White, male “nerds” who are ignorant of their advantage from the first two categories because of perceived disadvantage in the latter.

Privilege is defined as, “a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people”. Note that this definition is neither contingent on a single advantage nor a lack of disadvantage. Think of privilege as a variety of factors, some of which hold more weight than others depending on the social norms. Race, gender, sexual orientation & identity, culture, religion, and (of course) wealth all play a role in whether you are privileged… and some moreso than others. How so? Well, it is far easier to not express religion than it is to hide ones sexual orientation… and racial features are almost impossible to hide (and usually the most divisive).

The next time you deny or question your own privilege, ask yourself this: is there something about one of my classifications that makes my life easier compared to people of others? You may be poor, but are you treated like other poor people of a different gender? You may be female, but have you experienced constant bias or restriction just because of the color of your skin? You may be pagan, but do you have the freedom to express and participate in yourself that is denied to those of another sexual orientation or identity?

Think about the classifications that apply to you, whether they are subject to biased treatment, and the intensity or likelihood of said bias. Tally up how much you might hold in advantage over others, giving more weight to certain categories. If you hold more advantage than disadvantage in majority society… you might just be privileged.

The Untouchable Nature of America’s Police

Recently there has been a disturbing trend where police officers involved in questionable, and possibly illegal behaviors, have been able to avoid so much as an indictment. Many people think this means they were found “not guilty”, but it’s even worse than that. An indictment is not confirmation of a defendant’s guilt, it’s simply an accusation that the individual might be guilty, and thus the case is worthy of being looked at in a court of law. The indicted individual remains “innocent until proven guilty” but there is the possibility of a wrongdoing.

This is why recent events are so frustrating. If we can’t even accuse a police officer of wrongdoing, whether from witness testimony (no matter how conflicting) or from outright recorded video of questionable behavior… how can you guarantee anyone’s freedom or safety? None of these attempts at grand juries would have convicted anyone, they just would have stated the situation was questionable and the courts should look into it. Instead, though, the officers in question (who may have had histories of similar or related behavior) are able to walk free without so much as an allegation on their record.

Sadly, I blame this on two factors:

1) Nepotism – Courts need the police to cooperate. Sometimes this is done amicably, other times it’s done through favors. And what better favor than to not even try to indict a cop? Thus the criticism in one recent case about the prosecutor not even trying to prosecute and actually doing the defense’s job for them. This quid pro quo approach combines with the “Brothers in Blue” mentality, maintaining an unethical and broken system that rarely convicts one if its own. Who watches the watchers, especially when those who would refuse to do so?

2) Ignorance – Too many people in the majority have no critical thought and objectivity when it comes to social issues. Whether refusing to accept their “privileged” positions in society, unable to see their own bias, or simply incapable of seeing beyond their own white-washed world… these individuals are the worst people to make decisions about these sorts of cases. And yet our grand juries involving racially-charged cases are often created unequally, stocked with this same short-sighted and biased majority. I find it amusing that many associates find fault with Women’s Rights panels made up completely of men, but can’t see the problem with a case that involves minorities and a grand jury that consists of 75% white people.

This is why people are in such an uproar. This is why people are protesting. Hell, other than the criminally-minded in a group, this is why people are rioting. Because nepotism and ignorance trump justice and equality.

Last I checked, those latter two were supposedly the foundations of our country. I guess that’s only for the racial majority, though.

Police Authority: A Middle Ground

Watching the occurrences in Ferguson has me upset at the world in general. I don’t even know where to begin as there are so many problem factors involved. The innate prejudice that causes police to automatically profile minorities? The knee-jerk reactions from officers who like to shoot first and then never ask questions? Perhaps it’s the steady militarization of our police, who supposedly need camouflage, high-powered firearms, and anti-terrorist tactics to so much as serve a warrant? Or it could be the flagrant violations of the Constitution, wherein media is restricted and protesters are attacked for enacting their rights?

At some point someone has to say enough is enough and step in. These same jack-booted behavior was supposed to have been shut down during the Civil Rights Movement of the 50’s and 60’s. It took the federal government to step in and force these locales to fall in line. Perhaps it’s time for some unified regulations on all law enforcement agencies, from the smallest city to statewide? Body cameras, independent ethical review boards, full consequences for offenders, etc. might teach those who are supposed to “serve and protect” that maybe they should stick to those two duties.

Before this seems like I’m jumping on the “Fuck the Police!” bandwagon, let me say I have the utmost respect for most LEOs. I always wanted to be one and failed primarily because I was too old and fat by the time I tried. I worked hand-in-hand with many fine officers, from my days bouncing bar to my short stint as a dispatcher. Today I regularly talk to my local police department as I’m head of our neighborhood watch, and I count several as friends (and even have them on speed dial). In fact, my area police department is almost the opposite from the previous complaint, which brings me to my other point. Although police should be restricted from abuse of authority, they should not be restricted from using it.

Where I live there is almost a fear among law enforcement and the correctional system of going after anyone, especially a minority. Oh, they’re very good at the “blatant” crimes and will often catch burglars, robbers, murderers, etc., but when it comes to less visible crimes they almost seem apprehensive to make an accusation (let alone an arrest). Drug dealing? Destruction of property? Violations of noise ordinance? Loitering? You can call it in, but until you cause a serious enough stink up the ladder (like a Lieutenant or Captain), the beat cops actively avoid doing their job: law enforcement. They’ll either look in the wrong area, show up and leave, or simply ask the person to keep it down. All of this is done with such lack of subtlety and investigation, they completely ignore when the perpetrators scatter upon seeing the police and then return after they leave.

Worse, this is often compounded when there is a trouble location or residence. Our police have to build cases, often over months or years, before they’ll make a move on one of these hot spots. It doesn’t matter how often a neighborhood complains about a house, no matter how many calls about loud parties, arrests of occupants, or even search warrants turning up illegal substances or paraphernalia. This place could be a rental subject to housing assistance regulations, and they still won’t evict the tenants until they’re sure. It’s like they’re so scared of the ACLU or Al Sharpton crying “race!”, they won’t make a move. Sadly, this means neighborhoods degrade as those charged with serving and protecting us are so afraid of accusations of racism or classism, they won’t even do their job.

Is there a middle ground? Can law enforcement work in such a way that they are restricted from abusing their powers but still able to enforce the law? I’m cautiously optimistic with reviews of other police departments that find a way. The use of personal cameras during enforcement seems one of the best examples. Officers are less likely to behave unethically or unprofessionally, because they know they’re being recorded. In addition, any poor behavior on behalf of the citizen is caught on camera for everyone to see. Why don’t we have legislation requiring all police departments to use this technology? Even if they can’t afford it (despite the ever-decreasing cost these days), that’s what tax dollars are supposed to be spent on.

In the end, let’s just hope that incidents like Ferguson encourage common-sense laws and regulation, while critical thinking and planning prevents us from falling too far the other way.

Once More: Please Understand what “Political Correctness” is!

In all the discussion over the change of the Washington football team’s name, there seems to be one erroneous path of logic for those upset about a possible name change: “it’s all about political correctness!” Guess what… this has nothing to do with “Political Correctness”, and just like the terms “Liberal”, “Socialist”, and “Communist”, I suggest you understand what you’re saying before you try and use the words in a counterargument.

Politically correct is defined as “agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people” and “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.” In layman’s terms, it means thinking about what you’re saying or doing because (regardless of intent) it might be construed offensively. Some people call it “critical thinking” or “common sense”…

Political correctness is what gave us debates over labels regarding minorities, the disabled, or the elderly. “African Americans” versus “Blacks”, “Native Americans” versus “American Indians”, “Disabled” versus “Handicapped”, etc. The reason these debates on PC are so divisive is that even the people being labeled have different opinions on what they want (if anything). Worse, these debates are often started by people who don’t even belong to the groups being labeled, bringing to question who is offended and why? Regardless, PC debates are basically about determining if a seemingly inoffensive term or action is, in fact, offensive and should be used.

The term “Redskins” is not about PC because there is no debate on whether it is offensive or not. It is offensive. It is labeled in multiple dictionaries as offensive slang, derogatory, and a racial slur. It was created as a slur, was continually used as a derogatory term, and is still found offensive by the very people it labels. There is no debate on whether this term is innocuous, as even half of the people who want to keep the name admit it is an inappropriate label. Therefore, this has nothing to do with the political correctness of the term, as the majority of ~everybody~ agrees it is not.

The debate over the use of American Indian imagery in sports is about PC. Feel free to argue over whether teams like the Indians or the Braves are being offensive or not.

The debate over the term “Redskins” is not about PC. It’s about the continued use of a racial slur, that the majority agrees is a racial slur, and that has no place in an intelligent, educated, and intercultural society.

A Dystopian Utopia

I said I would discuss the visions my peers and I had of a racially and ethnically mixed future. These ideas have affected my perceptions of recent behavior among younger individuals that I consider extreme and divisive. I wondered if this was something unique to myself or an open-mindedness held by my “generation”. I say that last term loosely, because we are considered Generation X yet most of us are caught somewhere between them and those that follow. The events of my age cohort, plus personal experiences, have likely created a unique outlook on these issues…

First, let’s start with my home life. I was raised in a Caucasian suburban household by Caucasian parents from Caucasian families. One side came from rural, working-class Western New York… the other were middle-class transplants from New York City out to the country. One common tie between both was high intelligence and a focus on education. Both parents were college educated and so were my maternal grandparents; although my paternal grandparents weren’t, they were both smart individuals and my grandfather was a jack-of-all-trades and generalist. I lay this out to show that the first things my families taught weren’t racism or division, but to be open to learning and to think critically about everything. Despite starting my life in a predominantly Caucasian culture, I never thought about race or ethnicity until much later. The color of someone’s skin or the accent of their words were no different than their height or whether they were left-handed.

Flash forward to growing up in a suburb of Washington, DC where the demographics were about to experience a major shift. All through the 80’s I’d grown up knowing mostly Caucasian kids from my neighborhood but being just as friendly with anyone. Despite being bussed to schools in poor Black neighborhoods, my interactions were mostly confined to my gifted programs and I still was ignorant of any divide. A friend was a friend, regardless of their race or ethnicity; by the time I was in Middle School, I had friends who were Black, Asian, and Indian and that was just who they were.

The late 80’s, early 90’s saw a serious shift, not only in my environment but in my experience. Prince George’s County changed from 37% to 51% Black almost overnight as families moved out from Washington, DC. Unfortunately, instead of blending together, a great “White Flight” occurred, with areas that used to be mixed suddenly dominated by African-American residents. Many of these were working class or poverty-stricken families, and with them followed negative changes. Shopping centers began catering solely to Black clientele, youth participation in gangs and drugs caused crime to rise in quiet suburban neighborhoods, and a venomous attitude toward Whites created a hostile environment. A new cultural movement taught African-Americans not to mix with Whites, but instead to look down upon them and cling to the African cultures that were stolen from them.

At this point, I was being bussed into a school that was 90% Black. Peers who had long been friends would no longer talk to me because of the color of my skin. I was physically attacked in my own neighborhood because a new Black gang had moved in and were asserting their dominance over the remaining White kids. In my High School I sat through classes, the only Caucasian student, as a Black guest speaker would spit vitriol toward Whites the likes of which Malcolm X would cringe at. We even had one teacher who liked to play Spike Lee movies on half days, just to kill time. I watched as other students refused to stand for the National Anthem but would jump up and roar loudly for “Lift Every Voice and Sing”, apparently ignorant of the “every” part of that title. Until I found my place and friends, I even experienced physical assaults on my person all because my race offended someone.

You would think this would drive any sane person to the same extremes being doled out. Instead, the end of High School sparked a new trend: alternative cultures. I ended up finding my place with a motley crew of artists, druggies, metalheads, punks, and other outcasts. Although still primarily Caucasian, there was room for everyone to smoke a cigarette and talk about the detritus of life. I met one of my best friends at that wall, an African-American woman who became my twin in so much and remains so to this day. This environment showed that we could all unite together under a single culture, regardless of race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. and sparked a new vision of the future. I wasn’t the only one who saw it, as many of these same people are still my friends today and hold the same beliefs.

As college opened up, I began to embrace the alternative lifestyles that were open to everyone. I was not a White suburban kid, I was a pagan metalhead and my friends joined me regardless of their skin tone. Alcohol (and more) flowed free at social gatherings and I found that race didn’t matter when you were working minimum wage jobs and just wanted to have a good time. My worlds expanded to areas long thought off limits racially. I would spend all night at a music festival in Baltimore, chill at a friend’s house in the tenements on Eastern Avenue, and ride with some people to pick stuff up on SouthEastern DC. Sure, I recognized the difference between my race and those around me, but to those hanging together and partying it didn’t matter. We all walked, talked, and dressed alike, no one giving a second thought to that individual of a different skin tone.

During this time, the 90’s roared on, with Hollywood and music reflecting our vision of the future. Crime, goth, and cyberpunk movies showed blended cities, where the working class and poor consisted of all races and ethnicity. The only divide was between the haves and have-nots, and my circles envisioned a society where we railed against the corporate masters… not each other. Music blended, with rock and rap, country and pop, and electronica invading everything. There was no white or black music, anyone could rise in any genre and all music could find its mix. Our language reflected this, with no “Ebonics” or “AAVE”, but instead a language we referred to as “DC” or “PG”. Dialect was not based on skin tone or ethnicity but on location and experience. When we looked to the future we knew we had a lot of bleak problems, but racism was not supposed to be one of them.

Move on to today, and suddenly racism is back in the topic. A half-Black President brings the worst out in people, sparking more outrage and lies from opponents than any previous office holder. Courts in southern states defend perpetrators of race-based crime, when you thought they’d learn their lessons decades prior. In the midst of this, many younger generations become so outraged they retort with similar behavior, creating further racial and cultural divides in the name of “holding on to their heritage”. They claim people aren’t allowed to talk or act like them, because it’s “appropriation” and deride those who don’t agree with their vitriol or isolation. Worse, they claim that the sins of European colonization past preclude any Caucasians from having valid complaints or opinions… and in so doing, end up guilty of the same behavior they rail against.

What happened to that vision of my age cohort? This blending of races, ethnicity, etc. into a singular entity. We were separate based on beliefs or finances, never on the color of our skin or our heritage. Yet suddenly the divide comes back and we stand here, confused at the behavior not only of the racists that lied dormant for decades but also at our own younger peers who seem to oppose a blended society as vehemently as White supremacists. Is there hope to move past this momentary set back and return to a unified path? My hope is that our vision isn’t dead but simply waylaid by other issues. Resolve those and once more the concept of Black, White, Asian, etc. culture will fade and we’ll go back to joining as a singular, global society. Oh, it won’t be perfect, full of environmental disasters and corporate greed, but it will be our own little dystopian utopia as far as race is concerned.

Why So Angry? Racism and Some Millennials.

Recently, I had participated in several conversations with individuals a good decade (or more) younger than me. Usually this isn’t a problem; despite approaching 40, I have similar interests to the younger generation including music, television, movies, etc. Sure, I recognized differences in their perceptions because of their inexperience, but I could chat with my teenage daughter with the same enjoyment as someone from my age cohort.

As time went on, though, I saw a serious anger in some of these individuals regarding racial issues. I sided with them on concerns, like White Privilege, the inherent racism of the justice system, or gender inequality in the workplace. I am an advocate for diversity and equality and I joined them in posting my disdain at the injustice found in America. Yet, somehow this wasn’t enough…

Instead of finding more allies, I faced vitriol and divisiveness on scale with the very people we were fighting against. I was not allowed to talk about my own experiences with discrimination, because (as a White Male) I would never understand them. Talks about racism devolved into semantics over what “racism” is rather than acknowledging experiences and learning from them. Requests to calm conversations and hate, including constructive approaches toward change, were met with derision and attacks.

Upon looking into similar people, I found entire blogs dedicated to belittling anyone who didn’t agree with their view on racism, appropriation, political correctness, etc. It was as if these individuals felt they were the sociocultural police, and that anyone who crossed their hidden lines was automatically the enemy. This was doubly so if you were privileged (i.e., White, Male, and/or Christian), as you would never be accepted as an ally in the fight for equality.

I talked to a number of friends, preferably of a different ethnicity or gender, to gain perspective. Was I, as a White Male, missing something? I’d already learned the hard way that “racism” was defined differently, something I accepted and added to my repertoire. Was it true that I was always the enemy and would never understand? That I couldn’t participate in any non-White cultural activity lest I be accused of appropriation? My friends disagreed and concurred with my first thought: these people were blowing things way out of proportion. There was a difference between being upset about a social justice and being so anti-oppression you end up being discriminatory yourself.

I felt a bit better that my perspective was not skewed, at least according to them, but then I wondered. Was this a generational issue or a social issue? Were my friends the minority and I simply hung with open-minded individuals? Or maybe the people I was talking to were the minority, and many millennials were as progressive as my cohorts? A few conversations with others of younger age said they’d seen this, but they thought it was just those people… not their peers.

Was there something less progressive about some millennials when it came to changes in culture? To understand that more, I guess I should discuss what I (and my peers) foresaw as positive sociocultural progression… in the next post.