Angry: Acceptable Protest

"A thousand people in the streets

Singing songs and they're carrying signs

Mostly say hooray for our side."

                    --Buffalo Springfield, "For What It's Worth"

What constitutes Acceptable Protest?  In this country the consensus seems to be that  for protest to be Acceptable it must be necessary and it must not be violent or disruptive.  Let me be crystal clear at the outset that I agree with these criteria. The protest actions led by Martin Luther King, Jr and others 60 years ago or so are considered by most today to be the gold standard in protesting.  Everyone agrees that King's cause was just and that the things he and his supporters protested against were clearly wrong.  He passed the Necessary test. Further, because of his explicit, disciplined commitment to non-violent protest, he met the Non-Violent requirement as well.  You've probably seen the meme:

We've once again entered into a season of protest in the United States.  And while many are joining arm and arm with the protesters, many others are not happy about "a thousand people in the streets".  This current batch of protests don't seem meet the criteria for Acceptability. Most of the objections stem from the Non-Violent Clause for acceptable protests. The violence and looting disqualify or render moot the value of the peaceful protests. I do not agree that the violent behavior of a few should invalidate the cause, voices, or actions of the peaceful majority. And I would contend that the majority are peaceful. I've already addressed that specific objection in another post.  But even apart from violence, there are those who object to the disruptive nature of the protests even if  no one is getting hurt.

Remember this guy?

I have hard time understanding what the furor was over Kaepernick. People got very upset, and, dare I say, emotional about the anthem, the flag, the troops.  But it wasn't like he was walking all over the flag, he wasn't holding a sign proclaiming "Thank God for dead soldiers"  like the Westboro Baptist Church  did, he didn't extend the middle finger or even raise his fist. I guess the objection was that it was disrespectful, but as protests go, kneeling is about as respectful an action as there is (unless of course someone happens to be underneath your knee). The only thing he disrupted was people's sense of propriety. And of course now days people long for the days of his silent, solitary protest.

The larger objection, though not articulated as often, is really to the violation of the Necessary Clause of Acceptable Protest. Far too many white people just don't see the need for all the fuss:   "The freedom to assemble is being abused!  Things were fine until folk started getting whipped up by the radicals and the media. People were happy.  We were getting along.  We're living in a better time."  They just don't see the need for the protests. I'd suggest that had a lot to do with the objection to Kaepernick.  People just didn't think his stand (or kneel) was necessary.

Let's revisit Dr. King.  There was no national consensus that King's protests were necessary. If there had been, well. . .the protests wouldn't have been necessary. Just as today's protests are associated with the Antifa and violent radicals, King's protests were tarred with accusations of Communism*  His marches were for equal rights, sure, but they were also for economic parity, fair pay and working conditions (the day he was shot, MLK was in Memphis to support the local sanitation workers strike)**, and against the Vietnam War. He was not popular, he was not universally respected. Violence still happened, not just after his death but right in the heart of his work. The Watts riots for example took place in 1965 while King was very much alive.  This narrative of a period of  necessary, peaceful protest under King being replaced by unnecessary, violent protest after his death is just not true. And let's not forget that his protests were disruptive. The marches and sit-ins and boycotts effectively prevented people from going about their business undisturbed. 

With our 2020 hindsight we all tend to flatter ourselves that we'd have been right out there with MLK back in the day.  We'd have been running an Underground Railroad station out of our house if we lived in those days.  But I think if we're being honest, it's more accurate to say that whatever we are doing now, we would have probably done then.  We forget the extent to which outmoded racist ideas were once the norm, accepted by all white people except for a few radical types. Marching with King, being an abolitionist--to be involved in these noble causes you had to go against the grain of what most of your friends and neighbors thought. You were advocating for a change in a society that the vast majority of white America thought--at least at first-- was just fine the way it was.  So do the math: If you just don't see a problem now, chances are you wouldn't have seen one then. That doesn't make you a bad person. It just means you're not "radical," you are a product of your time who more or less accepts the values of "mainstream" polite society. 

Sadly, the most acceptable (and effective) protest seems to be the suffering and death of the protester.  There's something really awful about the fact that protests like Kaepernick's or the peaceful protests of the Black Lives Matter movement get criticized, but when an innocent person is beaten, abused, or killed then we say: "Wow, okay these concerns are legitimate." George Floyd didn't set out to be a hero; his desire was not to lay down his life to be an inspiration for a movement. Yet that was his lot.  I sometimes wonder if that's the real reason King's protests are the gold standard.  The abuse heaped on kids at the lunch counters, the fire-hoses, the dogs, the bombings, and finally King's death from an assassin's bullet. That got people's attention. We see it, and we say "Oh, no that's wrong.  But if you live and don't even get hurt, we're going to look askance at you."  Do you ever think about how deeply unfair that is?

Dr. King shrewdly understood that this self-sacrificial method would elicit sympathy in a way that nothing else would.  He understood optics, and what it would take to get through white complacency. The soldiers in his army of love would have to be victims, preferably ones beyond reproach (check out why the NAACP  passed over Claudette Colvin in favor of Rosa Parks to be the test case for fighting the segregated bus system in Montgomery, Alabama). I think he knew it was unfair, but was willing to suffer the short-term unfairness in the service of long term justice.

King may have been right that this is the only form of Acceptable Protest, but I think it's wrong to demand that of today's protesters. I think we ought to be able to be given a listening ear without having to sacrifice our bodies or our lives. The merits of the protest should stand on their own without cost in blood. I maintain that the protests today are both necessary and for the most part, peaceful (see photos below of recent protests attended by friends of mine). 

Protest in Portland, Oregon a few weeks ago attended by my college friend Pat Rodriquez Castillo (pic is from her)

Three of my former students (the two standing having just finished their 8th grade year in May) attending a protest in here in Columbus (photo credit: Tricia Crawford)

*I could not believe it, but just yesterday I saw someone drag out that same tired old argument that the push for equal rights was and still is all a Communist plot. Really?  The Soviet Union's been dead these thirty years and we're still worried about Communism? Talk about dredging the bottom of the objection barrel!

**I urge you to read that Wikipedia link on the Memphis Sanitation Worker's strike. I learned so much I didn't know. This is exactly the kind of protest that people still object to today.  And King was there, and lost his life for it!

Dispatch from Coronaville: The End is in Sight

Well, the end of this blog series anyway. I've just added new panels to my graphs and I've decided that when I conclude this next panel on September 3, 2020, I will end my regular "Dispatch from Coronaville" posts. It doesn't mean that I won't write about this extraordinary moment in world history anymore. It does mean that I won't post graphs and number updates every three days. At that point, coronavirus will officially become normalized on my blog and any posts on the virus will be just part of my normal posting regimen (which--lets be honest--had pretty much ground to a halt in the years leading up to the arrival of COVID-19).

 It would be nice to imagine that the the end of this series will also mark the end of the virus. I admit I kind of thought that by the time we reached the end of my graph, there wouldn't be a need for another panel. I figured the trajectory would be clear, represented by a more or less smooth bell curve.  We'd be entering the tail end of this as we began the summer.  I think that's what our leaders thought too and interestingly, that's how they've been planning the "re-open" as well.  It seems we've collectively decided to ignore the actual trends in favor of the trends we want. 

But there's no steady downward trend.  What we have is, at best, regional spikes and declines averaging out to a national plateau. Today we have had 2,253,172 cases of COVID-19 in the United States, an increase of 3.7% over the past three days. This is only 804 fewer cases than I predicted.  Further evidence of the plateau is that for awhile now my projections have been quite close to the actual outcomes.  The percent of increase has remained quite constant. Likewise my predicted number of total deaths was over by only 342 at 119,515 deaths, a 1.5% increase. Based on these percentages, it seems we're likely to see 2,336,539 total cases by Tuesday, June 23 and 121,308 total deaths.

I thought I might have to add a third vertical panel to my graph due to Florida's manic COVID surge. I did not predict I'd come within one interval of having to add a fourth panel. 11,078 new cases in just three days! Unbelievable. I shudder to think that a fourth vertical panel will be necessary for Florida or any of the other states. This massive jump has moved Florida from it's usual spot at 8th or 9th in the nation to number 7. Ohio continues to trend upward (though it's now in 17th pace nationally after hovering between 15th and 16th place for quite awhile), while Nebraska showed a significant drop in the past three days.

Total Cases

Florida: 93,789 (!!!) total cases, 0.43% of the population

Ohio: 44,262 total cases, 0.38% of the population

Nebraska: 17,591 total cases, 0.90% of the population

Deaths are up in Florida and Ohio over the past three days while they've dropped back to 10 in Nebraska. I would expect to see a big increase in deaths in the coming weeks in Florida as the case spikes bears it's awful fruit.

Total Deaths:

Florida: 3,143, a rate of 3.4%

Ohio: 2,697, a rate of 6.1%

Nebraska: 249,  a rate of 1.4%

Angry: Why I Won't Watch the Videos

I have not watched the George Floyd video.  I did not watch the Ahmaud Arbery shooting or the Rayshard Brooks shooting. Same for Philando Castille.  Everything I know about these incidents I've gathered from reading or looking at the still photos.  And those are bad enough.

Normally, I like to see things for myself.  Let me see the raw footage and draw my own conclusions, rather than the edited clip the media is running with.  But when it comes to these kinds of videos, I just won't do it.  I don't need that trauma in my life. I know what happened. I don't need to see it. In general our culture has historically taken a rather careless attitude toward black and brown bodies at their the most vulnerable. Whether it's a black man in his last moments of life paraded before the world, or the nude bodies of brown people from other cultures plastered across the pages of a magazine (images that would be considered inappropriate if the bodies were white) the message is sent that black people are somehow less worthy or needful of privacy and protection.

That said, it's good that footage is out there. But it's not for black people.  We know our own suffering well enough.  We do not need to see a video loop of bodies that look like ours being desecrated. It's not good for our mental health (something that lynching parties have always known).  But the proof of the evil should be out there. And there are people who should watch these videos, in the hope that the sight will jolt sleepy consciences into an awakened state. When Emmett Till's mother elected for an open casket, she wasn't doing that for her friends and family.  She was doing it so the world would see what they had done to her son.

For those of us whose identities don't allow us the luxury of ever looking away from the destruction of black lives in this country, I think it's okay not to look. For everyone else, a good hard look is necessary.

Dispatch from Coronaville: In Praise of the Free Press

The media gets a bad rap these days.  And deservedly so.  In many ways the standards for what qualify as journalism have never been lower.  In my opinion, the news-especially television news--has gotten way too "entertaining."  When the goal is to keep the viewer watching, the choices about what to show and how to show it are compromised.  A good news source should be--at least a little--boring.

But frankly criticizing the media is too easy. And it's also a bit of a cop-out.  Today I'm here to sing the praises of the free press. I've become convinced that the free press is the only thing standing between us and the complete destruction of our society.  Of all the first amendment guarantees, the protection of the press is the most important. Without it the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and petition could be snatched away and no one would say boo. Or rather, anyone who did would be like that tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it.  So watch out for someone who constantly complains about the press and describes the media as evil. That's someone frustrated that they can't do what they want without that annoying little voice piping up, "Excuse me, Mr. President?"

I would rather have the cacophony currently in place with cable news, talk radio, the networks, podcasts, blog posts, talking head pundits, and random folks on YouTube all vying for our attention, than to have some governmental arbiter of what qualifies as News acting as a gatekeeper.  Yes, 90% of it is nonsense, but I like that in this country we have the freedom (and I would argue, the responsibility) to sort through all of it.  Yes, I would rather live in a country that allows Fox News (which I view to be one of the single most damaging influences to American critical thought) than one that doesn't. As long as we have a free press there is very little darkness in which to hide. Any attempt to bamboozle the public will invariably be called out by some pesky reporter. The free press is why I don't believe in conspiracy theories (I'll expand on this in a later post). 

The real problem in this country isn't the media, right-wing or liberal. The problem is us. We have never been lazier, never more insistent in being entertained at all tim2,es, never less inclined to do the work of sorting truth from error, (Don't believe the lie that it's impossible).  We are more eager than ever to challenge those we disagree with and far less interested in challenging ourselves. We've been given a great gift in our unfettered media and I fear we are squandering it.  Today's media environment is strongly incentivized to give us what we want.  We need to start wanting different things.

My news sources? The New York Times, NPR (including my local affiliate, WOSU for local news), Time Magazine, and The Week are the big ones. I almost never watch television news of any kind. I'm feel I'm pretty attuned to bias in what I consume. Rather than identifying content that doesn't spin the way I think it should, I look for red flags like inflammatory language  and things that get my emotions churning. I make an effort to differentiate between editorial content and "hard news" and I'm especially cautious of a heavy diet of op-eds. If everything I'm consuming brings out a strong emotional response of "Yeah, that's right! Finally someone telling it like it is!" I'm on dangerous ground.

And now to the numbers, sourced from the New York Times database.

As of today the United States has had 2,173,554 cases of COVID-19 and 117,738 deaths. This represents a 3.7% increase in cases and a 1.8% increase in deaths over the past three days.  This is over 12,000 more cases and about 500 more deaths than I had predicted. Based on these percentages I would expect 2,253,976 total cases by Saturday, June 20 and 119,857 total deaths.

All three states are up, with Florida continuing to reach for ever higher heights with around 7,500 new cases in the past three days.  At the rate the state is going it's going to blow off the chart again. Ohio posted it's largest gain in new cases since May 27 and Nebraska jumped significantly as well, though neither state is even in the same league with Florida.

Total Cases:

Florida: 82,711 total cases,0.38% of the population

Ohio: 42,422 total cases, 0.36% of the population. The extent of Florida's increase in cases is such that for the first time the state has a higher percentage of the state's population infected than does Ohio.

Nebraska: 17,226 total cases, 0.88% of the population.

Deaths are up in Florida and Nebraska and down in Ohio. Unfortunately one of those deaths was the father of a friend of ours. He passed this morning.

Total Deaths:

Florida: 3,017, a rate of 3.6%

Ohio: 2611, a rate of 6.2%

Nebraska: 239, a rate of 1.4%

Angry: It's Not Personal, It's Business

I find that there is huge difference in the way many white people and most black people view racism.  Many white people see racism primarily through a personal lens. They see it as a matter of one person's feelings and actions. They tend to see racism as defined by individual actions against other individuals.  As a result they also tend to take black folks anger over racism personally. When a black person speaks out they take it as personal attack. They also tend to overestimate the amount of anger black people have towards white people.  Several white friends have commented that they've thought about maybe going out to one of the protests but feel pretty sure they wouldn't be welcomed because of the color of their skin. In my mind I was like Really? I think the opposite is true, as long as you're okay with taking a back seat and not insisting on running the show, I can't imagine most black people having an issue.  I mean there's always that one person whose just mad at everybody, but doesn't everybody have a crotchety person in their group?

Most black people on the other hand see racism primarily as a systemic rather than a personal issue. We're less concerned with the feelings and even the actions of individuals and more about the societal roadblocks that make life more difficult for us as black people. We are upset, of course, about the evil actions of one horrible person against another. But we're even more upset about a system that allows that evil action to go unprevented and then unpunished. I don't think I'm out of place to say that we really aren't mad at you, personally (I mean unless you personally, had your knee on our actual neck or that of someone we love, well then yeah we're mad at you).  But your whiteness doesn't enrage us by it's mere presence. 

This also explains a big difference in what we view as the solution to the racial challenges our country is grappling with.

The way I see it there are two ways we can strive to achieve racial harmony, the long way and the short way.  The long way is to do the painstaking work of changing each and every individual heart so that everyone is filled with love and sees every person as of equal worth under God and the law. This is what leads people to sigh that we'll never achieve this this side of heaven.  And in a sense they are right since there will always be hatred and prejudice in the world. But there's another reason this is going to take a long time. It's more than filling each heart with love, because racism isn't just about hate. There are many loving people who unknowingly, unintentionally hold racist ideas and so then there's the process of educating those people, helping them see what they are blind to. It's good work, noble work. Work we should all be involved in.  But that method is going to take forever!

I kind of like the short way.  The short way is what we have used in the past in this country and I actually think it's pretty effective at fast-tracking us to racial progress.  The short way is to change the structure. Change the laws. Do that and you'll be surprised how quickly the heart will follow.  Slavery didn't end because white slave owners started feeling really bad about it and decided to change their ways.  Slavery was ended with a war, and then with the force of law. And in a generation, it was a given that of course slavery is wrong.  Same thing happened with segregation.  Segregation didn't end because suddenly white people didn't mind black people sitting next to them in restaurants and living next door.  It ended because it was the law.  And sure enough, within a generation only the extremist white supremacists were arguing that segregation was a good idea. (This works in other arenas too, by the way. It's only been what five years and the attitudes towards gay marriage have shifted a lot. What changed? The law first, then people's hearts.  Imagine where we'll be in a mere generation.)

So, as I've already stated, when it comes to police brutality, the solution isn't to convince those on the police force to be less racist. The solution is to make it the law that when you kill unarmed people of any color you're going to be held accountable.  I predict that in a generation, "black guy running away with something that might be a weapon" won't automatically lead to shots in the back.

This is where our fight is at, dismantling and remaking the system in a more equitable way.  That's always been the fight; it's still the fight today.

What I want from you, my friend, is not reassurances that you love me and aren't mad at me. I know that, and I appreciate it. I love you and I'm not mad at you. But that's not what this is about.  What I'm hoping for from you is that you'll join me in the fight, like an abolitionist in 1853 or a civil rights marcher in 1963 (neither of those positions were popular with the majority of white people at the time, by the way), focused on improving an unjust system. 

 And for those that hate me, and are angry at me. That's cool (keeping an eye on you though. I'd like to stay alive). When this is all done, the rest of the country will have moved forward and you'll be left alone shouting into the wind.  

It's not personal, it's business.

Dispatch from Coronaville: Comfort Level

I think I know what my comfort level is with the amount of mitigation actions I feel are necessary to keep me relatively safe from the virus (I say relatively because nothing is ever 100% guaranteed).  I base this on what I sense is the best information we have to date on what increases the likelihood of contracting the virus.

I should point out that my comfort level does not necessarily dictate what I will actually do. I have family members who are not at my comfort level and I will defer to their wishes. 

For me, church remains out. Driving around today, I saw the parking lots full as the saints rush back to services.  That won't be me.  Indoors with a lot of people, singing and talking for more than an hour feels too high risk for me.  Same story on movie theaters as they open up. 

I will delay my long-overdue haircut as well.  Too much time sitting in very close proximity to another person outside my household.

Restaurants might be okay, but frankly take-out is working fine. I can wait on going out to eat.

I feel fine going to stores of all kinds.

I would feel comfortable in traveling to the homes of family who have been practicing the same type of social distancing and self-quarantining that I have, and staying there with them.  I would even feel comfortable flying if the flight wasn't full. I prefer not have someone sitting behind me or in the seats next to me though I concede that might not be possible. I would wear a mask and be extra fastidious about hand washing and not touching my face.  

I would feel comfortable taking my kids swimming at a public or community pool, provided that they maintained social distance from others in the pool and it wasn't too crowded.  Same story on beach or park visits.

What I've gathered so far is that the greatest risks come from prolonged time in enclosed spaces in close contact with lots of people.  Picking up the virus from surfaces is much, much less likely and maybe not worth worrying too much about if I stay on top of the hand washing. I'm comfortable wearing a mask when around others.

That's where I am so far. If new information becomes available, I will change my comfort level accordingly.

Our current tally of COVID-19 cases in the United States is 2,096,236.  This is a 3.1% increase over the past three days and 2,300 fewer cases than I predicted. Meanwhile deaths stand at 115,611, a 1.4% increase and about 1,900 fewer deaths than I had forecast. Based on these numbers, I would expect 2,161,219 total cases by Wednesday, June 17 and 117, 230 deaths.

Like a rocket launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida's new cases continue to shoot for the stratosphere. 6,499 cases in just three days! This is another three-day record for the state, the highest number of new cases since I began tracking them. Meanwhile both Ohio and Nebraska seem to be on a definitive decline. Ohio's pattern over all has been consistently down since May 24, despite the occasional uptick. By June 24, if this trend continues I will be ready to "open up" a bit myself and perhaps broaden my comfort zone.

Total Cases:

Florida; 75,560 total cases, 0.35% of the population

Ohio: 40,848 total cases, also 0.35% of the population. If present trends continue Florida is about to displace Ohio as the state with greater percentage of the population infected with the virus.

Nebraska: 16,634 total cases, 0.85 % of the population.

This time all three states were down in deaths, 

Total Deaths:

Florida: 2,930  total deaths, a rate of 3.9%

Ohio: 2,554 total deaths, a rate of 6/3%

Nebraska: 221 total deaths, a rate of 1.3%

Angry: Quit Jammin' Me

Themes in Racism: Belief in Black Pathology

No picture to go with this post. There's no picture I want to display to illustrate this pernicious belief (though there are many out there)

 

This is probably the thing that hurts the most.  

It's the deepest cut.

It's the one that hardest to talk about and the one that under girds so much of racist thinking. It is extremely prevalent, extremely damaging, and almost always unspoken, only implied.  For a such a damaging and pervasive belief, it is the one that almost no one will cop to. But it pops up all the time. A lot of what I will write about in this blog series will end up circling back to this poisonous idea.

It's simply this: that there is something wrong with black people.

Not individual black people. Not your neighbors, your co-workers, your boss (well, maybe your boss), not your relatives, not the people you know and love. It's the Other black people.  The ones you are thinking about when you use the phrase "the black community" (more on that later).  It's the mass of African-Americans as a whole that live together in a not-so-great part of the city--the angry ones. It's this group that you feel there is something "wrong" with. It's the belief in black pathology. 

"Now hold", on you say,  "That's not true at all. I believe that all people are equal."

Really? Sure about that?

When you talk about "black on black crime" what are you really saying?  That there's something wrong with black people.  They're killing each other all the time.  They need to focus on getting their own house in order, before complaining about a few bad apples on the police force. The pathology is that black people are violent. That's what's implied here.

When you talk about how "the liberal abortionists" target the black community, placing their death clinics in those communities to cull the black population, the bad guys are the leftist baby killers right? Maybe. But there's also the implication that there's something wrong with black women. That they are maybe too eager to get rid of their unwanted babies, and easily manipulated by white liberal politicians; there's a need a for stricter laws to stop them. (I find it interesting that many white anti-abortion supporters also tend to dismiss as  "Big Government handouts" the type of programs that would provide support for babies born in these impoverished communities. I'm sorry, but providing just enough support to get the baby safely out of the womb doesn't cut it). The pathology is that black people lack both personal responsibility and the intelligence to recognize when they are being played.

When you bemoan the lack of black fathers as the reason for so many of the behavioral ills among black young people, you are implying that there is something wrong with black men (and black kids for that matter). That black men are irresponsible and unreliable, baby daddies spreading their seed far and wide and leaving a trail of single mothers and fatherless children in their wake. And as a result, black kids are ruffians and behavior problems. A white neighbor of mine was expounding on this to me late last year, sincerely explaining to me how young black boys were adrift because of the lack of father figures. I thought of the many solid, faithful black men I knew (myself included) who had been married for years and had been great fathers to their kids. I didn't even know how to begin to correct him. The pathology is that black people (men and women) are irresponsible, sexually, and otherwise.

When you argue that systemic racism is a myth and black folk need to calm down, look at the facts, and don't be so emotional, you are implying that something is wrong with black people. This is a kind of racial gas lighting that I find infuriating. The response to the expression of pain from black people in this country is "You're crazy.  There's no racism here. You're imagining things."  This is the language of an abusive relationship.  The language of oppression.  The implication is that there is something wrong with black people. The pathology is that black people are unstable, unable to see past their emotions and be rational.

And it's even more devastating to me as a black person, when you find a black spokesperson to speak these racist ideas and advocate for the notion of black pathology. You should note that the vast majority of people chiming in to cheer on your Candace Owens and Brandon Tatums are other white people who share your beliefs.  These black folk aren't speaking to other black people or white liberals. They are talking to you, reassuring you that what you've believed about black people is true. After all you heard it from the horse's mouth. 

For many of my white friends (and even those few black ones) who have made these arguments, I would challenge you to ask yourself, if you disagree with the implications I've suggested. If you're response is "hey now, I didn't say all that"--ask yourself, what are you saying then?  What are the implications of these shopworn arguments.

Because here's the thing--they are shopworn. These beliefs are not new. The belief in black pathology has under girded racism for hundreds of years.  These beliefs--that black people are violent, irresponsible, oversexed, overly emotional, and childish--have long been a part of the fabric of American society. It's considered blunt and politically incorrect to state them plainly anymore, so we imply them instead. 

"So wait," you ask, "Are you seriously trying to say that none of the issues you've mentioned are problems in the black community?"  (There's that phrase again, "the black community". I got a whole blog  post on that one coming, I promise). My answer is that yes, these are problems in particular predominantly African-American communities.  They are not problems that are endemic to all black people (other than the few exceptions you know) just by virtue of their blackness.  The problem is that we are taking specific problems in certain segments of society and attaching them to the race of those dealing with those challenges.  We make these issues failures of racial character rather than recognizing that there are perhaps other factors such as socioeconomic status that might be the real drivers of these problems. Have you ever thought to check to see what crime rates, abortion rates,  unwed pregnancies, look like in economically depressed white communities?  Has it ever occurred to you that  it's a little odd that the "exceptions" to those implicit rules about black pathology all happen to share your same socioeconomic status and educational level?  Have you wondered if all those assumptions about the "black community" hold true among middle and upper class black people?   And even beyond that, is it so unreasonable to consider that at least some of these issues might be tied directly to long-standing patterns of systemic racism?

My challenge to you, my white friends, is to detach the problems within specific communities from the racial makeup of those communities. There may be a lot wrong in predominantly black communities, but there is nothing wrong with black people.  When you spend a lot of time in what we call "black spaces" where you are the minority, you will see up close the very real challenges that people in many of our communities are dealing with. You will see the deep passion that black people have for helping their own.  And you will see so many black people that don't "fit the profile" that you will find it much harder to unthinkingly subscribe to ideas of black pathology. 

You're jammin' me, you're jammin' me
Quit jammin' me
Baby, you can keep me painted in a corner
You can walk away, but it's not over"

--Tom Petty "Jammin' Me"

Dispatch from Coronaville: Narrowing the Focus

Once again I recorded my numbers last night, but was too exhausted to complete the blog. Now as I go back to finish up this post the reality on the ground has changed in the last 24 hours.

Good times in Florida gone, last summer in the Time Before

As we continue to weigh possible plans for the summer, I've started narrowing my focus to the county level. It's useful to know how the specific place where I live and the place I might like to visit are doing in regards to the virus.  The highlight of each summer for our family is our visit to Florida to spend time with my mom and siblings. My boys love playing their cousins and they look forward to this trip all year.

 The only way we'll be able to do it is if cases have been consistently decreasing for awhile.  A comment on my last Dispatch awakened me to the idea of looking at the counties instead of state as a whole. After all if the major outbreaks are in one corner of the state while the numbers in your neighborhood have been declining for weeks, then maybe a visit isn't out of the question.

The good news was that Lake County in Florida, where my mom and sister live has only seen 342 cases of the virus and 15 deaths.  They did not add any new cases or deaths  yesterday.  However, I checked again today and Lake County appears to have joined the Florida Surge, with 41 new cases added today, bringing the county total to 383.

The bad news is that Franklin County where we live has the highest rate of infections and deaths in the state of Ohio.  We added 74 new cases since yesterday, and another 177 new cases added today. 

So for now, the annual trip is on hold.

As of yesterday, the total number of cases in the United States now exceeds 2 million, as I predicted.  Still, I was about 7000 over the actual number, 2,033,467 total cases, a 3.2% increase. On the other hand the total deaths were higher than I predicted by about 1300: 113,961 total deaths, a 3% increase. Based on these numbers I would expect 2,098,538 total cases by Sunday, June 14 and 117,380 total deaths. With about 25,000 new cases added in the 24 hours since I made this prediction I have a feeling my projection is too low.

Florida launched off the chart again with 4165 new cases over the previous three days. (I checked today and the state has since added almost 2000 more cases in the last 24 hours). Ohio showed a slight uptick (with another 420 cases added today) and Nebraska stayed flat with another 378 new cases.

Total Cases as of yesterday:

Florida: 69,061 total cases, 0.32% of the population

Ohio: 40,004 total cases, 0.34% of the population

Nebraska: 16,130 total cases, 0.83% of the population

New deaths in all three states are up over the previous three days.with Nebraska documenting it's third highest three-day total of new deaths since I began tracking the data in that state.

Total Deaths as of yesterday

Florida: 2,847 total deaths, a rate of 4.1%

Ohio: 2,490 total deaths, a rate of 6.2%

Nebraska: 211 total deaths,  a rate of 1.3%

Dispatch from Coronaville: The Next Two Weeks

The next two weeks will be very telling, I believe. One of three things could happen:  

We could see a sharp increase in the number of new COVID-19 cases, and another few weeks after  that,a sharp increase in deaths, as protesters and police succumb.  

We could see our current numbers maintaining more or less, but not dropping. This might indicate that the protests did enough to halt the decline but not enough to cause a significant increase.

We could see the overall national decline continue--some hotspots notwithstanding--indicating that the worst of the virus is over for now.

These numbers are actually from yesterday.  I gathered the data but was too tired to do the post.

As of yesterday, there were a total of 1,969,786 total cases of COVID-19 (a quick check of the most recent data indicates we've added 20,000 to that number today). This represents an increase of 3.6% over the previous three days and about 14,000 less than I predicted. As for deaths, as of yesterday there had been a total of 110,951 deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 (we've added 1200 more today).  The good news is that this represents  a 1.5% increase over the previous three days and 2,500 fewer than I predicted.  This is the lowest percent increase in deaths we've recorded so far.  With these percentages in mind, I'd predict that by Thursday, June 11, we'll surpass the two million mark with 2,040,699 total cases and 112,615 total deaths. 

New Cases

Florida continues to surge. New cases dropped but only to the third highest number since April 3 (and the state has added another thousand cases today). Meanwhile Ohio and Nebraska continue what looks like an honest-to-goodness downward trajectory. 

Here's the data on total cases:

Florida: 64,896 total cases, 0.3% of the population

Ohio: 38,837 total cases, 0.33% of the population

Nebraska: 15,752, 0.8% of the population

New Deaths

If there's any patterns to the deaths from this disease, it's that of macabre heart rhythm, up and down, up and down. I'm glad to report that all three states are posting some of the lowest numbers of new deaths they've had (Florida, second lowest number of deaths, Ohio fourth lowest, and Nebraska third lowest). However I should note that Florida has already posted as many deaths today as it did in the previous three days which means that Thursday's numbers may not look so good for the Sunshine State.  Meanwhile today Ohio added only 17 deaths. and Nebraska added three, also as many deaths as they had in the previous state, but Nebraska has been known to go a day or two without any deaths, so we'll see.

Total Deaths:

Florida: 2,711, a rate of 4.2%

Ohio: 2,404, a rate of 6.2%

Nebraska: 196, a rate of 1.2%

Angry: Do's and Don'ts for Critiquing the Riots

A peaceful protester in Atlanta, Saturday, June 6, 2020. Property is important for sure, but our priority should always be people first. (Photo credit to my old friend and colleague from our earliest Saipan days, Tenera Armbrister-Carey)

Are you appalled by the violence, the looting, the destruction of private property attending these protests in the wake of George Floyd's death?  Thinking about voicing your disgust among like-minded friends, random strangers, or sharing on social media?  Here's some helpful tips to help you decide if you should go ahead and fuss:

Do Fuss: If you are the owner of a business that is being directly impacted by rioting and looting. I have no issue with people locking and loading to protect what's theirs.  I mean, you don't have to, but it is certainly your right and I support that. I know I'd take action to protect my property and safety. 

Do Fuss: If you've been attending the protests yourself and have had to "get into it" with supposed protesters who are tearing up property, not listening to the instructions of the protest organizers and so on.

Do Fuss: If you are frustrated because the riot and looting is taking attention away from the legitimate concerns about systemic racism and police brutality in this country. 

Don't Fuss: If you've been shaking your head at the pics on your social media feed and inflammatory videos from your favorite websites, but haven't actually been there yourself. 

While it's noble to be concerned for those who are suffering in the neighborhoods where rioting and looting are taking place, don't fuss if you've never invested any time or treasure in these selfsame neighborhoods. 

Do acknowledge that the situation on the ground is more complex than a video clip or meme may indicate. There are some who are rioting out of pent-up frustration, the voices of the unheard, as Dr. King put it. There are plenty of others who are simply opportunists, selfish people taking advantage of situation to grab some free stuff.  There are people who just want to cause trouble--some on the "side" of the protesters, but also some who are deliberately trying to bring the protests into disrepute.  And then there are the way the police show up--expecting trouble, ready for it, and perhaps creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've yet to a hear of a police force that got overwhelmed by the rioters because they showed up without riot gear and teargas. 

If you really care about us, about black people, then do not allow yourself to be distracted. It goes without saying that riots and looting are wrong. What doesn't go without saying is justice and fixing a broken system.

Angry: The Problem with the Police

Stock Photo via Pond5

I have never had a bad encounter with the police.  When I've been pulled over my biggest fear has generally been about what's about to happen to my bank account. I've written about the police before on this blog, over ten years ago in a post entitled "Lessons Learned from the Long Arm of the Law." Spoiler alert: It was positive. Even after everything that has happened in the past few weeks, if I felt like I or my family was in danger, I would still feel comfortable calling the police.*  A police officer--an African American woman--lives in our neighborhood.  And this guy right here was one of my students' heroes--and is one of mine too.

Former student El-Ryck Kendrick with one CPD's finest. El-Ryck chose the Columbus Police Department as oneo f his heroes for my 7th and 8th graders Heroes Reception back in 2013 and this officer attended the gala event as the department's representative.

Now, don't get too excited. Before you run off sharing this post far and wide as proof that the police don't have a problem (See, this black guy says he's not afraid for his life!).  You might want to keep reading. You see what I am is anecdotal evidence (I just talked about this in a recent Dispatch from Coronaville post). One person's story is not proof of a general principle.  At issue here is not individual police officers personal prejudices or an individual black person's response.  The concern is a systemic need for accountability when it comes to what the police can do without consequence.

Here's the reality: The relationship between the police and predominantly black communities, the relationship between law enforcement and black people has been fraught for a very long time.  Again, understanding history is vital to understanding racism in America.  For generations the police have been white society's chief tool for keeping black people "in line."  While for most white Americans, the police are friendly presence that makes them feel safe, for most black Americans a police presence is cause for heightened caution. And that's true even for me. I generally don't worry about getting  mistreated by cops, but I also would never have the temerity to do this, like, ever: 

Getty Images

  We are not certain the police are on our side, and that is because for a long time they haven't been. I find that many white people have this kind of knee jerk defensiveness whenever there is even mild criticism of the police.  And it makes sense, after all, since the police have always been there to serve and protect their interests.  That has not been the case historically for black people.  I guess the idea is that the approach of policing black America instead of protecting them just kind of disappeared sometime after Martin Luther King Jr? How does that work exactly?  Has it worked?

Let me clear up a few misconceptions:

The problem isn't that police killings are the leading cause of  death among black Americans. They are not. A common misdirection is to point out that a black person has greater chance of being killed by a another black person than by a police officer.  But that's not the point. We are not arguing about who one is most likely to be killed by, but addressing why black Americans have a higher likelihood of being killed by police than their white peers do. 

The problem is not the racism of individual officers. It's not about a few bad apples and mostly good cops. It's not even about the racism of white people in general.  The undercover cop who killed Prince Jones, an unarmed black man, back in 2000 was black.  Some of the officers involved with the death of Freddie Gray were black. And at least one of the four cops arrested for George Floyd's death doesn't look quite white (and I"m not talking about the Asian officer).  Racist assumptions about black pathology, the supposed inherent violence of black people, the danger of "black anger", the risk of the physicality of the black man (side note: one of the reasons I worry less is because of my build; I can't conceive of myself looking like a threat to anyone, which is not quite the same as saying that I wouldn't be perceived as a threat)--all of these things affect everyone of every race. They permeate our society. It seems absurd to think that somehow law enforcement would be immune from these assumptions. 

The problem is police being allowed too much latitude to harm civilians as part of doing their job. I believe it was Floyd's status as a black man that led to Chauvin to put his knee on Floyd's neck (I have a hard time imagining Officer Chauvin would have done this to a white man or woman). But it was Chauvin's status as a police officer that led him to keep his knee on Floyd's neck, ending his life.  He believed that there would be no meaningful consequence for his actions. And he had good reason to believe so, given the litany of complaints against him over the years all of which had come to naught. He was certain that the thin blue line, that code that officers share, would rise to protect him.

There are service professions: Teaching, medicine, and firefighting are examples.  Police work is also intended to be a service profession.  Police exist--or should exist--primarily in a defensive capacity, to keep people safe.  They are not intended to be soldiers. While in rare cases they may have to use deadly force, their job is not to kill people. If you want to be a solider, join the military, not the police. 

The solution to our police problem is clear. It's not making officers "less racist."  You can't mandate a change of heart.  What we can do is enact laws that hold police accountable. No police officer should go about their work feeling that they can do pretty much whatever they want without consequence. It's fair to say most police officers won't take advantage of that opportunity, but there are those who will. And there are many who wouldn't themselves but who will feel duty bound to close ranks around their fellow members of the force who do. We've had this backward notion that because the police have greater power they should have less responsibility, less accountability.  Conviction of these four officers should be a given, but even if they are convicted (and especially if they are not) our focus needs to be on drafting laws that demand accountability from police for the actions they take.  For the "not about race" crowd,  and you libertarians concerned about the authoritarian state--this is your moment. These laws wouldn't be "about race", they would benefit everyone. But they would especially benefit those who have been dis-proportionally affected by police violence.

Calling for police reform is not anti-cop anymore than calling for education reform is anti-teacher. We can do better.  We must do better. And when we do everyone will benefit.

*And that's what I did. How's this for irony. Guess what I did just as I was beginning to work on this post last Thursday night?  I called. ..the police.  Barbara was working late at her school. No one else was in the building. She heard voices and saw at least four people walking around outside her classroom windows. She was afraid to go out into the darkened back parking lot alone. Since we have only one vehicle, I couldn't go to her which is what I would have done. She never told me the race of the people outside--she may not have known--and I never asked.  She asked me to call the police for her, and I did. It turned out that there a group of eight guys playing basketball in the gym across from Barbara's classroom with the lights out. It's not clear how they got in, but it appears a door was left unlocked. They were cooperative by all accounts, and left without incident.

Angry: This Woman Makes Me Happy

I want to go in a different direction today.  There's still a lot of unpacking to do.  So much that has to be taught and learned (and unlearned) as we try to end the evil of racism in our country. But for a moment I want to think about what a future would look like that is truly just, where black people are fully equal citizens. I was listening to the radio a few months ago and I heard it. And I have to tell you, it was the most wonderful thing. It was so exceptional that even now when I think about it, I just feel warm and fuzzy.

Ayesha Rascoe.  That's her name. She's a reporter for NPR .

So what made her report so remarkable? The fact that it was so unremarkable. It was polished, professional. She sounded like she really knew her field.  Okay, I know you're eyeing me skeptically now. What are your trying to say? This sounds suspiciously like "clean-cut and well-spoken."  That is not what this. I always feel some kind of way when my students are effusively praised for their stellar behavior on the 8th grade class trips over the years (and they are always praised for their stellar behavior). Like why do we need all this praise, is if black kids acting right is so out of the ordinary. So don't get it twisted. It's not that I'm surprised that a black woman can be polished, professional and really know her field. I could name multitudes who fit that bill. So what's the big deal then, you ask?  

It's this.  This was an identifiably black woman--with a distinctively black accent, not one of those white-sounding newscaster voices (no judgement here, by the way, since I happen to have exactly that white newscaster kind of voice) and a distinctively black name.  And best of all she wasn't reporting on "race issues" or "the culture" or "entertainment"--she was reporting on foreign policy.  Foreign policy, like just any other reporter, intelligently and concisely breaking down the details. I loved it. I was pleasantly surprised, not that she was capable, but that she was allowed to be capable, in a field that hadn't been "designated" for blacks, and still be black.

What does it mean to be fully a part of our society?  It means to be allowed to be ourselves--whatever that is--without being relegated to a certain corner or topic. It means that we don't have speak in a way that soothes white ears. It means the names we give our children don't have to be an impediment to being taken seriously. 

Tonight I found a selection of her reporting on NPRs website and listened to one segment, just to hear the sound of the future.

Dispatch from Coronaville: We are done with virus; Is the virus done with us?

Our church parking lot this afternoon at least half full of cars for a funeral held there today. Not many folks wearing masks. I have no judgement of these folks gathering together to say farewell to someone dear to them. I'm just making an observation.

We are moving on.  We are done with the coronavirus and looking to other things.  The job market added jobs this month. More and more things are opening up.  There's still the occasional nod to masks and social distancing here and there, but by and large we are concluding our business with COVID-19.

The question is: Is the virus done with us?  Is COVID going to let us walk out the door. Or will it grab us by the arm and yank us back into our chair, get uncomfortably in our faces, and say through gritted teeth: "I'm not done with you yet!:  I believe this month will tell the story.

Almost one month ago I did a little review of the previous month in Coronavirus and made predictions for the upcoming month.  Now here we are.  By the time I post this (It's 11: 50 PM right now) it will be June 6, exactly one month since the last time I took a step back for the bigger picture.  So it's time to do it again.

I'm pleased to report that the increase in cases and deaths were a lot lower than even my prediction based on half the rate of increase. I thought we'd have 2.4 million cases in the U.S. by now, but instead we are only at 1,911,444 total cases, an increase over the past month of 56%. Likewise with deaths I expected there would be 275,000 deaths in the U.S. but instead we only have 109,299 deaths,  an increase of 34% over the past month. I decided that for my predictions over the next month I would keep use the same percent increase instead of reducing it by half as I did last month.  I try to be conservative in my predictions and right now, with the aftermath of re-openings and the protests still to come, I think reducing by half would be a little ambitious now. So: By July 6, I expect 2,981,853 total cases of COVID-19 in the United States, and 146,461 deaths.

As for our three-day numbers, the U.S. total cases increased by 3.8%, 5,500 more cases than I predicted. Meanwhile I'm gonna say I was statistically accurate on deaths, with the 2.3% rate of increase I predicted and only 20 fewer deaths than I projected. We really seem to be holding steady at this point, with a more or less constant rate of increase every three days. Based on these numbers I project 1,984,079 total cases by Monday, June 8 and 111,813 deaths.

On to the states.  The news is not good for Florida. Cases there have skyrocketed over the past three days with 4,041 new cases added to their tally.  They are literally off the chart. Perhaps these are the open-up protesters from a few weeks back finally paying the piper?  Ohio and Nebraska both posted modest gains in their number of new cases, but one might be able to argue that Ohio at least is showing an overall decline in the number of new cases. Still we will have to wait until Monday to begin the countdown clock again. 

Total Cases:

Florida: 61,480 total cases, 0.28% of the population. Florida's total cases increased by 65% over the past month. Based on that rate, I would expect 101,442 total cases in Florida by July 6.

Ohio: 37,758 total cases, 0.32% of the population. Ohio's total cases increased by 75% in the last month. Based on that rate  of increase I would expect 66,077 total case in Ohio by July 6.

Nebraska: 15,379 total cases, 0.79% of the population. Nebraska's total cases increased by 136% which was less than I projected but still a much higher rate of increase than Ohio and Florida.  Based on  that rate of increase I would expect 36,294 cases in Nebraska by July 6, a number that  would represent more than 1.8% of the state's population.

Florida and Ohio both showed increases in the number of new deaths in this three-day period, with Ohio outstripping Florida in this category. Only Nebraska continued a downward trend in deaths.

Total Deaths: 

Florida: 2,659 total deaths, a rate of 4.3%. Florida's new deaths increased by 81%. Based on that trend I'd expect 4,813 deaths by July 6.

Ohio: 2,355 total deaths, a rate of 6.2%. Ohio's number of Corona dead did not exceed Florida's as I had predicted. Their rate of increase was 90% and based on that number I'd expect 4,475 deaths by July 6

Nebraska: 193 total deaths, a rate of 1.3% Nebraska total deaths increased by 133% over the past month. Based on that rate of increase I would expect 450 total deaths in Nebraska but July 6. 

Dispatch from Coronaville: Science

Today I'd like to talk a little bit about science.  Science has come under attack from a lot of quarters in recent years, the most recent attack coming from what I call the coronavirus deniers. I think at least some of this hostility stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works, what it does and doesn't do.

First off, people tend to expect scientists to be right once and for all about what ever the scientific topic is at hand. But that's not how science works.  Science by its very nature is forever unfolding.  What appears to be definite can be overturned by the next discovery. Science abides by strict rules for determining fact and those rules mean that understanding must change with the evidence. To those of us on the outside it can seem wishy-washy.  First they said this was dangerous, now they are saying it's safe. First they said do this, now they say don't do this, do that instead. Do these guys even know what they are talking about? Man, I'm not listening to them. They don't know. . . Of course changing course based on changing evidence is not an invitation to ignore the guidance scientific findings can provide.  This article does a fantastic job of elaborating on the nature of science in the time of coronavirus and why people find it easy to dismiss scientific guidance.

Another thing we tend to do--that scientists do not do--is rely on anecdotal evidence. And it's understandable; what's more compelling than our own first hand experience? Thus we might say "Back in the day we didn't have all this PPE and we never got sick."  or "They're inflating the COVID numbers! My uncle died of a heart attack but the doctors put COVID-19 on the death certificate."  Those stories are compelling, yes. But. . .they're anecdotal evidence. And anecdotal evidence needs to be backed up by replication.  The same thing happening over and over again in trial after trial. Have randomized trials proven repeatedly that medical workers who toughen up their immune systems bv not using PPE get sick less than those who are fragile and protecty and keep their immune systems weak?  If so, that's scientific evidence. Are there thousands of documented cases by verified by multiple outside sources of doctors falsely attributing the cause of death to COVID-19. If not, you have your own experience not a conspiracy.  I know what we feel we've seen with our own eyes feels incontrovertibly true, but science inhabits a world where things are not always what seems obvious.

On the other end of the spectrum is the worship of anyone with some letters after their name.  Interestingly skepticism and reverence for the experts can often coexist--we trust the "experts" who confirm what we want to believe and dismiss those who don't. The doctors on YouTube said. . . Dr. Drew Pinsky says. . .blackballed scientist reveals shocking truth about the "plandemic." I think it's important to remember that all scientists, doctors, or medical professionals are not created equal.  Imagine you hear a high school calculus teacher waxing eloquent on YouTube about how reading should be taught to kindergartners.  Yes she's a teacher, but kindergarten and reading instruction is not her field.  Any knowledge she has on that subject will be minimal at best. If you get conflicting advice on helping your child with phonics you're better off listening to a kindergarten teacher--an expert in her field.  So it's not enough to tout experts and scientists and doctors. We need to ask what are the experts in this particular field saying? And then we should modify our own beliefs accordingly.  There will always be someone out there to confirm what we want to believe, but that's no way to get to the truth.

Finally, one thing that makes the COVID-19 pandemic more difficult, is that this virus really is new.  There is a lot even the experts don't know about it.  But here's the thing:  That doesn't put you and me on equal footing with the experts.  They don't know and I don't know, so my guess is good is theirs. No. No it's not. It's like a kindergartner looking at an Algebra problem, then seeing an 8th grader struggling with the same problem and saying, "Well shoot he doesn't get it either. I'm not listening to him when he comes to  help me with my addition worksheet and I am not believing him when he says he 'gets it now'. It's obvious 2x +3 = 12 is 5, because duh, everyone knows 2 + 3 is five. See! You just use a little common sense. Get's you a lot farther than that so-called expertise from those 8th graders who can't even figure it out themselves."

Even if the experts don't know, they know more than we do. And sure they may be wrong. Or we might be.  The question we have to ask is what's the price of being wrong?  Are we sure it's one we can afford to pay? What does the evidence seem to indicate?

Let's take a look:

The rate of increase in cases and deaths trended down a bit over the past three days. There have been a total of 1,841,407 cases, an increase of 3.5% since Saturday and 13,000 less than I predicted. Total deaths registered a 2.3% increase to 106,861, about 600 less than I predicted. Based on these trends I would expect 1,905,856 total cases by Friday, June 5 and 109,319 total deaths,

Looking to the states, new cases are once again down across the board, with Ohio recording it's lowest number of new cases in almost a month. The countdown clock starts again today with June 16 as the new goal date of two weeks of consecutive declines in the number of new cases.

Total Cases: 

Florida: 57,439 total cases, 0.26% of the population

Ohio: 36,350 total cases, 0.31% of the population

Nebraska: 14,611 total cases, 0.75% of the population

All states are showing fewer new deaths over the past three days, with Ohio again recording it's lowest number of new deaths since May 3.

Florida: 2,529 total deaths,  a rate of 4.4%

Ohio: 2,218 total deaths, a rate of 6.1%

Nebraska: 187 total deaths, a rate of 1.3%

Angry: The Fire

Themes in Racism: Fear of Black Anger

As part of this blog series, I will, from to time to time explore certain themes. Yesterday's post might fall under the theme of Things to Stop Saying. This one is under Themes in Racism. Here I will explore certain racist ideologies, presumptions, and prejudices that have become baked into our society over time, to the extent that most of the time we are unaware of their presence or their power. Today I want to focus on the fear of black rage.

Anger is like fire. Uncontained, it can be deadly, destroying everything in its path.  We have a whole organization whose primary duty is to put out fires roaring out of control. But fire is not, in and of itself, evil. Contained, channeled, and put to productive use it's useful, even necessary. So it is with anger.  We are discomfited by it, but it can be the right response and the necessary driver of change.

Which bring us to black anger. A fear of black anger and an obsession with controlling it have long been a feature of American society. Here's my armchair historian's take on why that is (real historians who have a better understanding are welcome to correct me; I'm not opposed to learning):

At first, the fear of black anger and the need to control it were born out of necessity. Slavery was, after all, the "necessary evil" and white people knew deep down that it was wrong.  They knew what they would want to do, what they would do, if they were in the slave's position.  The occasional violent slave revolt struck fear into the heart of every master.  After all in some places the slaves outnumbered the owners by a huge margin. Many of the restrictions on slaves--on education, on meeting together, on gun ownership-- as well as the brutal punishments meted out to slaves were meant to prevent them from unleashing the wrath that surely must be there, burning under the surface.

This is one reason there has been a long history of irritation with agitators on the part of white people. In the antebellum South, slave owners blamed abolitionists and other interfering folks for stirring up the slaves who until then had been perfectly happy.  Segregationists fussed about Yankees coming down and getting black folks all upset about being separated, upsetting the order of things that had worked just fine for everyone. And today we still hear carping about those that stir up division (i.e. dissatisfaction) with their Black Lives Matter protests.

Attendant with this pragmatism was the presumption of black pathology--that we were savage, unable to control ourselves, that if we were given free reign we would run amuck. Black people and their wild rage needed to checked for their own good as well as that of white society. 

This sensibility about black anger has had a good four hundred years to sink deep into our society, so that now in 2020 when black people express anger the instinctive response is to shut it down.  You may think I'm headed towards the violence that has broken out at the protests over the past several days but that's actually another post. No, here I'm referring to when black people express their rage and anguish verbally.  Event the mildest expressions of black wrath (such as this blog) are met with instantaneous discomfort and nervousness, even among our allies. More overt expressions of anger are met with outright condemnation.  There are the paternalistic pleas to "calm down", that nothing is ever accomplished by shouting (and that may be true, but you'll notice when the open-up protesters were out a few weeks ago with their guns, screaming in the faces of their opponents there was no great call for them to calm down. No one was worried about what "might happen" if these guys didn't settle down and talk things over reasonably).  White society still is fearful of black anger even if it is only spoken. 

Ironically, black people have suffered terribly at hands of white wrath over the years. From the massacre in Tulsa that destroyed Black Wall Street, to the many lynchings of black people by enraged white mobs to the abuse poured on civil rights protesters during the civil rights movement, white fury has run wild over black people. Yet no one has ever thought to ponder the pathology of white anger or to propose that measures be taken to keep them calm. And my argument is not that we should develop such a theory of white pathology. Instead we need to extend the same presumption of maturity to black people that we do white people. Just like we do with white people, we need to chalk up the occasional act of violent, damaging anger by black persons as the acts of individuals rather than implicating all black people.

The affluent Greenwood District  (also known as Black Wall Street) of Tulsa, Oklahoma after it was burned to the ground--all 35 blocks of it-by white rioters in 1921.  Every black resident of the community had been detained in a nearby convention hall and fairgrounds and white rioters went through the district looting it before burning it down.

The impulse to tamp down black anger is harmful for two reasons. First, it's not good for our mental health to be constantly smiling and peaceable in the face of mistreatment. Anger expressed appropriately is legitimate and necessary. Second, outrage is the right response to gross injustice. Change doesn't come when people are merely perturbed or "saddened" by evil. 

 It should go without saying that black people should be able to express anger, fury, even rage without the assumption that it's going to end in disaster. Black people have shown a remarkable amount of restraint over the generations and I don't expect that will change. 

So while it might get uncomfortably hot for a little while, my encouragement to my white friends is this: When it comes to black anger:

Let it burn. 

(You'll be alright. I promise.)

Angry: In Defense of Division

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

                                                                                    --Matthew 10:34

This isn't (necessarily) unity. . . (Image courtesy of pond5 stock photography)*

I never liked that verse. It felt like Jesus let me down a little bit with that. I thought You are the Prince of Peace?  What about my peace I give unto you? And peace that passeth understanding? And didn't You tell Peter to put away his sword, that those who live by the sword die by the sword?  What's up?  And then "I came to set a man against his Father and Daughter against her Mother"?  What?

And then on Sunday I read it again during my daily devotions and the penny dropped.  For the first time that passage didn't bother me anymore.  Even though Jesus' application was strictly spiritual, I got it.  Peace at any price is not the goal. It never has been.

My friends, here's a phrase (and it's variations) you need to stop saying: "See when you get all angry like that it's so divisive!"  "You're causing division!"  "Why are we so divided?" "I don't like to talk about racial issues; it's so divisive!"

Yeah, we need to stop with all that. I'm sure it's not entirely true, but it feels to me that I hear concerns about division far more from my white friends then my black ones.  I get the feeling that for black people the kind of "unity" that people want when they say that word is one that isn't so great for us. It's like a cheating husband who says to his upset wife, "See babe when you get all worked up about this it just creates so much division in our marriage.  We need unity."  

See, sometimes the things that divide us are greater than what unites us.  And when that's the case we  don't need to press for unity.  We need to address the problem!

Unity that requires my silence in the face of injustice is not a unity worth having. A unity that subsumes my voice for the sake of your comfort is no unity at all.

I would argue that what we need now is division. We need you to take a stand, pick a side, get off the sidelines thinking that your silence frees you of accountability.  And when you stand up for what's right it's going bother some people. It will cause friction, even friction with people you love. True Christian love draws a line in the sand, a dividing line, and dares us to come across.

. . .this is.  Women form a human shield to protect protesters in Louisville, Kentucky. (Photo by Tim Druck)

*Okay so fascinating footnote about the stock photo at the top of this blog. I decided maybe I should buy the photo rather than grabbing one off a Google image search.  So I start browsing through stock photos on various sites using the search "multiracial group eating" and what I saw kinda blew my mind. In the world of stock photography, the vast majority of the time a multiracial group means a single black person and the rest of the people more or less white (unless it's a couple, as in my photo. A second black person is allowed then). I kind of already knew this--that when we want show "diversity" it means showing a group of white people with a few of other races tagged on. But to see it over and over again is stunning. This shows the extent to which white is the default or norm in our country. A group of black people and one or two white people wouldn't communicate "diversity."  Try it for yourself and see what you find!