Pitts starts off by blaming what happened in Charlottesville on our 'intellectual dishonesty' about race starting from beginning with the writing of The Constitution. He goes on and states that because of what happened in Charlottesville, we can no longer afford to avoid the racial problems we have. For not only did we see violence occur, we also saw white supremacists of all shades feel more free to demonstrate their hatred because they feel supported by the President.
Now where the rest of us come into play is our apathy regarding the changes made to the Voting Rights Act and the number of police officers who have abused and killed unarmed Blacks with impunity. And that does not include how Fox News and politicians benefited from our views on race.
Thus, Pitts is saying that what happened Charlottesville did not happen by itself. It had a context. Thus, more of us are responsible for the violence and the racial verbal attacks than just some of those who were there in person. For it isn't just the Trump Presidency that has animated the racist protesters in Charlottesville, it is also our lack of taking necessary stands which led to the protests and thus the conflicts between the protesters and counterprotesters.
So far, there is really nothing to disagree with Pitts's article. It ends with a challenge to us not to let racism and fascism--referring to Trump's apparently preferred style of being President--win.
We could add to Pitts wrote. We could add some of what it takes for us to successfully take on Pitts's challenge to us. I can think of two changes that must be made if racism is to be significantly reduced in this nation. The first change was suggested by Martin Luther King Jr. The second change is a challenge to how Christianity has taught us to structure society from the beginning--and I am speaking here as a passionate religiously conservative Christian (a.k.a., a flaming fundamentalist).
What did Martin Luther King Jr. say that addresses our problem with racism outside of his famous statement that we should judge people by the 'content of their character'? He said the following when speaking against the Vietnam War (click here for the source):
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
Here we should note that Capitalist economic systems do not promote person-oriented societies. Rather, they promote thing-oriented societies because any Capitalist economic system is primarily judged by how well it distributes material goods. Capitalist economic systems do not promote counting people as being more important than the things King mentioned. So right away we have a problem in address racism because of our economic system.
Why did King say what was quoted above? My guess is that he thought that for as long as people counted things as being more important than people, that they would not order their government to spend enough on the resources required to eliminate poverty. If that is how he saw it, then I would agree with him; but I also would add one more point. That point being that for as long as things are more important to us than people, then we will have racism because we compete for things in groups. This encourages a certain tribalism. And the groups that have been most competitive for wealth in our nation's history are those that have included race as part of their definition. Thus, we are put at odds with others which have been significantly based on race.
In any event, unless society changes so that it cares more for people than for things, we will never see the end of racism. This what King told us decades ago.
Another change we must undertake is how we respond to racism. First, we should note that racism exists on a continuum rather than at a specific point. Racism is expressed in a variety of ways other than what we saw expressed by the white supremacist and nazi groups. We need to realize that there are also subtle ways in which racism is expressed. Pitts understands this from his objection to people watching news reports on police abusing and killing Blacks with impunity. A sign of racism here exists when we start questioning the police only when whites, like the woman from Australia, are killed by a non-white police officer.
But noting that racism exists on a continuum is not the change being mentioned here. The change being mentioned here is that with the stigma that the label 'racist' brings, honestly looking at ourselves to determine if we have any racism in us causes a conflict of interests. For who wants to be stuck with the stigma of being called a racist? How can one honestly face the question of whether one is even a mild racist when there is such a stigma for being labeled a racist?
The problem rests in the scenario where racism can't be tolerated and we live in a punitive-oriented society. That means that when someone does something wrong, society's first response is to punish by inflicting pain on the guilty party. And this first response isn't practiced by our legal system alone. If we think of the blogs and how someone who expresses an idea that disagrees with the current group think is treated, we see much evidence that supports the notion that we live in a punitive-oriented society. For many times, such a person is pelted with insults and verbal abuse and these come from additional sources than from trolls.
It seems that many in our society revel putting people on pedestals only to see them fall. Gossip columns are not the only place where this occurs. This tendency to respond with punishment first when a perceived transgression occurs comes from our Christian history. For many a Protestant unconsciously regard temporal punishments here as a purgatory on earth to cleanse the exposed sinner. But if we were really aware of our own sins and what we deserve, we would be far less eager to see others punished for their sins. And that is the religious irony that exists here.
So one possible solution is, in addition to society becoming more person-oriented and less thing-oriented, is for us to become less dependent on punishment and the infliction of pain in order to change people. That doesn't mean that punishment is never used. It simply means that, in many cases, punishment should not be our first response when someone does something wrong. So instead of looking to punish a person who demonstrates racist attitudes and/or actions, we should seek to persuade the person to change. For if the fear of punishment, such as the stigma that comes with being called a 'racist,' causes a conflict of interests that prevents us from seeing racism in ourselves, perhaps the removal of punishment as a first resort would provide a necessary amnesty to help us be more honest with ourselves and to at least partially change from our racist ways and attitudes.
This means that how we protest against the white supremacists and nazis must change from engaging in verbally and/or physically violent confrontations to that of seeking to win people over from harm they do to both themselves and others when they harbor racist attitudes and exercise harmful racist actions. However, we should note that such a plea for a soft reaction to racism so that people would be enabled to look at themselves honestly must seem rather sheepish to those who have suffered from being victims of racism. It will also look like another form of privilege if we don't extend to them this hesitancy to resort to punishment when they do things wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment