Mychal Bell's conviction overturned

Thank god. Read about it here.

"We don't have many problems with our blacks."

That's a quote from a white person in the town of Jena, LA. When I first read this in a MySpace bulletin, I thought it was a fake. But there have indeed been recent cases that are just as effed-up - and it turns out that this one is for real, as well:

In a small, still mostly segregated, section of rural Louisiana, an all white jury heard a series of white witnesses called by a white prosecutor testify in a courtroom overseen by a white judge in a trial of a fight at the local high school where a white student who had been making racial taunts was hit by black students. The fight was the culmination of a series of racial incidents starting when whites responded to black students sitting under the "white tree" at their school by hanging three nooses from the tree. The white jury and white prosecutor and all white supporters of the white victim were all on one side of the courtroom. The black defendant, 17-year-old Mychal Bell, and his supporters were on the other. The jury quickly convicted Mychal Bell of two felonies - aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery. Bell, who was a 16-year-old sophomore football star at the time he was arrested, faces up to 22 years in prison. Five other black youths await similar trials on second-degree attempted murder and conspiracy charges.

You should know that the white kid whom the Black students supposedly attempted to murder went to a "social event" later that day, after the fight. You should also know that the all-white jury who convicted Bell included "two people friendly with the district attorney, a relative of one of the witnesses and several others who were friends of prosecution witnesses."

Pissed off yet? Consider this:

"The prosecutor called 17 witnesses - 11 white students, three white teachers and two white nurses. Some said they saw Bell kick the victim, others said they did not see him do anything. The white victim testified that he did not know if Bell hit him or not.

The Chicago Tribune reported the public defender did not challenge the all-white jury pool, put on no evidence and called no witnesses. The public defender told the Alexandria Town Talk, after resting his case without calling any witnesses, he knew he would be second-guessed by many, but was confident that the jury would return a verdict of not guilty. 'I don't believe race is an issue in this trial. I think I have a fair and impartial jury.'

The jury deliberated for less than three hours and found Mychal Bell guilty on the maximum possible charges of second-degree aggravated battery and conspiracy. He faces up to a maximum of 22 years in prison.

The public defender told the press afterwards, "I feel I put on the best defense that I could." Responding to criticism of not putting on any witnesses, the attorney said 'why open the door for further accusations? I did the best I could for my client, Mychal Bell.'"

Now, according to Snopes.com (which assures us that this did, in fact, happen), the Black kids on trial pretty much beat the shit out of the white kid (who, nonetheless, made it to his social event, whatever that was). It's not that I don't take this seriously - I don't think it's ok to beat the shit out of anyone, even if they are a reprehensible asshole. But you should know, too, that in another case in this same town, a white man pulled a shotgun on Black men, who took the gun away from him. They were later charged with theft, while the white man was not charged. So, clearly, "attempted murder" is in the eye of the beholder in this town, yeah? Even the students who hung the nooses in the first place were never charged, though the principal wanted them expelled: "'Adolescents play pranks,' the superintendent told the Chicago Tribune, 'I don't think it was a threat against anybody.'" Riiiight. Hanging a noose from "the white tree," in the South, the land of "strange fruit," to protest Black students sitting under it, is not a threat. Pulling a shotgun on someone else is not an offense. Taking the shotgun away from someone who is threatening you with it is theft. With logic like this, with a stacked jury, with the numerous other examples of civil rights violations recorded in the news stories about this case, it is clear that calling the beating "attempted murder" has a very particular political meaning.


Want to do something? Click here.

Southern trees bear strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant south,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.

Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter cry.

Being anonymous makes you brave.

Though I have to say, I appreciate the honesty of the comment below. I don't think I realized before that there are people who see racism this way: there's x amount of power, and we white people have got it, so if we try to change that, we'll be giving all the power to the people of color who hate us and only pretend to be our friends. Moreover, it doesn't matter if they're being oppressed, as long as we aren't. Why should we give up any advantage we have?

That's just sad. Maybe I'll have more to say about this later. Particularly about the implication that genocide is just fine, as long as whites aren't being killed. Except...though the comment is written in an even, reasonable tone, it smacks of white supremacist "logic" and rhetoric, particularly the suggestion of a coming race war. Which makes me simply want to share it, as it's important to know our enemy, so that my readers can note that Aryan Nation or whoever has learned some measure of subtlety.

And incidentally, as far as people who make such arguments as the one below are concerned, I'm not really a white person. I mean, I am - I totally have white privilege. But under the terms of the Wannsee Conference, the Nazis would have thrown me into the camps along with everyone else, and I'm pretty sure no white supremacist would want me, either. Which is fine with me.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Anti-racism, race traitors, and whiteness.":

I am white. Why should I support 'anti-racism'? By definition, its only purpose is to disadvantage white people. Now you may argue that 'white skin privilege' is unearned and unfair and thus we should work to abolish it, even if it does disadvantage us. To that I can only ask, why? Do you really believe if the tables were turned and instead of 'white skin privilege' there existed 'dark skin privilege' that those with dark skin would be falling all over themselves to purge their society of the advantages it afforded them? I don't believe that.

Some may argue that even if we could not expect such moral reciprocity were situations reversed that we should press on to abolish 'white privilege' regardless, because it's the right thing to do. Again, I must ask why? Is it supposed to result in the making of a better world? Let's consider the example of South Africa. I cannot think of a nation in which the white population has proceeded further or faster with the abolishment of their 'white skin privilege'. What has been the end result? What was once the most modern nation in Africa has been reduced to a violent, corrupt hell hole. Crime is so bad that the nation had been referred to as both the rape and murder capital of the world. A great deal of this violence is directed against the dwindling white population by the black population. Such is the extent of the anti-white violence that Genocide Watch has stated that the actions of the blacks are warning signs of the beginning of a genocide against whites in the country. See here:

http://www.genocidewatch.org/BoersSlain01.htm

Have the anti-racist actions of the white South Africans to dispel their 'white skin privilege' resulted in a better world? It certainly hasn't for them. Far from creating harmony and peace, the actions the whites took to disempower themselves left them vulnerable and essentially defenseless in the face of the violence now directed at them by blacks who utterly hate them. Many of the white South Africans have realized what a mistake they made in surrendering their 'white skin privilege' and agreeing to live under the rulership of an ethnic group that wants to commit genocide against them. Unfortunately, for them, it's too late. Why, as a sane white person, would I want to put myself in the same position these white South Africans have? There is no reason. There is absolutely no reason a sane person would want to submit themselves to the power of a group with such hostility toward them as the black South Africans have toward the white South Africans. There is no reason at all - the very notion is insane.

The experience of the white South Africans is hardly unique. Nearly anywhere in the world where whites are a minority they are treated with contempt and hostility by the non-white majority. If you are white and doubt this, I invite you to take a trip - unescorted - thorough one of the 'minority' neighborhoods of your nearest large city. Or, better yet, why don't you go for a short vacation to some nation in South America, or Africa - and don't just stay in the tourist areas. To get the full experience you need to really meet the natives. Another wonderful place to visit would be nearly any of the nations of the Islamic world. Again, don't just stick to the tamed tourist zones, you want to experience the real culture. Most of you would be quite hesitant to do any of these things because you know to be true what I have been saying all along - most of these people *hate* you. As the white South Africans learned, no amount of anti-racist action on your part is going to make them hate you any less. The only thing your anti-racist activities can do is to serve to make you more vulnerable to their hate. Why would any sane human being want that? I certainly don't.

There may be some of you reading this who believe that whites are so evil and have such a history of oppressive behavior that they deserve to be hated and mistreated. There may actually be some of you reading this right now who feel that the world can only move forward once the corpse of the 'white race' has been cast into humanities collective ditch. Sure, you may think to yourselves, the dismantling of the white race may be violent and unfair to many but the overall good it will do will outweigh any such considerations. I've seen similar things written before, and I have no doubt that some of you share this view. I cannot hope to dissuade those so warped from such insane beliefs. Anyone white person who thinks that way is so consumed with pathological self hatred that reason is utterly lost on them. I can only say that your anti-white 'partners' in anti-racism will see that you are properly rewarded for your activities.

As for the rest of the people reading this - normal, sane people who don't hate themselves and don't want to submit themselves to the governance of groups that despise them - you need to ask yourself why in the hell you support this sort of a movement. It will not help you in the short run or in the long run. Helping to empower those who hate you while disempowering yourself is nothing less than cutting your own throat. Why do it? Those you are 'helping' sure as hell wouldn't do the same for you. Wake up, before it's too late.

Why Craigslist is scary.

Enough said?

Bear Butte Update: April 9 deadline

From Bear Butte International, an update, action alert, and all the background information you could want:

April 9, 2007 is the deadline to submit letters OBJECTING to the proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to divest its easement interests in the Bear Butte Lake National Wildlife Refuge, turning the management of the Refuge entirely over to the State of SD, the Bureau of Land Management and private landowners.

This alert is asking citizens, tribal nations, organizations and allies concerned about the protection of Bear Butte and adjacent Bear Butte Lake to OBJECT to this plan by the APRIL 9TH DEADLINE.

This Alert contains:
1) THE ISSUE
2) PROPOSAL TO DIVEST THEMSELVES OF THE REFUGE
3) HOW TO COMMENT
4) SAMPLE LETTER - CUT AND PASTE
5) HOW TO GET THE EA DOCUMENT
6) BACKGROUND DATA ON BEAR BUTTE LAKE NWR


1) THE ISSUE

Bear Butte Lake is both a State Park and a National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). A 1967 agreement executed between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the SD Game Fish and Parks Department (SDGFP) allows for SDGFP to manage the Refuge. However, because the management goals of the SDGFP are recreational in nature and therefore, not compatible with the USFWS Refuge System, the USFWS Refuge System believes it makes sense to divest itself, rather than enforce its own singular mission, which is to manage the area for wildlife conservation. These conflicting management purposes date back to the 1950's, when no tribal input was solicited. In fact, the planning team that ran the divestiture model to determine whether Bear
Butte NWR should be considered for the proposed divestiture did not include tribal consultation at its March 30, 2005 meeting.

The Refuge was created in 1937, when the USFWS acquired conservation easements from the State of SD, the War Department (now the Bureau of Land Management - BLM) and private landowners. The Refuge was established 'for the purpose of water conservation, drought relief, and migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes. Following establishment, however, incompatible uses such as boating, camping, picnicking have been permitted and supported', reads page 33 of the Draft EA.

The USFWS has 374.20 easement acres and no fee title lands. The majority of the dam, on the western side, is on BLM land, while the remainder is on State owned land. Three small BLM parcels lie within the Refuge Boundaries, while the private lands border the boundaries. The USFWS 'has not enforced its easement rights for many years, neither has it made its right known' (page 53, Appendix E of the Draft EA).

To date, Tribal interests in preservation of this cultural resource have not been properly solicited and are not documented in the Draft EA. As well, the document proposing divestiture fails to mention the current controversy around inappropriate development near Bear Butte in Section 5 of the EA (page27). This section outlines effects common to all alternatives, including Environmental Justice issues. In fact, this section closes: 'Within the spirit and intent of EO 12898 (President
Clinton's issuance of the Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Population and Income Populations), no minority or low-income population would be impacted by any Service action under the two alternatives presented in this document.'

The timing of this proposed divestiture could not be worse in terms of the larger issue of protection of Bear Butte and its adjacent resources, including Bear Butte Lake. Due to effects of drought other factors that have not been studied, the Lake was completely dry many times during this past Winter 2006/2007 and for quite a long time. We are calling for a complete Environmental Impact Statement along with objections to this proposed divestiture.


2) PROPOSAL TO DIVEST THEMSELVES OF THE REFUGE

The USFWS believs that the SDGFP, via its promotion of the recreation uses of the Lake, prioritizes recreational use over wildlife. The mission of the USFWS is to protect wildlife; it allows for recreation related to wildlife on its refuges, but when conflicte arise, WILDLIFE, NOT RECREATION is the USFWS priority.

For example, they believe that the recreational uses at the Lake prevents whooping cranes, an endangered or threatened species, from using the area.

The USFWS doesn't think a park managed for recreation should be a refuge and want to walk away from the Bear Butte Lake NWR - GIVING UP THEIR EASEMENTS.

The planning document for the USFWS, called an Environmental Assessment (EA), proposes only two alternatives:

1. Continue the status quo, or
2. Divest themselves of the Refuge


3) HOW TO COMMENT

Comments are due in writing and postmarked by April 9th, 2007 to:

Michael Spratt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486
Denver Federal Center,
Denver, CO 80225-0486

michael_spratt@fws.gov

Questions can be addressed to:
Michael Spratt, micheal_spratt@fws.gov, (303) 236-4366, or
Tom Koerner, Tom_Koerner@fws.gov, (605) 685-6508, lacreek@fws.gov


4) SAMPLE LETTER - CUT AND PASTE [Note: using original language will give your letter more weight, but better this one than nothing! - PF]

Date

Michael Spratt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486
Denver Federal Center,
Denver, CO 80225-0486
michael_spratt@fws.gov

Cc: Rep. Stephanie Herseth Stephanie.herseth@mail.house.gov
1823 W. Main St.
Rapid City, SD 57701
Sen. Tim Johnson elli_wicks@johnson.senate.gov
405 E. Omaha, Suite B
Rapid City, SD 57701


Dear Mr. Spratt,

I, ______, am submitting this formal objection to the proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to divest its easement interests in the Bear Butte Lake National Wildlife Refuge, turning the management of the Refuge entirely over to the State of SD, the Bureau of Land Management and private landowners. I am urging the USFWS to maintain their presence and enforce their Refuge System mission to manage the area for wildlife conservation.

The USFWS EA is "thin" in many areas, including it's proposed two alternatives. The EA should propose another alternative, insisting that the State of SD change its management of the Lake and the Lake's surroundings to decrease the impacts of recreation to wildlife. The Draft EA provides insufficient documentation of the existance of confllcts between recreation and wildlife. While the EA provides data on the State Parks infrastructure and policies, it does not provide data on the Parks
actual patterns of recreational use or actual wildlife data - except to list species that occur there. For example, the EA says, "Documentation of bird occurrence and use is not well-developed for this refuge." But ironically, it is documented that recreation adversely impacts wildlife.

Native American cultural protections under Federal laws, require consultation with Native Americans regarding environmental justice and protection of historic/cultural resources. As State laws in this area are much weaker than the superior Federal regulations, the removal of the USFWS, a Federal agency, will seriously threaten the protection of Native American interests. In fact, tribal consultation on this Draft EA did not occur at the March 30, 2005 meeting, nor was it sought, or included in the
document.

When Federal government plans a project, gives money for a project, or permits a project, NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) is invoked. If the area affected has "Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers or ecologically critical areas." an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed (40 CFR 1508.27 (b) (3)).

I am requesting an EIS on the Bear Butte NWR divestment plan of the USFWS as future development of the area may involve federal dollars and plans. The State of SD is planning to build a highway by-pass around Sturgis to drop traffic from I-90 to the eastside of Sturgis. The recent flurry of commercial rally-related development near Bear Butte is in anticipation of this new by-pass.

With the National Wildlife Refuge status, in addition to the National Historic Landmark at Bear Butte, both on Highway 79, there exist compelling arguments for an EIS rather than an EA on the proposed by-pass or other future projects, which may involve federal dollars.

Highly controversial and culturally inappropriate development that currently threatens Bear Butte is not mentioned or portrayed within the "Environmental Justice" section of the EA. Part of Bear Butte and most of the lands immediately under its slope remain in private ownership. At the crux of the issue are the no zoning policies of Meade County, the local governing body, and the impacts of unregulated bike rally development on Native American interests. These critical Environmental Justice issues are not mentioned within the Draft EA and need to be considered in the proposed divestiture of the USFWS.

If the USFWS divests its interests the remaining federal regulating agency will be the BLM, which is a "multiple-use" agency. I PREFER THE USFWS, rather than the BLM and private landowners, as a federal land manager in this most special area and hope you will give my comments favorable consideration.

Sincerely,



5) HOW TO GET THE EA DOCUMENT

Here is the link to download the draft EA.

The link to the EA on the USFWS regional webpage.


6) BACKGROUND DATA ON BEAR BUTTE LAKE NWR

On the eastside of SD Highway 79, just a few miles northeast of the town of Sturgis, lies Bear Butte, revered by tribes across North America as one of the most sacred mountains. In geological terms, Bear Butte is a laccolith geologic formation, a bubble of magma that did not reach the volcanic stage. Bear Butte rises some 1,253 feet above the plains and sits at an elevation of 4,422 feet on the northeastern edge of the sacred Black Hills. Today, the mountain is owned by several Native Tribes, the State of South Dakota (as a State Park) and various private landowners.

Just to the west of Bear Butte, across Highway 79, lies Bear Butte Lake, which sits in one of the drainages that flow off of Bear Butte. The drainage of Bear Butte Lake is tributary of Spring Creek. Spring Creek flows around the northside of Bear Butte and joins Bear Butte Creek, about 6 miles east of the Mountain.

The Lake was once a natural lake, or prairie pothole. A dam was built along its southwest side and the natural lake/pothole is now augmented with additional surface water runoff now collected by the dam. The Lake has a surface are of 180 acres and a maximum depth of 13 feet.

There was once an artesian well near Bear Butte, which was used to supply additional water to the Lake via an easement that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service held to pipe water into the lake. In 1987, the engineering on this well failed, was not repaired and thus this ground water no longer augments the surface water of the Lake.

The Lake supports an artificial fishery of introduced fish, which periodically die off when the lake shrinks, yielding low oxygen and high temperatures.

The Lake provides for shore birds and waterfowl and is especially important habitat for them during the spring and fall migrations. Due to drought conditions, the Lake has been completely dry many times during the winter of 2006/2007.

Saving Bear Butte: How you can help and why you should care.

(I'm cross-posting this at Dakota Women, as well.)

I had the privilege on Saturday of hearing a panel of Native American women activists talk about their lives and their work on behalf of Sioux and Lakota communities. I hope to be blogging about their efforts from time to time, helping to spread the word about what they are doing and how you can help.

Anne White Hat, a member of the Sicangu Lakota Nation, shared with us her struggle to save Bear Butte from developers. Bear Butte is sacred ground. Sacred ground means something different, I think, in Western culture, in which "sacred ground" is often loosely translated as, "this is land that has meaning, and it would be nice if we could preserve it, but sometimes we just have to develop it."

No.

In a First Nations context, sacred ground is sacred. As in, it is left alone. As in, it is integral to spiritual practice. As in, you do not despoil it: you protect it.

I think many non-Native people may need to work hard to imagine an analogy that will allow us to understand what this means. The problem is, Western culture is based on movement. We very often do not keep land in our families, much less our communities, from one generation to another. We have sentimental ties to the land, but we don't have the same kind of spiritual ties to it. Buildings - churches, synagogues, etc. - are generally the center of our spiritual practices. And buildings can be rebuilt, remodeled, and moved.

Land cannot. Sacred ground cannot be moved, rebuilt, or remodeled. It can be protected, or it can be destroyed.

Bear Butte is a place where people go to pray and meditate. Prayer and meditation, by their nature, need quiet and stillness. But Bear Butte is located six miles from Sturgis, SD, the home of the infamous Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, making it a prime location for developers.

And, since Bear Butte has no zoning regulations whatsoever, the sanctity of Bear Butte is threatened by developers who want to build a giant biker bar and outdoor theater for concerts:

Arizona entrepreneur Jay Allen originally planned to name his venue “Sacred Grounds” and to erect an 80-foot statue of a Native person outside the bar. He boasted in March 2006 on his web site that the re-named Sturgis County Line will provide “hundreds of acres to party… in a safe haven, free from a policed environment, that’s what I’m talking about! … over 150,000 s.f. of asphalt for semi-tractor trailors… 22,500 s.f. of… ice cold beer… kick-butt music & oh yea, hot hot women!”[1] The 600-acre complex will include an outdoor amphitheater with space for 30,000 people, where “the largest music acts known to mankind” will perform less than a mile from the base of Bear Butte.

In case it's not clear from that quote exactly what this means for Bear Butte, let me tell you that the concerts at Sturgis - which are a few miles away - can already be heard clearly from Bear Butte.

The good news is that we can make a difference. Visit the Bear Butte International website to find out how you can take action by contacting SD Governor Mike Rounds (and, for SD residents, your legislators), donating to the cause, or helping to educate others about this important issue.

Anne asks that if you contact the Governor or your SD legislators, please stress that this is not just an issue for Native Americans. I found the following language from an earlier action (urging the Meade County Commission to establish a buffer zone around Bear Butte, which it failed to do), and it's a good model for helping us make the point that the integrity of Bear Butte is a concern for all Americans:

Bear Butte is a Sacred Place to many American Indian peoples such as the Lakota, Arapaho, Ponca, and Cheyenne and many more Tribal Nations. Bear Butte is a place of prayer (church), a place to learn tribal way of life (school), and a place of healing (hospital) to these Tribal Nations. Laws exist in America to protect churches, schools, and hospitals and most governments protect the integrity of such places.

From the perspective of the South Dakota citizenry Bear Butte is a National Historic Site, a State Park that holds much Cultural Relevancy for many Plains Indians Tribes, that Bear Butte Lake is a National Wildlife Refuge. Bear Butte should be protected from further destruction that will come with the development of more campgrounds, bars, amphitheaters, saloons and the heavily trafficked highways that inevitably become part of such developments.

Bear Butte, as a State Park and National Historic Site, and Bear Butte Lake as a National Wildlife Refuge, are a concern to many American citizens. The attitude of wanting integrity for such places is not limited to the American Indian People who hold Bear Butte as sacred. It is a concern of many other people as well.

Anne White Hat also had another specific suggestion for those who wish to help. The National Wildlife Refuge that currently protects Bear Butte Lake is planning to divest and give the land to the state of SD. Please, contact LaCreek National Wildlife Refuge and urge them not to do so at this time, as this will certainly mean the end of Bear Butte and the beginning of widespread development:
LaCreek National Wildlife Refuge
29746 Bird Road
Martin, SD 57551
605-685-6508
e-mail: lacreek@fws.gov
Website: http://www.fws.gov/lacreek/

And please, spread the word. Link back to this post, link directly to the Bear Butte International site, but please help me get the word out. This is a fight that can be won if enough people pitch in to help. We often feel like there is nothing that we can do to prevent injustice, to make change happen, and there are opportunities all around us. This is one.

More thoughts on racism.

This excerpt is taken from Beverly Daniel Tatum's "Talking about Race, Learning about Racism: 'The Application of' Racial Identity Development Theory in the Classroom." My remarks are bracketed and bolded. The excerpt:

Working Assumptions
[note: these are the assumptions she discusses with her students at the beginning of the course]

1. Racism, defined as a "system of advantage based on race" (see Wellman, 1977), is a pervasive aspect of U.S. socialization. It is virtually impossible to live in U.S. contemporary society and not be exposed to some aspect of the personal, cultural, and/or institutional manifestations of racism in our society. It is also assumed
that, as a result, all of us have received some misinformation about those groups disadvantaged by racism.

[What I like about this is that she does not, as I have seen some people do, tell her white students that they are racist. What she does is reveal the workings of systematic racism so that the students can come to a realization of what it means to have grown up in racist society. I think this makes for less defensive students!]

2. Prejudice, defined as a "preconceived judgment or opinion, often based on
limited information," is clearly distinguished from racism (see Katz, 1978). I assume
that all of us may have prejudices as a result of the various cultural stereotypes
to which we have been exposed. Even when these preconceived ideas have positive associations (such as "Asian students are good in math"), they have negative effects because they deny a person's individuality. These attitudes may influence the individual behaviors of people of color as well as of Whites, and may affect
intergroup as well as intragroup interaction. However, a distinction must be made between the negative racial attitudes held by individuals of color and White
individuals, because it is only the attitudes of Whites that routinely carry with
them the social power inherent in the systematic cultural reinforcement and institutionalization of those racial prejudices. To distinguish the prejudices of students of color from the racism of White students is not to say that the former is acceptable and the latter is not; both are clearly problematic. The distinction is important, however, to identify the power differential between members of dominant and subordinate groups.[my emphasis]

3. In the context of U.S. society, the system of advantage clearly operates to
benefit Whites as a group. However, it is assumed that racism, like other forms
of oppression, hurts members of the privileged group as well as those targeted by
racism. While the impact of racism on Whites is clearly different from its impact
on people of color, racism has negative ramifications for everyone. For example,
some White students might remember the pain of having lost important relationships
because Black friends were not allowed to visit their homes. Others may express
sadness at having been denied access to a broad range of experiences because of social segregation. These individuals often attribute the discomfort or fear they
now experience in racially mixed settings to the cultural limitations of their youth.

4. Because of the prejudice and racism inherent in our environments when we were children, I assume that we cannot be blamed for learning what we were taught (intentionally or unintentionally). Yet as adults, we have a responsibility to try to identify and interrupt the cycle of oppression. When we recognize that we have been misinformed, we have a responsibility to seek out more accurate information
and to adjust our behavior accordingly.

5. It is assumed that change, both individual and institutional, is possible.
Understanding and unlearning prejudice and racism is a lifelong process that may
have begun prior to enrolling in this class, and which will surely continue after
the course is over. Each of us may be at a different point in that process, and I
assume that we will have mutual respect for each other, regardless of where we
perceive one another to be.

So - this is essentially what we've been talking about - this distinction between racism and prejudice, the responsibility to recognize white privilege and to act in antiracist ways, etc.

I also want to excerpt this bit from Tatum's piece, which also illustrates some of the things we were discussing on the earlier thread:

In predominantly White college classrooms, I have experienced at least three major sources of student resistance to talking and learning about race and racism. They can be readily identified as the following:
1. Race is considered a taboo topic for discussion, especially in racially mixed
settings.
2. Many students, regardless of racial-group membership, have been socialized
to think of the United States as a just society.
3. Many students, particularly White students, initially deny any personal prejudice, recognizing the impact of racism on other people's lives, but failing to acknowledge its impact on their own.

It strikes me that White people, by virtue of the taboos we are taught when it comes to talking about race and racism, often don't notice racism on a first-hand basis unless we are being taught to be racist. So many Whites get our education about race from other places - books, movies, tv, etc. (I suspect that Whites who've grown up in racially and ethnically diverse communities where there is lots of interaction between the various groups don't expect people of color to be native informants for them because they've grown up learning about race and racism in a different way than have Whites who've grown up in racially homogeneous communities. (I could be completely talking out of my ass, here. This is a thought I had and I'm running with it.))

(BTW, I'm sorry for the weird line breaks. I can't figure out how to fix it without spending too much time on it.)

Anti-racism, race traitors, and whiteness.

There's been interesting discussion about these issues in the blogosphere lately, and I'm not going to add to that particular discussion. But I did want to make this the topic of a post because it's been on my mind.

I am afraid that what I write will sound sanctimonious. I'm also afraid that I'm going to sound like I think white people are supposed to be the saviors of the world. I don't. But I'm going to write this anyway and hope you guys understand the spirit of what I'm saying if I don't get all the words right. What I'm trying to get at is not "how to make white people happy," but "how to get more white people 1) less racist and 2) involved in antiracist work."

When I teach about racism to white students, they get overwhelmed. Now - before anyone gets pissed off at the notion of privileged youth who are overwhelmed by the idea of racism but don't actually suffer from it, let me make my point: it is a big burden to take this on, this "I am responsible for the unearned privilege I get on a daily basis." It is. It doesn't mean that it is not a necessary burden, nor that it is a larger burden or even an equal burden to the burden of suffering from racist oppression, but let's just remember that sick, awful feeling that comes from the recognition that one is profiting from systematic campaigns that hurt other people. That sick, awful feeling, because you thought that you were just an innocent bystander, and then you realized that there are no innocent bystanders.

And there aren't a lot of public examples of ways to take responsibility for it. We don't have a lot of white heroes who are heroes for being antiracist. White people are always the fuck-ups in the stories about racism, right? So my students - and, quite frankly, I - need some models for what the hell to do to make a difference, to actually be anti-racist.

And because examples don't always come readily to mind, my students - and I - get stuck. The easy thing is to push it away (like we push away Darfur or AIDS or whatever else is too horrible to think about). I want to say first that this is a measure of privilege, this ability to push it away and think happy thoughts. Sometimes it's necessary to push the ugliness away and let it simmer in the backs of our minds for a little while while we gain perspective, but it's still a luxury to be able to do this at all.

The hard thing, though, is to bring it to the fore and start examining what racism means in our own lives. I can think of embarrassing and painful stupid-ass racist things I've thought and said and still cringe about, and I'm sure you all can, too. I have the uncomfortable feeling that there will be more of them to come in my life. And when anxiety and fear about this overtake us, this is white guilt.

White guilt is not a useful emotion. It makes us focus on shame and embarrassment, and it makes us feel yucky, and it doesn't usually prompt us to anti-racist work. So we sit there, and we either feel guilty, or we conquer that guilt by 1) insisting that the racism isn't occurring, or 2) shifting the focus away from ourselves by focusing on other people's racism.

I think white people who want to do antiracist work, to move past that white guilt, need to do four things:

1. We need to talk about racism. We need to do it openly, among ourselves. I say "ourselves" not to exclude anyone from the conversation, but to suggest that people of color do not need to educate us or pronounce us "cured." We are capable of having smart conversations about race and we are capable of unlearning racism, and we can do it if we make a space to talk about the contradictions we find, the confusing issues, the shameful moments, the questions about what to do next. We need to approach this like it's not a dirty secret but a process of unlearning and recovery.

The concept of white people living in families of color and how that affects them and their families, how other whites view them, how their racial sense of self changes, how their white-skin privilege can both be intact and still, somehow, altered, depending on circumstance - all of these are important topics. But, as we've seen, these are topics that require careful, nuanced discussion. Which brings me to number two:

2. We need to educate ourselves. We need to take responsibility for educating ourselves, and this education doesn't come from our friends of color, primarily. It comes from reading, from immersing ourselves in the world, from knowing what is going on.

And once we know, we have a duty:

3. We need to work in coalition with people of color in our communities on their issues (which are our issues, as well). We can't be antiracist in a vacuum. And antiracist struggle is not won through theory alone.

And then, finally:

4. We need to point out examples of how white people can do antiracist work. This is not to lionize the efforts of white people but to teach white people how to fight racism. We need to think of teaching moments, for example. How many white people know what to say when someone, seeing white skin and thinking they have an ally, makes a racist comment? I will tell you that I have no clue how to respond to this most effectively. Is it the time to educate? Is it the time to curse and yell? Do I go for education? Blowing off steam? Simply taking my business (for example) elsewhere after delivering a scathing explanation of why I won't give my money to a racist business owner? What will work? I ask these questions, not because they have simple answers (I would bet that the best reaction to each would depend on the situation), but because these are the kinds of questions white people need to be asking ourselves and each other. We need to be sharing our success stories, the times when we said something that made the racist person stop and think, or the times when we helped correct a wrong in our communities. We need to know what to do so that we can do something.

Barbara Smith once said something at a conference that I took to heart. She talked about how afraid white people are when it comes to working with Black people, that we are afraid of their anger. Sure, she said, sometimes you'll get anger. But, she went on, as a white friend of hers who did antiracist work had told her, she was surprised to find that much more often she met with generosity and kindness.

I would like to see whites being generous and kind to each other, as well, when we struggle. All too often - and maybe this was particular to my own grad school environment - I have witnessed (and participated in) a kind of smack down whenever someone would inadvertently reveal her unconscious racism. We never gently corrected. We publically humiliated. And I'm quite sure that this approach only leads to more fear and guilt, and not to confident, antiracist work.

I'm not sure if I've said anything of value here. I hope, at least, that I haven't come across as a self-important asshole. These are things I've been thinking for some time, and they're things my students often ask me about. I want to clarify, too, and say that of the four points I list, I think the most important is number 3. Number 3 is taking action. The other points are supplementary, but necessary.


I didn't talk yet about race traitors. I think if we do these things, that does make us race traitors - in the sense that, as the journal, Race Traitor says, "Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity." What the journal focuses on is rejecting white privilege, refusing to see ourselves or let others see us as white. But rejecting white privilege - to the extent that that is even possible - alone doesn't cut it. We have to take action.


I'm curious to know what people think of this.