On December 3rd Solomon Gibson, III, gave a talk at EHST titled “Expanding the Conversation on Race.” Below is the text of that talk, provided by Mr. Gibson. We invite all to read it, and to comment on it. Mr. Gibson will reply to comments.
EXPANDING THE CONVERSATION ON RACE
by Solomon Gibson, III
As many may have noticed, conversations about race have moved into the public arena. Pundits are saying America needs to have a “dialogue on race” as if it were a subject whose time has finally come. The truth is, discussions concerning race have occurred in almost every generation, to varying degrees of success; from the time the founding fathers debated slavery (where an entire group of people was “thrown under the bus” to start a country) to the present day.
The following outline will not solve America’s racial issues, but may offer some tools which can be used if one starts, or becomes involved in, a discussion concerning the issue of race, towards having them come to more substantive and satisfying conclusions. It may, even, answer the question as to whether or not these racial dialogues should take place.
In most conversations on this subject, there is a tendency to get bogged down or diverted to other tangential issues. To avoid that problem, here are some parameters:
• There will be no in-depth exploration of American history. No arcane references, obscure information, or surprising nuggets from the past; no links to websites.
• Delving into the issues of Hispanics/Latinos, Asians, women, the LGBTIQ community, and/or other groups will be avoided. (Although each group has experienced similar types of discrimination, their issues and relationships to America’s social structure are different.)
• The primary focus will be on two racial groups: Black people and White people. When there is a call for racial dialogue, it usually refers to Blacks and Whites; societal conversations involving Hispanics/Latinos, Asians, or other ethnics groups tend to revolve around immigration.
• Remain within the historical limits of 1776 (when slavery was officially codified in the United Stated, thus knitting racism into society’s DNA) to the present.
1) Stating the truth about ‘race’
a) It is a man-made construct. The term was created to establish differences through physical appearances and the associated locations and cultures, with the latter two becoming less important as travel and human migration became more prevalent.
b) It does not exist in nature. Nature couldn’t care less about ‘race’; diversity and mixing is the preferred option, creating heartier offspring.
c) The objective insignificance of ‘race’ has been proven tens of millions of times.
2) Understanding the real public conversation
a) White people are the reason for it. On the various occasions when a dialogue on ‘race’ is publicly called for, White people have usually asked for it. (Black people are always willing to enter a dialogue, seeking solutions for longstanding issues.) The reason for that periodic desire to converse is that a series of escalating injustices happen to Blacks over a period of time. Frustrated with lack of action by the institutions, the communities start to protest, escalating until society becomes uncomfortable. At this point, White people of conscience (wanting to understand and solve the problem) and political power-brokers (wanting to settle things down) request a discussion to address the issues. Historically, these conversations have had varying degrees of success.
b) The conversation is not really about ‘race’; it is about ‘racism’ – a very important distinction when approaching this dialogue. ‘Race’ gives the impression of an intellectual, more benign and safe exchange, whereas ‘racism‘ is more emotional, intense and complex. Prepare for the latter.
3) Preparing for the conversations
a) There are three core questions. The structure of the discussion should center around these three questions:
“What do you want to know?” (ask yourself);
“What do you need?” (to be asked of the others)
“How can you get it?” (brainstorming).
b) Blacks and Whites are at different stages. Chances are good that people will not be starting at the same place; White people may be at the learning stage, and Blacks are at the point of problem-solving. Without patience, frustration can develop.
c) The dialogue will not start on a level playing field. Since the conversation is, in reality, about ‘racism,’ White people will enter the arena with a massive disadvantage. America’s history, being indefensible, coupled with current mutually acknowledged injustices, gives Black people the moral and intellectual high ground.
d) Prepare for emotions. During the beginning of the dialogue, Blacks, in expressing the issues, may find that Whites, while sympathetic, may lack sincere empathy.
A typical scenario:
‘Initially, Blacks explain what they feel the issues are. Whites, in an effort to get clear understanding, probe for more information. Blacks expand further, while Whites, attempting to get a more in-depth understanding, respond with more questions and possible explanations. Blacks begin to get irritated/frustrated at having to continue explaining what should be obvious, while Whites, feeling those emotions, begin to feel guilt and become defensive. Both sides become frustrated as the conversation gets bogged down in tangential comparisons and social problems. Unless the meeting was held to accomplish a very specific purpose, the end result is usually unsatisfying.’
A part of the strategy needs to be to diminish the impact of that initial period of emotions, and get through them as soon as is feasible.
4) The Conversation
a) The burden of getting past the emotional stage, primarily, falls on White people. The ability to listen, understand, accept, and sincerely convey empathy, is crucial during that initial stage. To assist, here are two necessary analogies to the psychology of being Black in America:
Analogy One: ‘Recall that at the end of WWII, following the Holocaust, Nazi fascism was crushed, and its leaders were killed, jailed, or, if they escaped, hunted down and brought to justice.
Black people have never had that catharsis. No one was jailed for the atrocities of slavery; there was no justice and no reparations for the 100 years of inhuman behavior. Indeed, the very system that allowed this enslavement remained intact: the Constitution and the Government. Individuals retained positions of power and money, which allowed them to create the heinous ‘Jim Crow’ period, for an additional 100 years. The year 1965 would be the first time in American history in which Black people were legally equal. (Addendum: In 1898, Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruled that “Separate but Equal” is constitutional, thereby creating a long social period of separate schools, bathrooms, hospitals, water fountains, etc. In 1955, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, a different Supreme Court, using the exact same Constitution, ruled that “Separate but Equal” is unconstitutional. Realistically, we could be just one Supreme Court ruling away from “Separate but Equal” becoming constitutional once again. Examples: Citizens United, and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.)
Analogy Two: Imagine that you have to get up each morning and cross a large field to get those things your family needs to survive; you can’t go around, over, or under it, only through it. Unfortunately, the field is full of man-eating tigers; however, about half of them are domesticated, friendly, and sometimes helpful in getting across. The problem is, you can’t tell, by sight, which is which.
If Whites could incorporate, truly imagine, and feel what it would be like to live in those two scenarios, they would have some idea of what being Black in America is like; thus, the ability to listen, accept, and empathize would come easier, making that first emotional beginning move along more smoothly, without getting bogged down or diverted, and at the very least, avoid defending American society.
b) What do you need? Once the emotional first part has been successfully navigated, this second question should be asked of the other side of this conversation. All needs, as they pertain to the reason for this dialogue, should be presented, and be frank, open, honest, and as complete as possible.
c) How can we get it? By brainstorming. It is at this point that everyone has moved on to a level playing field. The disadvantage White people had at the beginning has evaporated. The idea is to discover, concoct, theorize, and explore how needs can be realized and issues addressed, and then problems might be solved. With luck, this dialogue should end with a certain amount of satisfaction for all involved, leading to additional substantive discussions.
5) The Biggest Problem
a) Obstruction. In seeking solutions to America’s racial issues between Blacks and Whites, the greatest historical obstruction should be discussed; namely, Powerful White Men. No group has impeded progress more effectively, and as often, as this one. Here are just a few examples:
• 1865, end of slavery: The Reconstruction period was short-lived as White politicians, in an effort to drive Blacks back to the plantations, implemented restrictive laws, leading to nearly 90 years of Jim Crow.
• In the 1960s, affirmative action became federal law, to emphasize diversity, but was severely limited in scope as White males sued institutions and the Supreme Court ruled it caused reverse discrimination.
• In 2008, with the election of the first Black president, White male political leadership promised to impede him in everything, resulting in, figuratively, giving safe haven and actual political power to White Nationalists and other racists.
Any conversation that seeks racial progress must explore how to eliminate these major obstructions.
6) The Black side
a) Make allies. Until this point, the outline has been weighted toward advising White people, for obvious reasons. (To call for a conversation is to assume responsibility for its outcome.) However, what Black people should keep in mind is the importance of using the conversation to create allies and form relationships, possibly close ones.
b) There is no self-determination. Social change for Black people has never come without the help of White people. For example, slavery ended because Whites of conscience, developing relationships with slaves and freemen, found the immorality intolerable and did something about it.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka needed five White men to end Jim Crow. It got all nine.
Barack Obama became America’s first Black president, with major White support.
c) Insinuate one’s self into every level of society. As in the past, so it is now. Wherever things are happening with Whites, be there; join in, create a presence, and have them know you. Be at community events, theater, clubs, and schools. Mix and mingle, date, marry, have children.
Anecdote: Blacks, especially women, have had a tendency to balk at Black men dating White women, but interestingly, this sentiment has been in alignment with that of White supremacists: “Stick with your own!”; this offers no solutions, and, practically speaking, makes Black people an easier target for various forms of discrimination.
d) There is a bigger picture. Race is a man-made construct, unimportant in Nature, and objectively insignificant. Pride in one’s race can be detrimental to advancement.
7) Political Change at The Macro Level
a) Black people have longer coattails. Historically, addressing the social problems of Blacks has translated into benefits for other groups, a spillover to a huge degree. The reverse has not been true. Examples:
• In 1920, voting rights for women did not extend to the same for Black people; conversely, among the greatest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action (ostensibly created to address past racial discrimination) were White women. This, also, applied to other ethnic groups.
• In sports, Cubans playing in the major leagues had no effect in advancing Black opportunities
• Entertainment: Mainstream movies had the “Latin Lovers” such as Ricardo Montalban and Fernando Lamas regularly starring opposite White female leads. Cuban actor/musician Desi Arnaz spent years in America’s living rooms with his White wife, getting her pregnant, and broadcasting the birth. To date, there has been only one very short-lived show* (1989) in television history, which was centered around the developing relationship of a Black man and a White woman.
• When Barack Obama won the election, everyone knew that the door had been opened for women, Latinos, etc. If Hillary Clinton had been victorious, it would have only enhanced our acceptance of electing women to the presidency.
Consequently, working on solving issues in Black communities will have had an overall greater effect and benefit toward improving American society.
b) Identify acceptable political leadership. There is a need for change in political leadership. With so many issues at play, energies are dispersed, and people are divided into pursuing their own societal priorities. There can be difficulty in finding and becoming excited about some of the candidates, or knowing whom to support. Presented here is the closest example of a universal litmus test: White people only, should simply ask the candidate, in public, any number of these questions:
1) What are your thoughts on Black men dating and marrying White women?
2) What is your opinion on favorable loans to start up businesses in the Black community?
3) Do you support educational grants for Black students going to college?
4) Do you support monetary support for job training programs in the Black community?
5) Do you support low-interest loans for home buying in Black communities?
Essentially, ask any question aimed at specifically addressing Black issues. White people should pose these to the candidate, because he/she will be less certain about the questioner’s political position. When Black people ask the same questions, it would only engender the usual targeted answers. If the responses from the candidate are positive, his/her positions on other topics should be predictable; this person is more likely favorable on climate change, reproductive rights, income inequality, and/or most other progressive issues.
By coming together with a goal to solve these racial problems, we will get the candidates and leaders that are more likely to also address America’s overall problems.
8) Conclusion
Do we need a conversation on ‘race’? The answer is obviously ‘Yes,’ if for no other reason than to return to insignificance what was made significant and has been consistently used to divide/impede us.
*The Robert Guillaume Show
