Re: Candace Owens

** I'm not linking Candace Owen's video because I'm not going to promote what she said. You can Google it if you don't know what this is about. Instead, I'll include another perspective on it from Charity Croff because it's spot on and well-said. Charity Croff Instagram Vid**



One of the most powerful posts I saw today was from a friend. He shared about the first time a cop pulled a gun on him. He was a 19-year-old college student out for a drive. The police thought he stole it.

My friend and I grew up in church together. I know the way he carries himself. I know his parents well and that they taught him to respect authority because his actions reflect God and his family.  But none of that actually matters because being respectable isn’t enough when you’re black.

As I scrolled through the comments, I read about more people and their experiences surrounding the first time a police officer pointed a gun at them.  24, 17, 15... It was heartbreaking, and yet not surprising. Can you imagine if that were your son? If you knew that in addition to all of the other dangers that he could face in this world, he also has to worry about the danger that might come from “fitting a profile” or “looking suspicious”? This isn’t a made-up fear. Did you know that my dad and brother were jogging in our upper middle class neighborhood and someone called the police on them because they looked suspicious? That incident could have ended differently for them. Just ask Ahmaud Arbury.

I can’t address everything that was said in the video from Candace Owens, but I will address one of the most discouraging parts. She cited the statistic that black males make up 6% of the population and account for 44% of murders. Since I obviously don’t support crime, this is upsetting. Nothing condones murder, and to hear that about my own race upsets me more than it upsets you. But why is the murder rate so high among this population of people? Could it be the chronic poverty that has plagued black communities for centuries because of the inequalities built into our laws? Could it have something to do with the lack of educational opportunities and subsequent career opportunities that are denied because of this chronic cycle of poverty? Is it that large populations of black people live in urban spaces (which have higher rates of crime) where less money is invested because of policies like redlining, which in turn affects access to quality education and healthcare? Maybe it has something to do with the lack of male role models in the community due largely in part to the “tough on crime” laws that disproportionately affect the black population, particular the black male population.  And just maybe, none of this matters because her statistics are common ploys used in the dehumanization of Black people.

Just because Candace Owens is black and articulate and her political center may align with yours does not mean she is an authority on this issue. She is not. If she thinks these protests are about one man, about criminals being killed because they are not doing what they are supposed to, if she can’t see the connection between George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbury, Breonna Taylor, Atatiana Jefferson, Botham Jean, Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, then she is wrong. Candace is smart. I think she can see the connection between the names listed and many more not listed. She just doesn't care. Just like the media is conveniently leaving out the supposed “truth” about George Floyd’s criminal history, Candace is conveniently leaving out the truth about systemic racism, inequality, implicit bias, and the sordid history between the police and the black community. 

Her video is particularly sinister for two reasons. The first is because of what she omits. Her statements, specifically about the the violent crimes committed by black men without any of the necessary context, can lead the less discerning mind to the conclusion that black men are dangerous, upstanding citizens of society are right to fear them, and therefore mass incarceration is the only acceptable solution. If 6% of a specific population is committing almost half of the crime, what other conclusion can there be?

The second reason is because of who her audience is. She speaks primarily to white conservatives, some of whom are racists, but most of whom have deeply held unconscious biases against black people and black men in particular. In today's society, this bias is just as dangerous. Her words (particularly because they come from a Black women) confirm their opinions and biases.

This video resonates with so many white people (and even some black people) because it is easily digestible and it puts 100% of the blame on the attention- seeking, lazy, ignorant, violent black community who just needs to “do better.” The reality is so much more complicated than Candace Owen would have you believe.

Why Can't We Be Friends

     I wrote a post about Why Black Lives Matter, particularly the "why" behind the name and the validity of the idea itself. Since the idea took social media and then mainstream media by storm, there have been other movements-not exactly counter movements, but they are certainly not congruent. All Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter became an alternative for those who did not believe in the Black Lives Matter movement. Does this mean that people who support All Lives and Blue Lives do not believe that Black lives matter? Perhaps that is true for many (if you don't believe me, visit the Black Lives Matter Facebook page), but certainly not for all. So how can people who do in fact believe that Black lives matter not be willing to support the movement or even utter the phrase? Why is something as fundamental as the acknowledgment of human worth controversial?

    Another example is violence, particularly gun violence in the United States. The statistics of gun violence are a matter of fact. Whether we look at mass shootings, domestic violence, street violence, or violence against police officers, the numbers and statistics paint a grim and bloody image. If you want a reference, take a look at the Gun Violence Archive. But somehow, the problem has been repackaged as a battle over the constitution and for the soul of our country as a democracy, and the issue of gun violence can only be seen as a problem if it is viewed from the left. Does this mean that conservative Americans don't care about the victims of gun violence? Again, maybe some don't, but many conservatives understand that violence of any kind should be a human issue, not just a party agenda item. 

     Both of these issues became more than debates on semantics or legislation. It is understandable that the implementation and solution for these issues are complicated and debatable; but the ideas themselves, which are fairly simple and should be non-threatening, became defensible positions with people on both sides unable to even agree on the most basic points of the issue, namely that an issue even existed.

     Was there ever a time when people could disagree with one another and still be civil, even friendly? Of course, I'm thinking mostly about political or social issues. According to political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, we’re seeing a level of polarization that we haven’t seen since Reconstruction ended. But even with regular every day differences, were people able to navigate the space between opposing viewpoints and common ground? I am fascinated with this question, especially considering the current social climate in which we live where disagreements breed hatred and conflict, and where people are quick to ardently defend their point of view without consideration of any facts or opinions that are counter to the points they are defending. People will base their very identities on an issue they are for or against in such a way that they and the people who agree with them are fundamentally better than those who hold opposing viewpoints.  Maybe it hasn't gotten worse in recent years. Maybe people were always this way. 

     It is important to embrace debate and opposition. Humans rely on alternative points of view to identify and to solve issues, so conflict, discourse, compromise, and resolution are essential to humanity’s social evolution. But the methods that we use to debate opposing viewpoints are extremely important too. If we become more concerned with being right and bullying others into agreeing with our superior points of view, then we lose the opportunity for societal growth. We may be able to win small tribal battles, but it comes at the expense of a chance to collectively change. We become more entrenched with members of our own camp; and in a world that is becoming smaller through globalism and cultural exchange, we cannot afford to revert to tribalism.

     Dr. Mark Alicke wrote this for Psychology Today:  “The secret, I think, is not to pretend that I don’t believe what I believe, or to acknowledge that others might be right, but to recognize that when the sum total of rightness and wrongness is added up, I am unlikely to come out on top, and would be lucky to get a tie. So while my identity remains protected, I am hopefully not so obtuse as to believe that I am a better person than those I disagree with.” If we can understand this idea, if we realize that we are not better than the people who disagree with us, if we can acknowledge that we have been wrong before and we will be wrong again, we can start moving forward and make meaningful change for the benefit of everyone. Only then will we have a chance right the wrongs of the past and truly make America great. Can we at least agree on that?

Ellen Page, Chris Pratt, and the Right to Believe

*

I grew up Southern Baptist. The church I attended for most of my life was non-denominational, but I grew up in a Southern Baptist school with Southern Baptists friends who went to Southern Baptists churches and we all believed the same things. My parents taught me the things that every good Christian should be taught, and more than that, they modeled with their lives what they taught me with their words. This is one of the reasons that I am still a Christian today.

In high school, I didn't go through a religious crisis of conscious. I held strongly to my beliefs and so did my friends and family. College presented some challenges, and my experiences after college presented even more. I met people with differing beliefs and compelling and well-crafted arguments. I met people with different lifestyle choices, people who believed and felt differently than what I was taught to believe and feel. Through my experiences with people, I was being taught to question "truth." I began to question what I had been taught, why I had been taught these things, and the systems of power that existed and had grown because of some of these teachings. Ultimately, I concluded that my religion, my personal relationship with God was not dependent upon the religious institutions and groups that claimed to stand for what I believed. Complicated as it was, I had to reconcile what I was learning of the world to what I read in the Bible, what I had been taught, what I believed. I some ways, I am still working to reconcile these things.

Christianity began with a small gathering of people in ancient Israel. This small tribe of people and the beliefs that they had spread throughout the world, and the tribe of 12 men grew to millions.  Affected by culture, politics,  and power, the religion known as "Christianity" has evolved throughout time even if the core value has remained the same.  Sometimes even that it hard to believe. More often that not, recently, I find myself arguing against what has become the mainstream conservative Evangelical voice in the United States rather than with it. The loudest voices that have aligned themselves with the Conservative Right in this country often do not speak for me as a minority and as a woman. I continue to argue against those in my tribe who blindly value American lives over the lives of refugees. I debate with those in the Church who refuse to acknowledge the systemic racism that persists in this country. I respect the identity of others regardless of what I believe about their choices.  But I still belong to and love those in my broken tribe of Christians, even when we don't agree about the big things.

This is the nature of religion. There is fear and hope, sin and forgiveness, wrong and right, humanity and the Divine, and faith covers all. For those who have never truly believed or even for those who have abandoned their beliefs, it is difficult to understand it. Our modern Western culture has worked overtime to oversimplify the nuances of religion. Religion is not simple, even if belief is. "Believe what you want and do what makes you happy. If any religion tells you otherwise, it's repression. It's unnatural."

Ellen Page** is the perfect example of how the modern west has lost its understanding of religion. (She attacked Chris Pratt because of his church affiliation several months ago) She, like so many others, have an oversimplified understanding of religion and faith. We seem to have forgotten the although religion can be about relationship, to truly be religion it should define a person's life. Otherwise, it's a fad or a lifestyle choice. If your religion demands that you eat meat in every meal, you don't get to stop eating meat because Beyonce wants you to be a vegan. If your religion says that women are subservient to men, you don't get to ignore it because feminism is popular. Most religions don't invite you to pick and choose the parts that you like depending on the popular culture and ideas of the day. And when religious ideas condemn the lifestyles of others in your circles of influence, you don't stop believing because others might be offended.  If Chris Pratt belongs to a church that believes something that is counter to what Ellen and many others are fighting for, she does not have the right to condemn him for it.

I am not here to defend Christianity. In this country, it does not need defending. I am also not here to vilify culture or the decay of morality that so many in Christian circles seem to constantly worry about. I have had my own complicated journey with what I have been taught to believe and what I believe is right when it comes to complicated and often painful issues like gender, sexuality, equality, and value. At the center of what I believe is my unwavering faith in God and my experiences which are undeniable. I choose to be part of a flawed Church, this misfit tribe, whether I support everything I'm told it stands for or not. I don't ask that everyone believes the way that I do, although I invite anyone to learn about and experience the joy and the life that my faith gives. I do, however, expect my lifestyle and the beliefs that accompany it to be respected and acknowledged just as I am expected to respect and acknowledge the choices of others.  I think that is only right.

* https://www.pngkey.com/detail/u2q8w7y3i1y3i1w7_christian-artwork-songer-consulting-american-flag-and-christian/

** https://www.thecut.com/2019/02/ellen-page-reminds-chris-pratt-of-hillsongs-homophobia.html

Black Panthers and a Red Prius

Can we take a minute to talk about the new Prius commercial?  It features bumbling, affable bank robbers, a Prius, and suspiciously incompetent police.  The commercial is cute and fun.

But let's look at it carefully.  The robbers steal a Prius and are able to evade the police, who are completely befuddled.  In one commercial, the Prius slips through a group of officers sleeping in their squad cars. (We get it. The Prius is as quiet as ever.)  Yes, there is that one segment where the police are outfitted with their own Prius fleet and presumably they are able to catch the thieves.  But what if the criminals had hurt someone with their reckless driving?  Why aren't there more people supporting the police instead of the law breakers?  Does the color of the car represent the blood of the victims of police violence?  Is this commercial anti-law enforcement?!

Let me put it this way: It's about as anti-police as Beyonce's halftime performance.

Yes, her performance featured dancers dressed (sort of) as Black Panthers. And yes, the Black Panther party has a complicated, often misunderstood history with law enforcement.  They were fighters and revolutionaries, but they were also activists and community organizers.  They were more than just angry young people who used violence to get what they wanted.  We can simultaneously disagree with their methods yet understand their struggle.  Remember, history is written by the victors, and the Black Panthers did not emerge victorious.

So, is the presence of Black Panther- themed dancers and a call for the continual pursuit of justice equal to anti-police rhetoric?   No more than a red Prius evading an incompetent police force to the admiration of thousands.

Dear Mr. Carson

Dear Mr. Carson,

Recently, you said that because Obama was "raised white" (apparently referring to his middle class upbringing) and spent much of his formative years in Indonesia he can't identify with the (American) black experience.

Who made you the judge of what it means to be an African American?  Just because someone wasn't raised the same way you were doesn't invalidate their own experiences or mean they can't identify with whatever you consider to be "the experiences of black Americans."  By attacking President Obama, you attack black people who come from a two parent home, whose parents never had to work three jobs, whose families were fortunate enough never to need government assistance, who are middle and upper-class Americans, who had the opportunity to be a global citizen as well as an American citizen, who attended private schools and lived in homes in nice neighborhoods, who had every opportunity afforded to them, AND who are just as black as you are and proud of it.  

A person who claims to want to be president of the United States should know that the "black experience" goes beyond upbringing or struggle.   I'm disappointed that you didn't. 

#WHOISSTACEYDASH

          I have never seen Clueless or any of the other spinoff shows.  So when I first watched the interview on Fox with Stacey Dash, my query as to who she is was completely legitimate.  In fact, I wouldn't have cared about a video from Fox News, but a "friend" on Facebook posted it in support.  To be fair, I do believe in the spirit of Stacey Dash's comments.  Black people can no longer rage against societal injustice yet continue to be a part of the problem.  However, I emphatically disagree with her misunderstanding of where blacks have forged a space in society and where blacks are still fighting for it.  As I watched it, I felt an overwhelming sense of frustration and then fatigue.  I felt tired that once again someone would say something so ignorant, once again the firestorm of petty race-related issues would begin, and once again I would feel obligated to explain to yet another well-meaning person why we still have BET and Black History Month.  I knew the argument would devolve into "why can't we get over what happened in the past," and "why can't we just be one country and all get along and stop fighting." But I tried anyway, and for the sake of one person who truly wants to understand, here I will try again.  (If you haven't seen the video, you can watch at the bottom.)

1. Why BET
          BET was created out of necessity, and it is a necessity that still exists to a certain degree.  Shows and movies with a predominately black cast are still thought of "black entertainment" while shows and movies with predominately white casts are simply entertainment.   The idea persists that "black shows" will not appeal to mainstream audiences, and although more common, shows with black leads are still the minority.  The idea that blacks seek special treatment because they have "their own channel and whites don't" fails to understand how white culture has been largely appropriated as American culture while black culture is often a sub-culture.  Think about hair care commercials on a given channel during the prime time for TV shows (ABC, FOX, NBC, CW).  Most of them are not geared toward black women.  It is in recent years that makeup commercials have even included women with dark complexions.  Black women probably spend more on hair care than white women, but commercials about "ethnic" hair care aren't on these channels.  So is it because blacks aren't watching these channels, and if that is the case, shouldn't we be asking why not instead of asking why we still have BET?  BET makes a space for them where there wasn't before, and those who argue that there is no longer a need for a channel for Black entertainment fail to see that there is a limited space in the mainstream for it now.

2. Why Black History Month
          Recently, Texas textbooks came under fire because the author referred to slaves as "workers" and referred to the kidnapping and subsequent enslavement of Africans as a "pattern of migration."  In light of this and other claims of textbooks omitting the history of Jim Crow south, segregation, and the Civil Rights movement from history books, it's a wonder to me why people question the necessity and the importance of Black History month.  I wonder, what is so threatening about one month (the shortest month) that recognizes the accomplishments of Black people in America?  What is so scary about a month that remembers how a people who were brought to this country as slaves became people who influenced and shaped the fabric of American society in many different ways? It is a dangerous assumption that black history is American history that is adequately explored and taught in schools throughout the country. I truly don't understand the call for this to end.

          In my experience, arguing about race-related issues is always a funny thing.  No matter how you explain and what points you bring up, people usually jump to the utopian conclusion that if we just get along and stop talking about race every time something comes up, we could truly get past this race problem.  After all, they say, the race issue is created by the media anyway.  And in a way, they have a point.  The media does have a habit of reporting controversial or overly sensationalized versions of the news because that is how they get and keep their audience.  But to simplify a complicated issue such as race relations to just the imagination of the media is not only extremely offensive but also ignorant. To tell a group that already feels marginalized and ignored that their opinions or grievances have been created for them is to pour gasoline on a fire.  And more importantly, it shows a lack of understanding.  In my argument on Facebook, the recurring theme was that my friend couldn't understand this or didn't understand that, but the real problem was that he was unwilling to understand, and that is the biggest problem of all. 

       

Donald Trump: Refreshing, New, and Strong

I wasn't  going to do it.

I wasn't going to add to the conversation, fuel the fire, or even acknowledge the absurdity that is Mr. Donald Trump.

And I probably wouldn't have had it not been for the strange and confusing things that I listen to every day.  No, I am not talking about the strange and confusing things that Mr. Trump says, though there are many and I certainly could.  I'm referring to the things I hear from those who support, or at least agree with, his ideas.

They say he is "refreshing" and "new."  He is unlike the other politicians who say everything but do nothing.  That even if what he says he will do once elected President is outrageous, and even if he stretches the truth just a little, at least he will do something.  They argue, "At least he won't make America weak."

Donald Trump: Refreshing, new, and strong?


There is nothing refreshing about fear mongering, there is nothing new about racism, and there is nothing strong about turning our backs on people who need help.

Whether it is something big like deporting millions of immigrants or closing the borders to people from a different religion, or something seemingly small like telling a someone that they do not belong as he did to the Telemundo reporter, his ideas and his rhetoric are actually old.  I'm sure they seemed refreshing as well at a time when fear was as prevalent as it is now, but today we consider them villainous and even hateful.  Or we did before Donald Trump decided he wanted to be the President.

In perilous times we need to be vigilant and guarded, but we can never let our fear be greater that our compassion.  We have come too far.