November 27, 2014
Thursday AM

The safety of a living room thousands of miles away from Ferguson seems to make it easy to turn away from the televised images of violent protest. The conservative orientation toward the rule of law only seems to make it easier to turn away and dismiss the protestors’ refusal to come to terms with the truth. But comments made by President Obama after the grand jury announcement challenge us to step back and consider how terribly different our perspectives have to be to get to where we are today in places like Ferguson.

But apart from his comments, something very interesting presents itself. Watching the President over the past six years has been a study in body language. He has a “candidate” body language when he is working a friendly crowd; he works the crowd and the teleprompter seamlessly. Then there is the “cornered” body language – like seeing him haplessly try to spin his way around disappearing “red lines” and the staggering lack of strategy in his foreign policy.

And then there have been the few times he has spoken on race. From the Jeremiah Wright controversies to identifying with Trayvon Martin to calling the people of Ferguson to a higher road, no other issue presents a more relaxed President Obama. This is an issue he has reflected deeply on, and is in full command – without a teleprompter – of where he thinks America should be headed.

And yet is still so easy to turn away from the television in the distant safety of our living rooms. There are many reasons for this. Some are uncomfortable for us to admit. Others are imposed on us by what I'll call the “faculty lounge” and its “academic definition” of racism.

The Hard Racism of Ill Intentions vs. the Soft Racism of Invisible Barriers

What we might call the “hard racism of ill intentions” is really no mystery to us. But it is part of a “set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away,” as Mr. Obama pointed out after the Trayvon Martin trial. In Cleveland on November 20 Ricky Jackson was freed from prison after serving almost 40 years for a murder he did not commit. The story of how he was tried and convicted – solely on the basis of a 12 year-old child’s coerced testimony – is nothing new to the black inner city. And while it is utterly irrelevant to the questions that were posed to the grand jury in Ferguson, it is immensely relevant to the reaction to their answers of Ferguson residents and inner city communities across the country.

Ultimately, the images from Ferguson are the latest chapter in how gravely different the significance of the American experience appears from the place and perspective of inner-city African-American communities. Mr. Obama put the results of the Trayvon Martin trial in the perspective of his own experience:

“There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.”

And then in response to the decision in Ferguson:

“Finally, we need to recognize that the situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation. The fact is in too many parts of this country a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color. Some of this is the result of the legacy of racial discrimination in this country. And this is tragic because nobody needs good policing more than poor communities with higher crime rates.”

There are a lot of ways to respond to these kinds of observations. But a very simple way commends itself: At every opportunity to speak on race, Mr. Obama has called for a clarification of perspective. It is notable in the context of the racial grievance industry is that he has not reinforced the tendency to question the motives and intentions of others.

He is relaxed, in thorough command of his “brief” on this subject for a very simple reason: Mr. Obama is exactly right.

The distinction between clarifying one’s own perspective and questioning others’ motives and intentions is the key to the President’s leadership on the issue of race. This is the Trayvon Martin tragedy in a nutshell. George Zimmerman’s actions made perfect sense – to George Zimmerman. He was a neighborhood watch volunteer trained to be a good witness. And you cannot witness what you cannot see, so you follow. Trayvon Martin was an African American young man to whom the ill intentions of Zimmerman were also self-evident – to Trayvon Martin. Both nurtured their suspicions of the other long enough for them to simmer into tragic confrontation. Neither made an effort to clarify their perceptions.

This is the “soft racism of invisible barriers.” It is the difference between meaning and significance. We can read the same history texts in school, study the same Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and even agree on the meaning of American ideals, yet still see them very differently in the different light of our experiences. The most prominent “invisible barrier” is this failure to measure our grasp of American ideals by the depth of our awareness of how the significance of those ideas differs across the races. Occasionally those differences rivet us to the television.

The “Academic Definition” of Racism

And the fault for that failure lies squarely at the doorstep to the faculty lounge. What was once a bastion of the classic definition of liberalism – the free exchange of ideas challenging ideas – has now become an intellectually bankrupt regime where new grievances are created out of thin air and students self-censor lest someone report them to the new Gestapo.

In our universities an “academic definition” of racism – “prejudice plus power” – has become the intellectual price of admission to the national conversation. Under this definition, we are naturally inclined to generalize about our experiences with those different than us. When we generalize - something that is a function of human nature and certainly not unique to any race - we develop prejudices. Since we who are white have historically been the majority with the power to order society around these prejudices, we are therefore racist.

The problems with this are many. The easiest among them to see is how this pushes us away from each other and from conversations about how the significance of our American ideals differs. We are left ever more isolated to nurture our suspicions toward the other group. This predisposes us to repeated tragedy – and only guarantees we will never learn the needed lessons.

The second and subtler problem is how this definition rests on identity politics. When this identity politics is challenged, the faculty lounge inevitably falls back on the history of racism - defined as it is as “prejudice plus power.” The reasoning proves to be circular. When this definition and identity politics are pulled apart and each is demanded to stand on its own merits in our communities, its failures are both evident and tragic.

An Exercise We Can Do Together

The President is in good company on this issue. It was Frederick Douglass, all the way back on July 5th, 1852 who first spoke of a disconnect between the meaning of our national creed and the significance of it to African Americans. We are fortunate indeed that the history of this issue does not go away.

Each year, on July 5 we should come together for a reading of Douglass’ speech. People of all races should do the reading in parts. In the reading of the speech - in the choices we make with our voice to emphasize one part over another - we will reveal what we find to be significant. This would be an opportunity for us to listen to each other and discover how the significance of our national identity is different among us. The meaning is the same - but we come to that meaning from different pasts and experiences, and thus the significance of that meaning will differ.

And that grasp of differences must become the ruler by which we measure our understanding of the meaning of America.

John H. Horst
San Diego, CA

Received November 26, 2014 - Published November 27, 2014

Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:

Webmail Your Opinion Letter to the Editor

 

SitNews ©2014
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska

Articles & photographs that appear in SitNews may be protected by copyright and may not be reprinted without written permission from and payment of any required fees to the proper sources. E-mail your news & photos to editor@sitnews.us Photographers choosing to submit photographs for publication to SitNews are in doing so granting their permission for publication and for archiving. SitNews does not sell photographs. All requests for purchasing a photograph will be emailed to the photographer.