[Discuss] [Peace-discuss] Police policy on lethal force

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Mikhail,

 

> The one point with which I do not agree, however, is your implication that
white people are not capable of moving away from a racist ideology.  They
>are.  Or I should say "we are."  I can tell you that I personally think
very differently about racial issues than I did 20 years ago, or even 10
years ago.  I >suspect that you can look back on your own racial ideology in
a similar way.  And I have seen many others, including those who started in
a far more >racist place than I did, also come a long way. 

 

>From my personal perspective, I think that it cannot be denied that people
do change and attitude do evolve or change over time and circumstances.
What can be questioned and what I question is the power of education to
bring about that sort of evolution and change.  I think that much too much
credence is given to the power and effectiveness of education (probably
heresy in a college town full of academics and optimists).  The change , I
believe, comes about as a result of an individual's personal biographical
history and experiences of which education is only a relatively small
component since that history and set of practical experiences are always
being interpreted by the individual in question and open to different spins
during the course of one's live which are also based on one's interactions
with others far more than on education.  In fact ones biographically
determined history and set of practical experiences are typically more often
than not colored and defined by situational factors which allow one to be in
situations that permit any given set of experiences.  Thus, if one wants to
generate or precipitate any changes in beliefs and attitudes, in cultural
values and norms held by people, or in patterns of behavior, one has to set
up and enforce radical systemic institutional changes that force people to
experience certain sets of experiences that structure their biographically
determined situations such that they will not be able to fall back on
interpretive frameworks that permit them to spin those experiences in ways
that support their older beliefs, values, viewpoints and patterns of
behavior.  This is NOT giving, teaching, or training them to use new and
different frameworks; it is setting the situational conditions and
structural circumstances in such a way that they are forced to acknowledge
and use different frameworks.  It is not teaching someone that it is bad to
have x belief and good to have y belief; it is setting up structural
conditions that negatively sanction people in significant ways having
significant consequences for them for having x beliefs and  positively
sanctioning them for having y beliefs such as to prescribe or prohibit given
ways of interpreting one's experiences that will result in the desired
behavior outcomes.  The main focus is on changing actual behaviors
independent of whether or not an actor really believes and has internalized
the interpretive framework as righteous and true; the changing of the
actor's acceptance of the substance of the framework as a righteous and true
value, fact, or belief is secondary.    I do not care if you have violent
thoughts about me or think me a devil as long as you behave toward me in
non-violent ways and as if I were not a devil.  Changing the actual
substantive content of belief systems is much more complicated and difficult
than changing situational  behavioral patterns, which is why despite all
length of time and the amount and extent of enforcement of speeding laws,
educating people about the speeding laws has not effectively resulted in
their  following them only in their knowing about their existence.  Having
radar units and high fines and long jail terms is more effective in
generating compliance than is education.  The same is true of other
behaviors.  

 

From: Mikhail Lyubansky [mailto:lyubanskym at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:06 PM
To: John W.
Cc: Melodye Rosales; Peace-discuss List;
discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org; Karen Medina; LAURIE SOLOMON
Subject: Re: [Discuss] [Peace-discuss] Police policy on lethal force

 

I know you speak the truth, John. I've seen it happen all too often, but
it's heartbreaking each time. Words fail me too in expressing the sadness I
feel in reading about your mom's reaction.  There is not a word in your
characterization of racism with which I would take issue. I particularly
agree with the notion that racism is ultimately a choice and I too cannot
(and do not want to) excuse it. If I gave that impression, then I have not
communicated with sufficient clarity.

I also agree that white allies can do the most good and are most effective
in working within their own community (i.e., with other white people).
Though I realize (and am very glad) that there are people of color on this
list, I generally target my writing to a white audience.  It's not that I
don't want to communicate with people of color. I do. Indeed, I always
welcome their reaction to my writing, because if my ideas/strategies are not
aligned with their goals, then there is obviously something seriously wrong
with my approach.  But in terms of who I hope to influence, my intended
audience consists of progressive and moderately conservative white Americans

The one point with which I do not agree, however, is your implication that
white people are not capable of moving away from a racist ideology.  They
are.  Or I should say "we are."  I can tell you that I personally think very
differently about racial issues than I did 20 years ago, or even 10 years
ago.  I suspect that you can look back on your own racial ideology in a
similar way.  And I have seen many others, including those who started in a
far more racist place than I did, also come a long way.  If you'd like to
see what that looks like (and how it was achieved in one weekend), I
strongly recommend a documentary film called "The Color of Fear."  And if
the circumstances in the film seem contrived (it was a weekend encounter
group), please take my word that psychologists have documented similar
attitude shifts (albeit not as fast) in many other people and have developed
(and are still developing) models that show how white racial identity forms
and changes.

All that said, my earlier message about allying with the oppressor (as well
as with the oppressed) was not intended to facilitate individual change.  It
was intended to contribute to community building and healing.  White
conservatives fear that racial equity is somehow against their own interest.
It's not. Racial equity will lead to better educational outcomes for ALL
students, safer neighborhoods for ALL residents, and more opportunities for
personal growth and interpersonal relationships for the entire community.
Even the police department has a lot to gain from racial equity in the form
of improved police-community relations, including more cooperation from
community members.  

Maybe there is no alternative to force. Melody suggests that dialogue has
been tried and shown to be ineffective. But I'm not suggesting dialogue. I'm
suggesting a change in how we conceptualize the journey toward racial
equity.  I like the "express train" metaphor.  Certainly the matter is
urgent! I just think we have to find a way to get everyone -- including the
police dept -- to get on board.

Mikhail







On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:19 PM, John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:

Mikhail,

I read your missive and Nancy Wadsworth's HuffPo article, and I don't know
how to process it.

Back in the day, Malcolm X advised White people to go back into their own
communities and convince their White counterparts not to be racist.  I tried
it.  Never in life have I ever succeeded in disabusing a racist White person
of a single iota of his/her racism.  Racism is not logical; it's emotional,
deeply ingrained, and systemic.

When I dared to fall in love with a Black woman back in 1987 - a lovely,
intelligent, educated, caring Black woman whom Melodye knows - my mother
promptly told me that she had no interest in even making her acquaintance.
For two years I tried in vain to convince my mother - a "Christian" woman
who had Black friends, supposedly, and taught Black students who adored her
- that her racial bias was irrational and counterproductive.  She invoked
the Bible, she invoked her reputation in the community, she invoked
everything she could think of to dissuade me.  When she began to threaten me
with disinheritance if I persisted in my "folly", I marched out of her house
and out of her life.  She lived for 20 more years, never relinquishing her
choice of a dead ideology over the love of her only living child.  And yes,
she did disinherit me.

Having lived through that experience, I can say with certainty that racism
is one of the most evil, virulent, pernicious, toxic poisons known to man.
It has very real consequences in the real world.  And ultimately, people
CHOOSE it.  I simply can't excuse it.  I'm happy to engage in dialogue with
anyone, but I've never seen an instance where a racist White person was made
less racist through anything that I said.

Black people can have racial prejudices and stereotypes, too, of course.
But I've found that there are significant and profound differences.  First
of all, Black people have valid historical reasons for any racial prejudices
that they might harbor.  And second, I have found them to be open-minded
enough to give White people, who do NOT deserve it, the benefit of the
doubt.  If a White person proves that he or she can be trusted, Black people
will open their homes and hearts.  Not so with the White people I've known.

Arrgh, words fail me.

John Wason




On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Mikhail Lyubansky <lyubanskym at gmail.com>
wrote:

Dear Melodye,

I am both sad and angry at the comments you describe and regret that you
elicited that kind of response.  I've never listened to this particular
show, but anyone who has followed the national discourse around race is all
too familiar with the "othering" and "condescension" that you describe.  It
is clear to those of us with some consciousness about the many structural
and interpersonal ways that nonwhites have historically been and continue to
be marginalized that white conservatives just don't "get it".  And indeed
they don't.

But I'd like to suggest that many self-identified liberals and progressives
don't "get" white conservatives either.  There's a tendency on the part of
progressives to assume an attitude of moral superiority when talking to or
about white conservatives, as well as to assume that their intentions/goals
are to, if not explicitly oppress, at the very least to maintain the system
of oppression that currently exists.  No doubt this is sometimes the case.
But the problem with stereotypes is not that they are not true, but that
they are incomplete.  There are many white conservatives that can and do
support the equity and justice goals that progressives tend to rally around.
The difference is not over the goals or outcomes but the strategies that are
supposed to produce those outcomes.

My point is, if we are to move toward the kind of community we want -- a
community characterized by racial equity and solidarity -- then we have to
also be willing to listen and understand the "other" in the ways that they
want to be understood.  As strange as it might seem, I think we have to find
ways to ally with the oppressive segments of our community so that we can
begin to understand each other's needs and come to the realization that they
are not in opposition with each other.

I am not advocating for compromise -- of any sort.  I am not advocating for
patience.  This is urgent. There is no time for patience. And the needs are
too important to compromise.  I'm just suggesting that demonizing the other
side is not likely to get what we want.

This HuffPo writer has some additional thoughts on this that I think are
worth considering:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-wadsworth/down-with-demonology-the_b_318
660.html

The writer above is a white woman...and I am (if you don't already know) a
white man.  As such, I recognize that we speak from a privileged position.
But our positions (as white progressives whose writing focuses on racial
issues), also give us a perspective that may have some value.  I offer it
here in that spirit and look forward to hearing how it is perceived.

Mikhail








On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Melodye Rosales
<melodye at nitrogendesign.com> wrote:

Amazing---if anyone caught Penny For Your Thoughts today---all the callers
for the last week have spoken as if they know what happened and how bad the
kids are because they lack parenting---some spoke of the black community as
a whole in that regard. But when I call in today and said that, "... I find
it interesting that when Black Folk speak of injustice we are said to be
using the race card, but when the callers on your (Turpins) show criticize
our community with misnomers and lack of information, they are
justified----I think that the community needs Diversity Training."

The guy who followed called me "Arrogant".  For those of us (most on this
list) who understand what that word means when referring to a Black person,
coming from a Conservative White person, it is coded language that needs no
Decoder.  Turpin (who seems frustrated I have called daily to correct the
mis-statements that he allows to fester) made sure when the caller didn't
catch my name, to let him know---more over, let his audience know that I am
someone to watch.  

My concern is that a large majority in the Conservative Community are
purposely trying to allow mis-statements to take flight.  It is almost as if
they want to sway those who may visit the matter with open eyes, to feel
that if they align their concerns with ours, then they somehow aren't caring
about the "Good White Community".  The tragedy is that while we are simply
trying to push for open government and transparency, while trying to
highlight a flawed local government and provide more equitable solutions to
bring about a more balanced and inclusive community----these Conservatives
are using their energies to push us back into the place they feel we
belong------without a voice.  "After all", the Conservatives cry out, "why
do them-folk need a voice?  We've always told them what to do, what not to
do, where to go, when to come back and how to behave. 'Cause they know we
ain't toleratin' no back talk, no complaints, no questions.  So ya see,
that's why them-folk don't need no voice. It's them Arrogant Ns who are
causing the trouble. They be confusing them-folk.  They be tellin' them-folk
they done always had a voice and they just gotta begin using it. Yep, it's
them Arrogant Ns who are gonna get them-folk in trouble, not us."  

What a sad 1950s moment this community is experiencing...

-M

 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091023/ad29c726/attachment.htm