Recently my wife got together with some old friends to play cards. During the game one of them began bemoaning the state of public education and what teachers are being "forced" to teach. Specifically the complaint was the teachings about race that were allegedly to be mandated and how this person's daughter, a young teacher, was balking at all this and might leave the profession.  Supposedly her daughter objected with the statement, "we are not a racist country, Mom".

Wow. Fortunately I was outside on the deck enjoying a beer with a couple of others and was not at the card table indoors when this statement was made. Also fortunately even the players who are not very political immediately objected along the lines of 'how can you even say that?'. I mean slavery, lynchings, Jim Crow, come quickly to mind as counter arguments. From what I understand the card game essentially ended right about there.

This incident, and all the recent news stories about school board meetings being interrupted by those protesting the teaching of critical race theory, or objecting to any discussions about race, has got me thinking however of how American history is taught. Perhaps more accurately, how it isn't taught. Instead we receive a sanitized, almost mythical, rendering of our history. I mean I'm all for being a glass half full kind of nation, but there's positive spin, and then there's whitewashing. Next thing you know you end up with people truly believing we are not a racist country, or maybe we were but it is solidly in our past.

I present myself as Exhibit A in this matter. Mostly because it gives me a chance to brag about myself, but also to show what a poor job we have done historically with the teaching of history.

Back in my day, depending on the colleges you were applying to, besides taking the SATs, you were asked to take one or more Achievement Tests. These tests were subject specific. My recollection was I took three of these tests, one being American History. I chose that because American History had always been an interest of mine and I had always done well in that subject.

I aced it. Just as with the verbal and math sections of the SAT, the maximum score available on an Achievement test was 800. I scored an 800 on the American History Achievement test. It led to me being recognized and presented an award at my high school graduation.

The point being, besides bragging how I was smart at one point in my life, is that whatever they were teaching as the American History curriculum, I learned it. Well.

But what I have discovered in recent years as I read more articles and books, and follow historians on social media, is how little of our history I actually learned. Especially with regards to the history of race, race relations, slavery and the experience of African Americans in our country.

The history I learned in that regard can probably be summed up like this:

• America was colonized by European powers
• Somehow slaves ended up being brought here
• So we had slavery, and that was bad, but hey everyone else did too, so cut us some slack
• As the new nation formed and got going there was tension between slave and non-slave states
• We fought a Civil War and got rid of slavery; yay US!
• There was Jim Crow and some other backsliding and that was bad
• But then Martin Luther King Jr wrote and spoke one sentence in his entire life; and while not perfect the US of A makes progress toward that more perfect Union. End scene.

And from what I gather that is about all the discussion of race and race relations most conservatives, Republicans, and probably too many others would want in our classrooms. 

That history omits and downplays so much of our history and explains why so many people can actually believe we do not need to confront or do anything about systemic racism. A few examples come to mind of what we were or were not taught that leave us ignorant of our own history and its continuing impacts.

The Constitution
We all know, I hope, about the 3/5 compromise. You know where this non-racist country allowed 3/5 of every slave to count towards a state's population for the purpose of assigning the number of representatives to the House, and therefore also the number of Electoral College votes.

But what about those other compromises? The ones that gave us the un-democratic institutions that in many ways continue to haunt us today, the Senate and the Electoral College. What brought that about?

It was taught to us as there being conflict at the Constitutional Convention between "large" states and "small" states. The small states were afraid a stronger, central, national government would be dominated by the larger, more populous states and the interests of the small states would be ignored, or maybe even worse. 

The compromises? Besides the House of Representatives, the body initially envisioned as being the entire Congress with membership based on each states population, there would be a Senate with each state getting equal representation regardless of population. And the President would not be elected solely by popular vote, which again would be dominated by larger states. No there would be an Electoral College, so the President would need to win a majority of states, not necessarily the majority of votes. 

The reality is that this depiction of large vs small states was a euphemism. It was really a dispute between slave and non-slave states. It so happened the non-slave states were the more populous northern states with the larger commercial hubs. The slave states were more agrarian and had smaller populations. Their real fear was that a central government based solely on population would be dominated by the non-slave states who would eventually look to curtail and eliminate slavery. As one of the chief architects of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote after the debates and compromises, the real division at the Convention was not between large and small states, but between north and south. 

The Civil War
The Civil War is always taught as a glorious event in our history. We want a pat on the back for having fought it to end slavery. At least it was taught that way in northern public schools where I attended.

What was never mentioned, and I didn't realize until recent readings, is that we are about the only country in the world that had to fight a civil war to end slavery. Other countries passed laws or issued decrees, many of them doing so years or even decades before our Civil War. The US? It took huge armies in the field and killing hundreds of thousands of each other to get rid of slavery. I don't know what that says about us, but I'm guessing it's nothing good.

Jim Crow
Did I mention I scored a perfect 800 on the American History Achievement Test? Just wanted to be sure we don't lose sight of one of the main takeaways here. Anyway that aside what I learned and knew about Jim Crow laws was that they were enacted to restore the old power structure in the South. Impediments were set up to make it all but impossible for black people to register and to vote in the Southern states. And if those didn't work there was always the Ku Klux Klan to intimidate (another euphemism) blacks from voting. Oh yes and there were separate schools and they had to use separate bathrooms and water fountains. 

Again it is only recently as I read more articles about this that I have learned how much of the Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes were actually economic in nature. It wasn't just to deny African Americans political or social power. It was also to deny them any opportunity of gaining economic power and status. What jobs a black person could hold, how much they could be paid, what type of business a black person could own or operate were all defined by these laws. 

As one text put it:
The codes appeared throughout the South as a legal way to put Black citizens into indentured servitude, to take voting rights away, to control where they lived and how they traveled and to seize children for labor purposes...

The voting and separate facilities they taught us. The rest, not so much.

The GI Bill
Now mind you, any history class I took never got to the GI Bill. By the time you studied the European colonization, the Revolution, the Constitution and beginnings of the country, the War  of 1812, and the Civil War, the school year was well past half way finished. The time from 1865 to however far you got by the end of the school year was always a blur. That is in some part why many Americans are so ignorant about the history of race and the history of the Labor movement, etc. Reconstruction, the Labor  movement are raced through. A little more time is spent on the Spanish American War and World War I. Then you just have about enough time to squeeze in a little about the Great Depression and World War II. Then it was summer vacation.

So most Americans don't realize that the GI Bill was off limits for many African American service members after World War II. Not explicitly of course. There was nothing in the bill forbidding benefits for blacks or telling them they couldn't apply. But it's implementation was up to the states and local communities. As a result most black servicemen could not take advantage of the GI Bill to buy a home. 

Besides the strength of union membership after World War II probably nothing did more to lift more people out of poverty or the working class and into the middle class in America than the GI Bill. People who would not have been able to buy a home and build up the equity and family wealth that home ownership can generate were now able to. But again, due to redlining and other discriminatory housing practices that avenue was shut off to African Americans. 

This was not the only way that African Americans continued to be denied economic advancement but it is a prime example.
​
War on Drugs
Finally in the 1960s, after much agitation and protest, we passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. The discriminatory and unfair practices for voting, education, separate facilities, housing discrimination, all were swept away and made illegal. Progress was finally here.

So how did America react? With the War on Drugs. One of Richard Nixon's chief domestic policy advisors, John Ehrlichman, later admitted that one of the main goals of the war on drugs was to disrupt the black community. It was a wink and a nod, especially to white southerners, not to fear all those rights acts, we'll keep "them" in their place.

The statistics are well known. Drug use and addiction rates among blacks and white is roughly equal. There are five times more whites than blacks in the USA. But blacks disproportionately are arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for relatively minor drug offenses compared to whites. It disrupts their families, their communities and removes many young black men from society, and not coincidentally, the voting rolls. 

There could be endless more examples of where our history curriculum fails us. All the race riots that have taken place for example. Now there is a euphemism and a half. Every race riot is mobs of white people looting, burning and killing blacks - and we call it a "race riot". Until recently who had ever heard of the Tulsa Massacre? And now that we have, how many know it was just one of many such atrocities?

The fact is that slavery and race were very central concepts to the birth of our nation, to coin a phrase. And to put blinders on and ignore that solves nothing. We will never move to that dream where people are judged solely by the content of their character until we as a nation learn and face our entire history, namely that for too long and too many instances, it was the color of the skin that was more important. That doesn't require self-flagellation from whites, but it does require honesty and learning and facing facts. Admit where we fell, and continue to fall, short and desire and work to be better. 

And that 800 i received on the American History Achievement Test (in case you forgot)? It should have been a 400 at best.


​

The unfortunate events in Ferguson, Missouri, yet another shooting of an unarmed black male by white police, along with some other recent shootings of blacks by cops, have led to increased discussion of the legacy of race in this country. It has also resurrected the discussion of "white privilege".

For those not familiar, white privilege is the notion that white people, in a society such as the United States, receive certain deference or privileges based solely on the color of their skin. The evidence can run from the trivial, blacks more likely to be followed in a store when shopping for example, to the more profound, such as blacks more likely to be arrested and incarcerated than whites for the same offense.

While some whites acknowledge the existence of white privilege, many do not. Some doubt its very existence or downplay its significance. For what it's worth here is the perspective of a white, middle-class, middle-aged American male who also used to be a "white privilege skeptic".

Growing up and in my earlier adult years I did not believe in white privilege. I'm sure my reaction to the notion was similar to that of many middle-class white males. My thoughts would have been something like this:

"What privilege? Nobody handed me anything on a silver platter. I had to work for my grades. I had to work to get into a good college. I didn't get in to any school because Daddy gave a big donation or knew the right person. And I had to find my own job. Mummy and Daddy didn't have one waiting for me at the family business, or put in a word with an uncle or a family friend to get me a job. I've earned what I have. So what privilege did I get?"

I even recall an incident sophomore year in college, sitting in our dorm room with my roommate, an aspiring pre-med student from Long Island. One of the freshmen on the floor came in to introduce himself. He was African-American. We got to talking and he told us he too hoped to go to medical school. Of course he threw in that he had to achieve a 2.75 GPA or so to insure getting in.

After he left my roommate looked at me with a smirk, shaking his head. He stated something along the lines of, "do you know what happens if I apply to med schools with a 2.75 GPA? I might as well not bother if that's what I have." And shook his head some more. 

Because while he and I could acknowledge that many blacks had been disadvantaged and deserved some breaks to account for that,  we chalked it up more to poverty than skin color. Sure, cut someone some slack if they came from a bad neighborhood with bad schools. But don't give breaks if they came from a suburban neighborhood and a decent school (as the aforementioned freshman had) just because they were black. Due to our middle class background we didn't see ourselves as privileged. We couldn't see where anybody had paved any paths for us.

This ambivalence concerning affirmative action and to the concept of white privilege stayed with me most of my adult life. It began to change when I served on the Board of Education in my town in Connecticut. 

About the same time as my service on the school board began the Sheff vs. O'Neill case had made its way through the courts. A brief summary for those who don't want to follow the link:

• In 1989 several school children and their parents sued the state of Connecticut alleging that as urban and minority students they were not receiving an equal education compared to other children in Connecticut
• In 1996 the Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs and stated that every child in Connecticut was guaranteed an equal education as a constitutional right
• In 1997 Connecticut's General Assembly (state legislature) passed laws in response to the Sheff ruling to attempt to eliminate racial and socio-economic inequalities in the public schools

Among the efforts supported under the legislation were seminars or group sessions within the schools concerning diversity. Our school board formed an ad-hoc committee to implement this aspect of the law. One of our board members (the only person of color on the board) ran diversity training and workshops as part of his business. He was a natural selection to head up the committee and run the workshops. They wanted another board member to participate as well. I don't know what the reasoning was, but I was asked to join the committee. With no real enthusiasm I agreed.

To say that the experience was educational and eye-opening is an understatement. The first group as I recall consisted solely of staff members from the district. Later groups would include parents and administrators. 

The first group focused on the changing demographics of our town and our schools. As with many communities we were seeing a growth in the Hispanic population in particular and minorities in general, while the staff remained almost exclusively white. We had a mix of "old guard" teachers, and younger Hispanic staff who were involved with ESL and other support services, in the first group. We met several times over a some months exploring diversity, understanding, etc. The discussions were very interesting and informative, at least to me who was in a position to really sit back and observe the interactions and perspectives of this diverse group.

One day the topic was white privilege. We watched a video of an Oprah show where racism and white privilege had been the focus. That did open me up to the concept of white privilege and lead to much discussion in the group. But it was a story told by my fellow board member during the group discussion after watching the video that somehow really drove it home to me.

He related a story of one of his first jobs at a corporate headquarters in New York City. I believe this was in the late 1960's or early 1970's. As you may imagine there were not too many people of color in the office at that time.

There was a really good soul food restaurant not too far from where their office was. So occasionally the minority employees got together to go there for lunch. At first they would meet up at someone's desk. Once they had all assembled they would then go out to lunch. As I recall we are not talking about more than 5 or 6 people, maybe even less. 

One afternoon after he had returned from one of these trips to the soul food restaurant my colleague was approached by his boss. The boss began by asking if everything was alright. The response was sure why do you ask?

The answer was that "they", the others in the office, had noticed the black people congregating and talking together and then taking off. Just wanted to be sure there were no issues, they weren't upset about anything, etc. My colleague answered that no they were just meeting to go out to lunch together to a local soul food restaurant.

From that day on whenever their group wanted to go out they always met on the sidewalk a short ways from the office before going to the restaurant. No sense making their bosses and co-workers nervous seeing the black employees together in one place, probably talking about "them".

That anecdote is what finally drove home the truth of white privilege to me. How silly. How stupid. And how exhausting. If a group of white employees ever gathered together before going off for lunch, or for any reason, would anyone have cared? Would anyone have noticed? Would it have made anyone nervous? Would anyone have mentioned it to them? No. No. No. And no.

From that day it was like the scales fell from my eyes. I won't pretend to be able to fully understand, or to "get it",  but I can empathize and at least understand at an intellectual level. And I can certainly see the many ways, both mundane and profound, that white privilege asserts itself in our society.

Whether it's not being able to congregate in a group, large or small, with people of like color without causing suspicion; whether it's being stopped outside a store because you, having dark skin, could not possibly afford that $350 belt and must be using a stolen credit card; whether it's driving or walking or sitting while black; or whether it's being steered to certain neighborhoods no matter your income or occupation; being suspended or incarcerated at higher rates for the same behaviors or crimes as whites; or to be considered threatening and therefore a justifiable homicide, simply due to your skin color and physical features; or gunned down in a store while holding a toy gun pulled off a shelf; or be met with a militarized heavily armed unit and tear gassed when peacefully marching for your rights; while all the while a white person can open carry automatic weapons into fast food restaurants, or point weapons at federal agents and be hailed as heroes and it is law enforcement that stands down to "avoid conflict"; the evidence for white privilege is ample and obvious, whether intellectual heavy weights like Bill O'Reilly care to acknowledge it or not.

Jon Stewart on The Daily Show segment addressing Ferguson and the issues of race and white privilege probably summed it up as well as I've ever heard it:

"Race is there and it is a constant. You're tired of hearing about it? Imagine how fucking exhausting it is living it."





   

 
 

 

Or more precisely what's in a word? 

I know there has been much written and said about the Donald Sterling matter and his lifetime ban from the NBA. 

I have nothing particular to add to the conversation, no new or unique insight to share.

But we can all use a laugh on a Monday, so did want to pass along something on the subject that was amusing to say the least. Well I found it amusing anyway. Continue on and see if you agree.

Visited my mother over the weekend. While she was occupied with some other matters in other rooms I sat in her living room. I noticed she had the weekend edition of the local paper sitting on her couch. While waiting for her to return I leafed through the paper and came upon their editorial page. There were several letters to the editor on the page, most dealing with local issues. One letter however dealt with the Sterling matter. 

I'll provide a link to the full letter here. It's quite the amusing read, though unintentionally of course. The letter hits at Democrats, Magic Johnson, and the "liberal media", so you can guess the basic tone and tenor of the opinions.

The letter writer had seven points he wished to convey concerning the topic of Donald Sterling. He had me hooked with point number one:

1) I listened to the tape. There is nothing “racist” about it. The man has a mixed-race mistress and he is complaining she hangs around blacks. Prejudice? Sure. Bigoted? Probably. Racist? Give me a break; 

Now I was a Chemistry major in college, not an English major. But I began my college career as an English major and did take some English courses which I passed easily. So while the contention that somehow there must be a subtle distinction between prejudice, bigotry and racism certainly struck me as obviously wrong, I thought I should do some checking just to see if this esteemed writer was onto something from a technical definition standpoint.

My source for this investigation was the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. The definition pages for the individual words are linked to below. 

Prejudice:

an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc.

: a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when it is not reasonable or logical


Okay I believe we can all agree that the sentiments expressed by Mr. Sterling were not at all reasonable or logical and did convey a certain dislike for a group of people based on race. Strike one.

Bigoted:

 a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)


Asking his mistress not to bring black people to his basketball's teams games? Sure sounds like refusing to accept the members of a particular group to me. Strike two.

But of course at this point we are in agreement with the letter writer who conceded that Donald Sterling was prejudiced and a bigot. Well okay technically he only conceded that Sterling was "probably" a bigot. Now, as they say, is where it gets weird.

Racism:

poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race

: the belief that some races of people are better than others

First of all while the author of the letter used the term "racist" I am giving the definition of "racism". This is because the definition of racist pretty much referred to someone who exhibited racism, so the definition of "racist" itself was meaningless to this investigation. 

To a lay person such as myself, not wanting your mistress to bring people of a certain race to your games would meet the standard of "poor treatment of...people because of their race". Strike three. 

So the conclusion of this non-linguist is that the letter writer was incorrect and in fact Donald Sterling did hit the trifecta and was prejudiced, bigoted AND racist. 

If you do read the entire letter at the link above you'll see in the final point, #7, is where our poor letter writer went astray. In his world the term "racist" can only be applied to those who condone or practice violence against others based on the color of their skin. Treating people like second-class citizens without violence to back it up doesn't count, and he wishes the liberal media and all the rest of us would cut it out, including apparently the Merriam-Webster dictionary.  Save it for the pointy heads wearing the pointy sheets.

As a final thought, looking at points 2 and 3 in the letter, it is also funny to see yet another self-professed fan of First Amendment freedoms confusing free speech with the consequences of free speech.

2) Hello, we’re in America, not China or Russia. You’re allowed to be ignorant and stupid in this country. It’s not a crime.

3) Since when did we rescind the First Amendment? I know Democrats use it like a buffet, using it only for speech they object to (like school prayer), but it protects all speech. Even objectionable speech.

 Yes the amendment does protect all speech, even vile, objectionable speech and insures it is not a crime. However, the First Amendment does not mean there cannot be private sector consequences to that speech. 

Mr. Sterling will be charged with no crime. The government will take no action against him. But that doesn't mean his business associates can't decide he's bad for business and kick him out of their organization based on bylaws and rules he agreed to follow when he "joined the club" by purchasing the team.  

Finally I'd like to end on a positive note by saying I did find something in the letter that I agree with wholeheartedly. From the author's point #2 above:

You’re allowed to be ignorant and stupid in this country.

Amen brother. Exhibit 1 - your letter.