Defining Racism in the 21st century Pt 1

Here is the first installment of our series “Defining Racism in the 21st Century” written by Katelin Hansen who consistently serves up good thought provoking posts on the relationship between Christianity and race at her blog By Their Strange Fruit Here we go…….

Modern racism is more subtle than it used to be. The foolish will get confused about the difference, and think that racism doesn’t exist anymore. Although we don’t sit in different parts of the movie theater anymore, we now constantly breathe in the smog of racism that Beverly Tatum describes: “sometimes it is so thick it is visible, other times it is less apparent, but always, day in and day out, we are breathing it in.” (Tatum, 2007)

Dr. Tatum does not characterize racism as overt discrimination or individual acts of hate. Rather, she defines it as one’s benefiting from a system of privileges based on race that is subtly ingrained in the surrounding culture, making it difficult to detect. In this sense, all white people are racist; we benefit from this system of privileges. It is possible for people of color to be prejudiced on the basis of race, but the social system is never in their favor.

Does an act of racism require the ‘intent to hurt’? Is hatred a prerequisite? Need it be large blatant acts, or do small insults (both conscious and unconscious) accumulate to establish a larger culture of problems and inequality?

Racism is not just about our prejudices or how we actively treat one another. It is about who holds the power in an institutionalized system that rewards some skin colors over others. It is within this racialized world that people of color are paid less for the same work, hired less often with the same resume, incarcerated longer for the same crime, charged more for the same mortgage. All of these problems are related to an underlying system that favors whiteness over blackness.
One of the characteristics of the post-jim crow era is that our 21st-century racism is subtle, insidious, and therefore terribly difficult to combat. It is no longer about public shows of discrimination or of individual violent anomalies that have now (for the most part) become socially unacceptable. More pervasive now is the constant bombardment of exhausting microaggressions : “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults to the target person or group.” (Sue et al., 2007)

It can be difficult for white folks to appreciate the magnitude, impact, and burden of the accumulated daily prejudices over a person’s lifetime. How much extra energy do have in your life to deal with the sales clerk that follows you around the store as you shop for clothes, the taxi that passes you by for someone with lighter skin, the professor that assumes you came from a bad high school? Furthermore, it is from the accumulation of microagressions, that larger cultural and systematic racism arises (wage disparity, housing discrimination, judicial prejudice).

Dr. Tatum also compares modern racism to a moving sidewalk: “because racism is so ingrained in the fabric of American institutions, it is easily self-perpetuating. All that is required to maintain it, is business as usual…[when] people do not disrupt unfair systems of privilege, they are—willingly or unwillingly—on the moving sidewalk, receiving White privilege and inadvertently enabling racism.” (Tatum, 2007) When white folk realize the advantages we have, we may think more carefully about how we use our privilege to rectify the situations of those burdened with racism, to walk against the ‘moving sidewalk’ of privilege.

Questions

Does this change your perspective on racism in the 21st century?

Have you ever been on the receiving end of microaggressions?

In what ways are you able to perceive the “moving sidewalk of white privilege”?

How do you fight an ism?

I am going to be doing something a bit different here in the next couple of weeks. One of the advantages of the Internet is that not only can you give voice to your own thoughts and opinions for millions to view but it also gives you the opportunity to connect to other voices which you may be geographically separated from. Throughout this month I will be exploring the topic of racism through the guest posts of some fellow bloggers who I have connected with over the last few years. I chose them because they are thoughtful and intelligent and they come from a different backgrounds than myself: They are all European American. I did this intentionally in order to give voice to those who have the option to avoid the topic but instead dive into it with wisdom, humility, and solidarity.

The second reason I chose them is because of a problem that I have been seeking to untangle. I have heard a lot of people say that racism is over and since MLK Jr. marched and Obama is president we should leave it in the past. I think the problem with this line of thought is that it ignores the power of an “ism”. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his life fighting against racism, classism, and materialism. That’s so much bigger than getting to sit anywhere you want on a bus or at a restaurant. As I have said in earlier posts the problem with “isms” is that they take on a life of their own. They are much more powerful and pervasive than the spaces they inhabit. Kind of reminds me of Paul’s letter to the Ephesian church where he writes:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12 ESV)

I believe that these “isms” are spiritual forces and if that is the case we need to know how to fight it and we also need to know when we have actually won. Take racism for instance:

It’s everywhere. From our political bumper stickers to our
hockey to our movies . Racism is all around us.

It’s institutionalized. It’s not just in people’s hearts. It is very much a part of our institutions. This country was built on it and many (like my First Nation brothers and sisters) are still paying the price.

So many questions come to mind when we think of engaging racism:

Does developing personal relationships change it? Some would say that it doesn’t matter if you can say “some of my best friends are black”

Does regulating institutions change it? We have “regulated” everything but people’s hearts.

Where do we go from here?

I believe the first thing that we need to be aware of is the power of words. The words we use in our everyday speech carry the power of racism. Let’s just take the word ghetto for example. It once was used for the enclosed neighborhoods primarily resided in by Jews. Then it morphed to be a noun used for the inner city, crime ridden, impoverished areas inhabited by African Americans. Somewhere along the way this noun became not only an adjective but a negative adjective.

For example:


“That’s so ghetto”

“He drives a ghetto-$&@!? car”

“You know you ghetto when…”

It has become a negative adjective associated with an aspect of African American life and culture. How do you think it affects the minds of young kids growing up in the hood who use this word to describe thugs negatively? How do you think using this word shapes the minds of people from other ethnicities? This is the power of words.

In the next few weeks I will feature guest posts that attempt to define racism in the 21st century. I don’t know how to fight an “ism” but I believe this is a good place to start.

Housing dilemma and the injustice of residential segregation pt 3

Analysis and deconstruction is fine but they can often lead to navel gazing and perpetuating the problem through inertia and making it so complex no one wants to take action to solve the problem. When it comes to residential segregation the question remains………

What r we going to do about it?

Usually the first option I hear is to move into the hood. This is a very great option especially when there is a plan for holistic development along the lines of CCDA and World Impact

On the other hand I think it It goes both ways. Not only do we need folks to move into the hood and pray for transformation we also need folks to engage in transforming the suburbs as well. As much as poor folks need help richer people need to see their spiritual blindness, apathy, and prejudice.

Because the goal is not just improving life for one group or ethnicity. The goal is equality and community for all.

“We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.”-Martin Luther King Jr.

After researching this housing issue I have found some programs that are helping here in Pittsburgh and there are many more like them all over the United States:

URA The Urban Development Authority of Pittsburgh gives out loans with no income limits, second mortgages for home improvements, and assistance with down payment and closing costs. The program is available for all of Pittsburgh but focuses on specific urban target areas.

NACA NACA is an organization that offers help in a similar vein as the URA and works to provide the best mortgages for first time homebuyers. The best thing about NACA is they work with you in creating and maintaining a budget as well as requiring you to volunteer in order to see someone else’s home ownership dream come true.

Finally, a good look at a new perspective on gentrification can be a kickstarter for how we can piggyback off of this phenomenon in order to see true and lasting equality and community.

Even Christians want to get rid of religion???

The thoughts in this post are a work in progress so any feedback is definitely welcome

Often I hear Christians say something to the effect of “It’s not about religion it’s about relationship” or “I said goodbye to religion and hello to a relationship with God”. Apart from the triteness and obnoxiousness of the sayings (thinking you can reduce the mystery of the human encounter with God to a slogan) I have a problem with these sayings because I think it creates a false dichotomy between religion and “relationship” in order to sell the gospel. It makes religion out to be legalism and I don’t think legalism is a good definition of religion. Legalism is an approach you can take towards religion but it is not one and the same thing. Besides that, I believe that religion is a natural outgrowth of our human nature. As a Christian I have a vested interest in this because as Daniel Milgore has put it

“a Christian theology of religions has the distinct task of asking about the place of the plurality of world religions within the purposes of God made known in Jesus Christ” Faith Seeking Understanding p301

One of the Biblical texts that explores how followers of Christ ought to understand and relate to other religions is Acts 17 particularly Paul’s speech at the Areopagus. Here is an excerpt which I think points toward a better way to relate to other religions and Christianity as a religion:

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, (Acts 17:24-27 ESV)

Religion is a natural response to the human condition. Paul says in his speech that God determined humanity’s “allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place”. This suggests the finitude of humanity and how we are limited by geography, history, suffering, and most of all death in the next phrase he shows how this condition is the foundation of the desire for transcendence. We use religion to overcome this finitude and find the transcendent.

Religion is a culturally located response to the human condition. Seeing that humans are limited by the “allotted times and the boundaries of their dwelling place” the response of religion will look different in different geographic locations and different periods in history. Religion is expressed differently in different cultures while aiming at the same thing: transcendence

Religion is an imperfect response to to the human condition. While religion is to be affirmed as a natural and culturally relevant response to the human condition Paul also critiques it and shows that religion (and I would add Christian religion) comes up short. It is not the best way to reach the goal of transcendence. He says this search that God orchestrated contained the possibility that people might feel their way toward him. That word “feel” metaphorically means to mentally seek after tokens of a person or a thing. What Paul is saying is that religion can only give you tokens of God but not the full picture or experience of God. It is imperfect. At the same time he says that that “he is actually not far from each one of us” and he can be found in the person of Jesus Christ.

Now you might say because religion is an imperfect response then we don’t need it but I say think again. Although it is imperfect that does not negate the need for it. It is an imperfect response but it is a response and it helps to order our world. It brings people together in community and establishes the need for transcendence i.e. God Although Christians claim to have a “relationship” and not religion I would have to pushback and say that everything that is done within Christianity is religion: a natural, culturally located imperfect response to the human condition. And outside of the person of Christ everything else that is practiced within Christianity can only give us a token of the full picture or experience of God

What do you think?

Religion and the search for legitimacy

After thinking of all the bad things that have been motivated and influenced by religion I would have to conclude that the idea of religion is neutral. To understand life and the universe from a metaphysical perspective and to let that understanding guide you is a very human and a very legitimate aim even in the 21st century.

Why then does a metaphysical understanding of the universe and a life aligned with that understanding engender such atrocities as the Crusades, Christian persecution, and American slavery? I believe the answer is to be found in the lack of legitimacy for other illegitimate yet altogether frequent human pursuits: the pursuit of power and money.

Religion by itself is neutral but it has been used to justify the domination of one group over another and the amassing of resources for one particular group. What better way to provide legitimacy for conquest and oppression than by covering it up with the idea that “God told you so” (think Crusades, Manifest Destiny, Jihad, Atlantic Slave Trade, Third Reich etc.)

In actuality, it is not only covering up the illegitimate pursuit of power and money (money and power are also not bad in and of themselves) but it is also covering up something else that is altogether too human…an overwhelming sense of insecurity and insignificance. On a small scale I have witnessed this in church settings where an insecure person tries to justify everything they do (especially when it is in opposition to someone else’s desires and needs) by saying “God told me so”. On a larger scale, this sense of insecurity and insignificance is what causes people to do insane things in the name of religion. To gain significance and security religious adherents have ostracized others, practiced murder and torture, sent flaming emails, and acted like overall rude jerks. Now these actions can all be done without religion but human beings find legitimacy for these actions in religion. It has been used as a mask for our dysfunction. Ironically, this sense of insignificance and insecurity is one of the things religion is supposed to solve. Religion is designed to give legitimacy to our existence. There must be a reason why it doesn’t scratch the itch we have had since the beginning of time. Any thoughts?

What if there was no religion?

The argument

So I’ve heard this argument from well intentioned and good hearted friends and co workers: If there was no religion the world would be a better place. We would have no more wars or abuse of children and old ladies and people overall would be at peace with one another and treat each other with civility. It is religion-not the love of money-that is the root of all evil and we need to get rid of it.

The reality

The reality is this: religion is not the ultimate problem of humanity; humanity is the problem of humanity. Although my friends and coworkers mean well I think they are way off track. It is true that religion had been a major factor in much of the world’s evil and suffering but I would not go far as to say it is the source of most of the world’s evil and suffering. I say this because religion for humanity is irresistible and at its best helps stir us to our fullest human potential.

A quote from Martin Luther although focused on wine seems apropo here:

“Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? The sun, the moon, and the stars have been worshiped. Shall we then pluck them out of the sky?”

So much bad had come from religion: crusades and jihads, hate crimes, child abuse, misogyny, witch hunts, inquisitions, televangelist scams and the list goes on and on. But I think these things have to be classified as things done in the name of religion.

Martin Luther nailed it on the head by pointing to our penchant for all or nothing thinking. That line of thought goes like this. If people abuse something then we need to get rid of it….this makes no sense! If we went with that line of thinking then we would have to wipe the human species off the planet.

Religion-all religion- has done much good in the world and the abuse of it is no reason to ban it from our existence especially because as human beings we can’t help but worship something. The abuse of religion does not negate the beauty of Jewish festivals and the wisdom of rabbis, the powerful poetry of the Psalms and the rhythmic protest of the Black church. The abuse of religion is no reason to do away with the tranquil contemplation of Zen Buddhism or the otherworldly magic of Amazon tribal rituals.

Ultimately….

“Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God.”

Now imagine with me a world where there is no religion. It is a world where people pride themselves on how intelligent they are for not being religious-for not worshipping a higher power or being and not believing in a specific set of principles which govern life or a specific cosmology of how the universe works. Every day they pledge an oath to not be religious and award those persons whose lives are most absent of religion. This whole society is permeated with one controlling idea: the idea that having no religion is a good thing. The problem with this world is not that there is no religion. The problem is that by being religious about not having a religion a religion itself has been created. We as humans must worship something. Our existence demands it.

Housing Dilemma and Residential Segregation Pt 2

As I dig deeper into the history of residential segregation I begin to see that although we can change laws and institutions we cannot change people’s hearts. Many make the assumption that those who live in the ghetto are there because of their own bad choices. In one sense this is true. Everyone is responsible for the choices they make in life. That being said all of our choices have a historical context and some people’s context expose them to only a few options.

So here is over 100 years of history in a few paragraphs…

The Historical context of Residential Segregation

Overt discrimination. From the early 1900′s blacks faced increasing discrimination in Northern cities. This usually turned into violence and at its worst race riots. This was often due to African Americans being used as scabs during employee strikes. This was because African Americans were also discriminated against when it came to employment. This rise in violence on te borders of black and white neighborhoods made many African Americans fearful. I personally have experienced this fear in California and now here in Pittsburgh (I wonder if folks in Black Mecca AKA the ATL have to think about this). There are places where I hesitate to move because of the threat of violence not just to me but also to my children.

Public policy. The track record of United States public policy on the federal and local level is also a main suspect when it comes to the creation of the black ghetto. We will focus on two policies for right now although there are many others. The first policy is urban renewal AKA Negro removal. Many cities sought to revitalize their business and cultural centers and this translated into moving people into the projects to make it happen. The result was a whole group of people isolated from the rest of society not only by race but by class.

The second policy is very indirect but it still affected the creation of the African American ghetto. Remember the War on Poverty??? Let’s just call it a misdirected skirmish. First off, Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty targeted white rural areas. After the Civil Rights movement began to gain ground the focus changed to inner city African Americans. Secondly, this “war” never got started due to Money being diverted to the War on Vietnam. As a result many families remained trapped in a cycle of poverty. Let’s explode the myth that America tried to help African Americans in poverty and nothing could be done. Kaboom!!!

Economics. Lastly, the historical context of the ghetto is heavily influenced by economics. After 1970 there were no longer as many jobs for unskilled workers. Companies began to manufacture outside of the U.S. for a cheaper cost of labor. The loss of jobs in the ghetto meant a loss in wages which meant a loss in taxes which meant a loss in quality of education. It ends up being a never ending cycle as the lack of jobs for laborers with no skills and education contributes to more laborers with no skills and education and on and on and on.

These are just a few factors influencing the historical context of the African American ghetto but the biggest present factor is people’s hearts:

Why is it that when the African American population rises to 8% white people move out?

To be continued….

Much of this knowledge came from a book called Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen by David Hilfiker. If you have the time check it out. Very good read.