“I am not a racist… and it is not OK to tell me that I am,” says Jamie Goodwin over at Trivium.
In fact it is an insult, an attack even, on everything I stand for. While I applaud our work on anti-racism as an organization i find it extremely unfair, and frankly a little frightening, for hard working, justice centered people, to self identify with smug looks on their faces, “Racist of course.. I am an American.”
Meanwhile, Joseph Santos-Lyons had this to say:
I believe AR/AO/MC is manifested in authentic relationship. In our authenticity, we are accountable and caring. In our accountability, we are reconciled and restored. In our caring, we nurture our greatest gift, the power of love. I believe true community to be intergenerational, multiracial, multicultural community, and it is these spaces and places I seek to be and minister.
Both are very strong statements about UU anti-racist work. And both come from places of pain.
The thing is, I also believe that true community must be intergenerational, multiracial, and multicultural.
I even believe that we must be accountable and caring. But coming from a place of ignorance or even selfishness is not racism unless it is done as a concious choice. Unless when a mistake or blunder is made we refuse to look deeply at it and admit, apologize, and work through the pain and guilt. Leveling the word racist at someone who makes such a mis-step, someone working to the very fiber of their being at being authentic and making that true community, does more harm than good.
If I am required to call you, or myself, a racist in order to live in that community. If I am expected to just set back and say “Yes this is true, I am white therefore I must be racist”. Than this is not the community I have been searching for. Nor is it the community that I believe we should be building.
Thanks for the link!
I wonder if we’ve reached a point where anti-racists and average UUs can’t really co-exist in the same congregations, since while they both desire an end to discrimination their words and approaches tend to inherently set each other off. This leads to endless pointless discussions over brown bags and people on either side quitting with more hurt than they started with.
Once again, the Left eats its own.
I should add that I found Joseph’s post to be a very positive statement of anti-racist work. His responses to injustice were concrete and positive. He wasn’t raging against the machine.
Jeff, I hope your wrong. It seem that the conversation often starts from a place of denunciation and holier than thou. That isn’t the sort of conversation anyone wants to be a part of, not for very long anyway.
I hope I’m wrong too. I’m really just asking a question here: have we crossed a point where antiracists and average UUs are fundamental antagonists, or have we not reached that point?
Antiracists often strike me as unable to communicate their ideology effectively to average UUs. The way they use terms doesn’t match the average UU usage and results in upset in almost every interaction. I don’t see much progress. I do see ever-increasing numbers of UUs who oppose racism to their core being turned off by formal antiracism, and often coming away from their encounters with it hurt and embittered. Many people have spoken to me about this but would not say it anywhere that the antiracist folks could hear them, because they have experienced these people as aggressive, hurtful, and close-minded. Perhaps blogs are one place some people could find a less confrontational place to air their grievances.
The current model of antiracism seems to deny the inherent worth and dignity of white people by permanently stamping them with a label of racist, a label that is deeply offensive to white people and is experienced as a devastating attack on their worth and dignity. I think we can see this in Jaime’s blog post. Whether or not it is intended that way, antiracists have failed to communicate their message in ways that aren’t perceived as directly attacking the first principle of the UUA. When an ideology is felt to be at basic opposition to a religion’s first principles, and when it targets the overwhelming majority of a religious group, I just don’t know how it can be expected to survive in the long run.
I wouldn’t call anyone a “racist” because it’s almost as insulting as the “n” word, but to do this work we must acknowledge “racist tendencies” from living in a racist society. It is, for the most part, unconscious, unless you’re a member of KKK or something. UU & KKK are in opposite corners on this issue, though some UUs are greatly in denial that the KKK still exists. My husband & I were accosted by a KKK recruitor recently when we visited a relative, so we know first hand. I contacted the nearest UU church and they said they were unaware of their presences and that they will be doing anit-racism work soon. We can’t let the way we use words stand in the way of this important work.
Does anyone know if UU “anti-racism” and “anti-oppression” activities actually work? or produce any measurable results?
Is it more or less effective than the Southern Poverty Law Center?
Joyce, unfortunately you’re very right. I’m not aware of any organized racist groups here in Atlanta (in the core of the city), but they have to be there. I see too many Confederate flag bumper stickers.
I found the concept of “white privilege” helpful when I first came across it, and I still do. Where I disagree with the AR/AOists is that I don’t think my whiteness gets to define who I am or that it makes me a worse person than the next guy.
And my whiteness is too ambiguous. Like every other Oklahoman, my grandfather had stories of his Cherokee grandmother, who apparently had very dark skin. Which could very well mean that she was black and that my grandfather’s family was in denial about that. These things are never cut and dry.
Steve, you ask excellent questions. I haven’t seen any numbers myself.
You see, that is what confuses me about AR/AO work. What I get from Joyce’s comment above is that if I do not know about a group that is openly and blatantly racist – that makes me racist.
I also vehemently deny that I have a racist tendencies, concious or otherwise. I have worked very hard in my life to make my work place and my home a place where tolerance and opportuanity exist for all.
Of course, it is not perfect and I am not perfect, I make mistakes. I make knee jerk reactions. I sometimes do not look deeper than they way someone dresses or displays themselves. I do this to black people, and white people, and young people, and old people. I am not proud of it but this very basic of human skills (the ability to quickly make decisions) is part of who I am and does not make me a racist.
Modern UUism (especially in regards to AR/AO) work seems to imply that the only way we can move forward is by acknowledging how terrible we are now. I aint buying it, in fact, I am sickened by it.
And Joyce, you may not call people racist, but I have been on several instances when I brought up these very arguments been called racist by people deeply committed to AR/AO work.
I’m pretty confused about what Jamie says seeing as how I consider myself to have racist tendencies. I think some white folks give too much to the word “racist” and just get stuck there. I don’t know what to do about that. I don’t find it a useful thing at all to dwell in a place of denial about my heterosexism, my racial prejudices, my classism.
And as for the “current model” of AR/AO work, – what is this? Can someone point out to me which program they are talking about? Or where, in the programs – because there are several – that are currently being used that the underlying belief is that white people don’t have inherent worth and dignity?
The work I’m doing within the UUA right now does not state this. I’m afraid people are talking about programs that have perhaps *changed* over the last decade, but if not I’d like to know more so that as a trainer I can be more informed about what other UUs concerns are about the work I’m doing.
Hafidha, I think the connotation of “racist” is much stronger for Jamie.
Where I grew up, people who were racists were a certain type of vile, loathsome people. It was not a casual racism. They lived in sundown towns (or wished that they still did), they called people niggers, they threatened to disown children who dated across racial lines, and they moved when a person of color moved in next door. And that wasn’t the worst of them.
I think—and Jamie can correct me—that what Jamie hears when he is told he is a racist is that he is that sort of person. (Joyce’s comment touched on this.) Anyone being told that’s who they are is going to be offended and feel their worth and dignity is being insulted.
The ARAO work I’m familiar with—and I’m talking more about general rhetoric than any specific UUA programs, which I’m not all that familiar with—equates white privilege with racism. There is talk that a white person, because of skin privilege, is born a de facto racist. From where I sit, that’s a politicized doctrine of Original Sin.
Then there’s the idea that white people have to become Allies™ of the ARAO Program™. To me, this has felt like a demand for a conversion experience, followed by a lifetime of ARAO Work™ to make up for my being born white. (Again, this is my impression of the rhetoric, going back to the 90s, not any specific UU program, which I only have secondhand information for, aside from Thandeka.)
So when they put the old school definition of racist together with the ARAO version of Original Sin and the need to convert to being a White Ally&trade, the ARAOists really set a lot of people off who might otherwise be on board.
It might be helpful if the ARAO folks had a list of different types of racism. (And maybe they’re out there.) That might help ease the pain some. Short of something like that, the rhetoric is going to continue to alienate folks. (Not all of these points offend me, but some of them do make me recoil.)
You hit the nail on the head Chance, I suppose I have a hard time describing just what I mean by the word racist, but to me it is everything you just mentioned and more.
It is not a matter or prejudice, we all have prejudices. I admit to mine, learn to explore them deeply, and more often than not learn that I completely wrong.
The word “racist” implies a concious choice. It is one who takes a look at the world and ends at the viewpoint that his or her own race is better then some, or all other, races out there.
This is not a unique approach to racism. This is the common understood conotation of the word. There are many things in our language that we can (and should) take in and make our own. Like the language of reverence that has made such a come back in our churches.
But those words should be powerful, meaningful, and uplifting. I have no need or desire to take in this hateful and angst filled idea and make it my own. I am not racist, I will never refer to myself as such, and I am concerned that my chosen faith now expects me to.
I hear what you’re saying, MC.
This might be a good time for me to focus my anti racism efforts on working with other people of color. The needs of people of color are rarely part of these types of conversation.
Hafidha, I think your great. I see you all over the blogsphere with insightful and caring responses. I know there are parts of UUism that you struggle with. This is one that I struggle with.
I have to tell you, I think that your comment above is very unfair and part of the whole problem. As soon as someone says… no do not call me a racist, I do not associate nor consent to that term, someone says… oh then.. you don’t care about the needs of people of color, or you do not care about this work. It is the same thing white AR/AO people are saying and I am saying no! This is not true!
I am telling you has honestly and truthfully as I know how that I do not believe the needs of people of color are served by white people calling themselves racist. In fact I think it hurts real work that has been done, and is being done, to address all our needs. And I think it alienates many, many people like myself from taking a greater role in this work.
Jamie, When I said that the needs of people of color are rarely part of these types of conversation, you said this makes me part of the “whole problem.”
Thank you for this insight. I’ve thought about this for several days and come to the conclusion that you are right.
Hafidha, I hope your not angry with me, I did not mean to imply anything. Only that I know that others who feel the same as me are reluctant to say speak up because they are told how these feelings do not do any good or how they do not have value within the larger AR/AO discussion.
I do not think you are being disrespectful to my feelings, and I am certainly not trying to be towards you, only that this is a real issue, that needs real discussion, and in my opinion to only way towards real wholeness is addressing it.
My feelings on AO/AR work have always been deeply ambivalent.
I’ve seen, with my own two eyes, it create more problems than solve. It tends to rip scabs off of open wounds in (IMHO) a misguided effort to reveal the inherent racism amongst Caucasian society. Indeed, I know of no other religious group that has institutionalized this form of well-meaning, but ultimately self-destructive practice.
I’ve seen a particularly militant demonstration of AO/AR programming literally create an immense drama storm during Opus/ConCentric ’04 the likes of which turned many people away for good and produced many a letter of protest to Michael Tino.
That particular con, I felt as though I was been asked to flagellate myself for the sins of my whiteness. I refused to do so.
I know of people who deliberately avoid C*UUYAN and GA functions specifically to protest of AO/AR programming.
The point of all this is not to trivialize the concerns of African-Americans and LGBTs within UUism. Let me underscore that. Their concerns are valid and I certainly understand them. I think we need to come together as a unified force. We have more than enough enemies lined up against us; why create strife within our own ranks? What good does it accomplish?
AO/AR, no matter how gently performed, is always going to be a combative, controversial, highly emotional endeavor that risks bursting into flames and rapidly getting out of hand.
I agree with one commenter to this thread who compares this to “the left eating its own”.
Off the record, MidSouth District leader Eunice Benton expressed to me no small degree of consternation about AO/AR programming and mentioned that she had complained about its very nature, but that her complaints had fallen upon deaf ears.
Furthermore, I encourage those of you who are interested in this matter to look into our not-so-recent past and find that such matters and battles have already been fought. Indeed, under the subheading of The Black Empowerment Crisis in 1968, we learn that this denomination has never adequately dealt with the matter. We seem stuck in the late 60s and utterly without a new course of action. We don’t like to talk about it, but being that it is our history, we need to have open, honest dialogue.
For those unfamiliar with the Black Empowerment Crisis, I’ll give a brief summary. For those curious to explore more, Beacon Press has an excellent book on the subject and a series of articles on this issue ran in UU World some years ago.
It is well-known that white Unitarian clergy were instrumental during the Civil Rights Movement. They proudly marched on Selma and we hold dear the name of a martyr by the name of James Reeb who was killed there by an angry mob. That was in 1965. Fast forward a few years.
By the time GA rolled around in 1968, it was tacitly assumed that white clergymen would be able to meet in committee with their black brothers and sisters in faith. Instead, they found their paths blocked. Black clergymen and leaders wanted their own private meetings without white attendance, which struck many white attendees as deeply hypocritical and a slap in the face, since they had stood hand in hand with them during Selma, Freedom Rides, and at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, amongst other places.
This created immense turmoil amongst the delegates of that GA, leading to a substantial number of delegates actually walking off the conventional floor. Fights nearly broke out. Concessions were made towards a African-American only group of UUs, the acronym (and don’t we love our acronyms in UUism) of which escapes me at the moment, who had the full funding of the UUA. As the group became more radical and as the tide turned against its existence, it was dissolved due to lack of funding after only a few years of existence.
Whether this was due to racism on the part of the White controlled UUA board or the increasing militancy of the African-American only group is a matter of conjecture that I wish not to state an opinion one way or another. Suffice it to say that I am stating the facts.
Our current president, Bill Sinkford, remembers how the Black Empowerment Controversy lead to massive disillusionment on the part of both whites and blacks and admits that the wounds of those days have not fully healed.
As an aside, let me also point out that Sinkford was president of LRY (Liberal Religious Youth) which got so far off into left field that it ended up having to be dissolved in the early 80s. I could tell a multitude of stories about the problems that led to the dissolution of LRY, but they read as a scandal sheet and I am not inclined to rake the muck.
Clearly, we must take stock of our history before we forge ahead in our present.
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Challenge-Empowerment-Controversy-1967-1977/dp/0970247958
This is the amazon.com link to the Black Empowerment Controversy Book.
It is entitled “Long Challenge: The Empowerment Controversy (1967-1970), written by Victor H. Carpenter.
As I mentioned earlier, there were at one time direct links to the UU World website where this controversy was talked about in some detail, but since the website was redone, the links are dead.
Let me add one thing to anonymous’ account above,
the UUA ran out of money around the late 1960s.
They assume the glory years of the 40s-early 60s would continue, and spent money like it would. Instead people dropped out of the UUA in droves, and donations shrank – but spending didnt.
It took years (decades?) for the UUA to re-balance their books. For the UUA to have funded the BAC (hope I have that right) the amount that the UUA & GA promised, they would have to have either gone bankrupt. (some would argue that that we should have). Bluntly, that’s why I dont like GA making promises with money – or forcing unfunded mandates. If you pay millions to something, you have to cut something. ((and by the way I dont have a great answer for what the UUA should have done – or if they could have done anything except the errors that were made))