The Book of Mormon case for Black Exodus

This week, we in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be studying, Mosiah 18-24. It is a curious case study on how the Lord helps the oppressed deal with their oppression. We have two stories highlighting the oppression of two groups of people. Both groups were in bondage and facing physical and emotional abuse. They couldn’t do much about it as they were outnumbered and outgunned. Both groups, unable to fight back or reason with their abusers, submitted to their subjugation and prayed to the Lord for help. This led to their deliverance in the form of exodus.

I reread these stories in the middle of yet more black death, this time, the young man Ahmaud Arbery. Just in the last five years, we’ve seen literally hundreds of headlines about unarmed black men being gunned down by police officers and white vigilantes under questionable circumstances. There have been few arrests, even fewer convictions - I can count the latter on one hand - and no significant reform as a result of any of the killings. Each one hurts, but this one hit different. As an incident on video where the victim is an unarmed black man posing no threat to anyone and the killers are armed civilians, it might be the most glaring example of the intoxicating power of whiteness in recent memory. 

Somehow, those white men who killed Ahmaud felt justified in chasing him down while he was in the middle of a jog, commanding him to stop while brandishing firearms, and subsequently killing him when he ignored them, despite having no evidence of him committing any crime, no threat posed by Ahmaud, and no authority to do any of those things. What power other than whiteness made these men feel comfortable with any of the decisions they made that day? What power other than whiteness allowed the authorities to not just lie to Ahmaud’s family about the circumstances surrounding his death, but also implicate him in a crime that he didn’t commit? And what power other than whiteness led the man who leaked the video to genuinely believe, reportedly, that it would clear Ahmaud’s killers? These men wielded their whiteness like a badge for whiteness is premised on the idea that they deserve their power, that black life is expendable, and that black life is theirs to control. This is the same force that powered slavery, Jim Crow, etc. In short, Ahmaud’s death was an especially rude reminder that our transition from slavery to Jim Crow to the present day wasn’t so much progress as it was white supremacy shifting into a more comfortable position. 

Returning to the two liberation narratives from this week’s Book of Mormon reading, there a few things worth noting: The first is that neither population was oppressed all that long before God delivered them, relatively speaking - three generations at most. Black America has been dealing with it for sixteen. Though I suspect time wasn’t the primary variable at play in their deliverance, I find it somewhat comforting to know that we at least meet the time requirement for deliverance and then some, assuming there is one. 

The second thing is that the Lamanites, the oppressors in Limhi’s narrative, made an oath that they would not kill Limhi’s people, yet they took liberty to harm them in other ways if they felt like it. Many days after starting a physical confrontation with Limhi's people that did not go in their favor, the Lamanites got mad at the Nephites for whatever reason and decided to come into their city and physically abuse them (Mosiah 21:3). This kind of interaction (operating within established parameters to oppress) is very familiar to Black America. For example, at the abolition of slavery, America couldn’t legally enslave black people anymore, so it wrote the black codes. With them, America could restrict the freedom of blacks, get them to work for low wages, and arrest them for vagrancy, which would inevitably lead to convict leasing i.e. slave labor. That is just one of many examples that demonstrate simply changing the name or methods of an oppressive system does not necessarily mean progress, particularly if the engine behind that system remains the same.

The third thing is that the Lord’s solution to the problem was not to continue to try to reason with their captors or try to fight them. The solution in both cases was a non-violent escape to a place free of oppression. Limhi’s people were dwelling in a land that his ancestors had built, but one that the Lord told his ancestors to leave. I don’t imagine it would be easy to leave a land built with the labor and sweat of your ancestors for your enemies to take, but after failing to reason with them and defend themselves, what other options remained?

The fourth thing that I noticed is the lack of apparent divine involvement in the people of Limhi’s exodus after Ammon arrived. Limhi's people had been praying for deliverance. What they got was a group of scouts led by Ammon and sent by Mosiah to find Limhi and his people. At that point, Limhi's people had the necessary tools for escape. They organized, developed a plan that exploited the weaknesses of their captors, and followed Ammon to freedom. We're accustomed to lots of divine intervention in The Exodus narrative, but in Limhi's story we find the least. There isn't even an apparent warning/invitation from the Lord to get out. Even still, the people had prayed for deliverance and upon Ammon's arrival, they had everything they needed to get it. The rest was up to them.

And yet another thing I noticed is that the place both groups were led to, the land of Zarahemla, was the same place their stubborn ancestors had come from. It was their intended home. The idea of home - a place where we can dwell and operate in peace without fearing for our health and safety - has rich symbology in the Black American tradition. Probably the most common and significant theme in the invocation of that symbol is that “home” is not here. And further, before "home" meant heaven/glory/paradise/et al., it meant the literal land from whence we came.

Pondering this in the midst of the mess happening in America, I asked what I feel are the obvious questions: Is it really worth fighting for equality and liberation within the parameters of a system that was built on denying us these very things? Or do black people need to get the hell up out of here? 

I am aware of how the Book of Mormon narrative progresses, specifically the integrated utopia in 4th Nephi. And I know that one of the most explicit principles of Christ’s New Testament church is not just an end to otherization, but a full diversification and integration. Christ’s people are intended to function as a community where no one is privileged above another due to earthly constructs. 

That said, the exodus narratives in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon indicate that there is a time for separation and oppression is the reason behind all of them: The Israelites from the Egyptians, these two stories in Mosiah, and two more exodus narratives earlier in the Book of Mormon - one of God telling Nephi to separate from his brothers (2nd Nephi 5) and another of God telling Mosiah to flee out of the Land of Nephi (The Book of Omni). In every exodus, the ability to live in peace according to their will and pleasure was threatened, much like black folks. In fact, as I explored social media this week, I saw several post a list of all the simple activities (riding a bike, going to a bachelor party, sitting on their own porch, walking through a park, etc.) that black people can no longer do because of their skin color. There was a name etched next to every single activity of someone killed by law enforcement officials or vigilantes for doing that very activity. Needless to say, it’s a long list and I have too much confidence that it will get longer. 

If that wasn’t enough, in every American institution, 400 years later, Black Americans still suffer from massive discrimination. White supremacy never went anywhere. It persists in spite of our best efforts. It has been intellectually debunked by our best and brightest, we’ve mobilized against it, and have drawn attention to it our entire existence in this country and yet here we are. If history is any indicator, so long as we’re in a country that was built on and maintained by white supremacy, it will continue to find its way into our lives.

It is in that spirit that I propose we consider the Israelites and the Nephites. 

It is in that spirit that I propose a Black Exodus: a physical withdrawal of black souls from the United States and into a new space where we can establish a new and open institution rooted in active anti-racism rather than the othering, subjugation, pretense, racism, and racial capitalism of white supremacy. 

I have far more confidence in our ability to build this new society than to work within one built on our dehumanization. Though I don’t want to give racists the satisfaction of doing exactly what they always tell us to do every time we protest injustice, I find myself in a position where I’m out of better ideas and, frankly, tired of defending my right to simply exist. 

But, I also find something brilliant, poetic, and almost humorous about such a suggestion. The cruelest irony of whiteness is how much it needs us; it depends on us by devaluing and dehumanizing us; without blackness, whiteness has no power, no meaning, no identity, and no life. Whiteness is a parasite. Our presence has been so fundamental to American life that America as we know it would eventually cease to exist. And in the most prophetic and poetic of ironies, black folks would at last recover what white supremacy has stolen from us - our dignity, our freedom, and our peace - while anyone clinging to whiteness loses the same. So shall the scripture be fulfilled that “many that are first shall be last; and the last first.”

The Black Exodus will mean the death of American white supremacy and the birth of Black liberation and that liberation shall free others as well, especially white folks from their dependence on us for their power and sense of self. Dr. Martin Luther King once said “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied to a single garment of destiny. What affects one directly, affects all indirectly. As long as there is poverty in this world, [no one] can be totally healthy. … Strangely enough, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.” The Black Exodus will mean a better world and eventually, with white supremacy dead and white people no longer dependent on our subjugation for their sense of worth and sense of self, true integration will at last be possible. A society comparable to that spoken of in 4th Nephi will at last be possible.

What this exodus will look like and how it will be accomplished will be a conversation for another day, but the short version is that we construct the Black nation-state of New Wakanda in the American South-Atlantic upon securing reparations. I am not tied to the name. New Stankonia, Beyoncéland, and Rhythm Nation are also being considered. Levity aside, I can also say that it will be a process. Based on our history, it is not likely that the full realization of such a project will happen in our lifetime or our children’s. Special care will need to be taken to ensure that the mistakes of the American Colonization Society and more are not repeated.

Overall, there are many implications to consider, not the least of which will be what such an exodus will mean for the Saints. How would the church respond? Would they view it as a step forward or backward? Would they be sympathetic to our cause considering the Saints’ own exodus narrative due to the oppression they faced? Would the black exodus encourage the church, which has its own issues with white supremacy, to engage racism in a way they hadn’t before? Would the MTC finally prepare missionaries to be in black spaces now that Black America is officially a new country? How will the worship and ministry experience change among the Black Saints now that they no longer go to church with a bunch of people who support political policies that oppress people that look like them? How would it change among the saints remaining in America, if at all? Could American saints, having become demonstrably complicit in white supremacy by their choice to remain there, justifiably call themselves followers of the same Christ who worked actively to tear down oppressive institutions? Questions that need answers.

I know that the Lord has delivered His people before and that He takes the side of the oppressed. Why wouldn’t He deliver us if we did our part? The path to civil rights has been too exhausting and too violent and I want my people to live in a world where the recognition of basic human rights are principle rather than our highest aspiration.

#NewWakandaForever

A Card Carrying Mormon's Case for Fighting the Policy Change

By now, all of us have heard of the policy change by the LDS church. Reactions varied widely. I cannot explain exactly why I’m writing, but I can tell you what I hope for. I hope to look back on these days in 35 years or so and not shake my head. I hope that the members of the church can have more empathy toward each other and those outside of our church in the lgbtq community. I hope that the members critically examine what recently happened and its implications for the work of bringing the gospel to all of God’s children. And I hope the members see that God revealing ‘many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God’ will depend on us.

I wanted to convey a simple message: There isn’t really a good reason for policy change or the way the Church treats homosexuals for that matter. There are undoubtedly a lot of legal motivations for the change, but the policy change wouldn’t be necessary if the church had a place for homosexuals that allowed them the same blessings the rest of us enjoy in the first place.

I’m a member of the church and have been all my life. I served a mission, attend church regularly, and have a temple recommend. I’m also black and keenly aware of the less than perfect policies the church has had in its past - more on that later. Like most members of the church, I don’t believe being homosexual is sinful.  However, I differ from most Mormons because I don’t believe homosexual acts are a sin. I will explain that later, too. I share this to make it clear that it’s possible to be a dissident in good standing and also that despite the policy change and how the church has marginalized homosexuals, I still have a testimony of the church and the gospel.

The Arguments

-The policy is for the protection of the children.
-Church leaders have taught that marriage is between a man and a woman.
-Church leaders have taught that acting on homosexuality is sin
-Church leaders have taught that homosexual marriage is apostasy.
-The Family Proclamation teaches that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
-The church leaders will not lead us astray.
-The bible doesn’t teach any other marriage but that between a man and a woman.
-In the few instances where homosexual acts are mentioned, it’s something negative.

Every reason I hear about why we (Mormons) treat homosexuals as we do stems from what the leaders have taught or what the scriptures supposedly say about homosexuality. Above is a list of common variants of these arguments. A closer look at these arguments will reveal that the way our church treats homosexuals needs to change.

The Policy 

The common support for the policy change is its analog to the policy for children of polygamous unions. To protect children from conflicting teachings at home and church (and likely to legally protect the Church), the Church will prevent children from polyamorous unions from joining the Church until they're 18, move out, and disavow the practice. Many members heard Elder Christofferson of the Twelve use this analogy when explaining the policy change.

The analogy is logically flawed. The policy isn't the same as it is for children of polygamous unions, because in countries where polygamy is legal, children can still be baptized, though every other stipulation remains in effect (Church Handbook, 16.3.9, 2010). Therefore, protecting children cannot be the whole reason for the new policy.

The biggest issue with requiring a child to disavow the practice of homosexuality is that the Church has no solution for homosexuals to lead a fulfilling life while living the current teachings of the Gospel. Here are a homosexual’s options according to the Church: 1. Remain celibate their entire life 2. Marry someone of the opposite sex and hope things work out (most of the time they don't) 3. Leave the church and live your life. In no scenario does a gay person get to enjoy all the blessings of the gospel. The church no longer advocates conversion therapy (because it’s less than effective and dangerous) and neither the science nor scripture have found a cure for gay. As the saying goes, “If you have a problem with no solution, you don’t have a problem”.

Leadership

I get it. We’re a church distinguished by a claim to modern day prophets, priesthood authority, and the same organization as Christ’s church. The men we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators are great men admired for their selfless service and unwavering commitment to teaching and living the principles of the Gospel. Personally, I don’t flinch at a ton of stuff they say because a lot of it resonates as true to me. Every April and October I look forward to General Conference, the Super Bowl of Mormonism, where I get to see them speak and reiterate gospel principles as they relate to us in our day. I’ll say again, they’re great and inspired men.

Inspired men are not perfect men, however, nor do they claim to be. We don’t talk about this aspect of our leadership a ton in church and we tend to forget it. As great as they are, they were not born into their leadership roles neither were they unaffected socially or culturally by their surroundings. They have and are entitled to opinions on different matters that will affect how they see the world and which will influence how they operate in their callings. When I was set apart as a missionary (the closest thing to an apostolic calling I and most other Mormon men will probably ever hold in this life) I wasn’t magically devoid of any bias, nor did I stop making mistakes. Why should we assume it’s not the same for the brethren?

Doctrine does not support the new policy regarding homosexuality. The scriptures are specific about what constitutes doctrine (D&C 26:2). Essentially, for anything to be doctrine it has to be submitted to the scrutiny of the brethren then put to the vote of the people of the Church. This is the law of common consent. This has only happened six times in the Church’s history, most recently in the 1978 revelation on blacks and the priesthood. The doctrine canonized by the law of common consent are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and official declarations one and two. Nothing else is binding on the church. This doesn’t mean that we don’t listen to the brethren, but it does mean we don’t treat their words as the end-all be-all. Hugh B. Brown explained,

“With respect to people feeling that whatever the brethren say is gospel, this tends to undermine the proposition of freedom of speech and thought. As members of the church we are bound to sustain and support the brethren in the positions they occupy so long as their conduct entitles them to that. But we also have only to defend those doctrines of the church contained in the four standard works…Anything beyond that by anyone is his or her own opinion and not scripture. Although there are certain statements that whatever the brethren say becomes the word of God, this is a dangerous practice to apply to all leaders and all cases…”

This includes the words of the brethren in the official capacity of the Church and the family proclamation. No matter how much the brethren declare the wrongness of homosexual relationships from the pulpit, it’s not binding on the church until the people have voted on it. Until that time, we are not obligated to accept new policy for our membership in the church. It’s why members are not subject to church discipline for their beliefs.

Some may quote D&C 1:38 or 21:5 to pretty much say that what the prophet says as the prophet is what the Lord would say if he were here. Joseph Fielding Smith quoted the latter verse and clarified with ‘And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture...’ (D&C 68:4 emphasis added).

We hear all the time, especially at times like this, that prophet and the church leaders will never lead the Church astray. Most people interpret this to mean that the Church leaders, when in the official capacity of the church, will never say anything contrary to the mind and will of God. History proves this sentiment false. For one thing, the prophets, modern or ancient, have never claimed infallibility. If they did, I wouldn’t be a member right now. Some prophets even address their imperfection. Also, remember when blacks were denied the priesthood? Remember the things said by George Q. Cannon, Mark E. Petersen, Bruce R. McConkie, and Brigham Young from the pulpit with regard to ’the negro'? The words they said about black folk were taught as doctrine, but have since been disavowed by the church and members are not to repeat them. Elder McConkie even goes as far to say,

‘Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.... It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.’

Brothers and Sisters, is it not plausible that we could come across a similar scenario today? Is it not plausible that the Lord will reveal more concerning the place of homosexuals within his church and the plan of salvation?

Fortunately, there is an alternative interpretation of ‘the prophets will never lead us astray’ that allows for human error. Brigham Young explained,

“…if God should suffer Joseph Smith to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. …it would be because they deserved it…”

To further explain how the saints could ‘deserve’ to be led astray (and also explain how we knew when the brethren were ‘moved upon’ by the holy ghost), he goes on,

 “…if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray.”

Personal revelation is the key and there’s nothing wrong with questioning or asking for confirmation of those things which come from the prophets. One of the earliest stories in the Book of Mormon seems to echo this sentiment when Nephi asks the Lord for the same vision that his father and the prophet Lehi received. Laman and Lemuel struggle with the vision because they don’t think to ‘inquire of the Lord’. It is essential that we seek personal revelation after we thoroughly examine significant teachings then, Hugh B. Brown explains, "one’s logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within.”

Scripture

If you are able to accept that leaders are fallible and what they say isn’t binding on the Church, you must rely on scripture. Scripture is binding according to the law of common consent. If we were to go into greater depth of what the scriptures say, we’d focus a great deal on the societal context of the scriptures (frequent and open unconstrained and coercive homosexual acts that were considered normal at the time) and translation (no latin or greek word for homosexuality).  However, it may suffice to address an even simpler reason why the Bible is unreliable when it comes to homosexuality: When the Bible was written, homosexuality wasn't a thing (though acts did occur); no one lived or identified as homosexual. Therefore the Bible does not and cannot address homosexuality, let alone do so within the context of loving, committed, same-gender relationships.

Conclusion

We got nothing, brothers and sisters. To ostracize and marginalize homosexuals is doctrinally and, dare I say, morally indefensible. What the brethren say isn’t necessarily doctrine, they are capable of making mistakes, and the Bible is incapable of addressing homosexuality within the context of loving committed relationships. While I still believe the restored gospel is here and I sustain my leaders, I can't make sense of this new policy mentally or spiritually.

What are we going to do about it?

As yet, there's no precedent that I'm aware of where people fight something of this magnitude. However, the general protocol for opposing the higher ups is talking to your stake president. There are also many ways to respectfully protest this change outlined here. I sincerely believe that if change is to come, it will come down to the members, for God won't reveal to us that which we're not ready for. Perhaps, if a significant number of members speak up and speak out in the spirit of the 2nd great commandment, the Lord may yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

In response to Matt Walsh's "I'll Check My White Male privilege..."

Matt,

I recently came across your recent white male privilege post in my newsfeed. As a black American male, I was curious to see what you had to say about privilege and what prompted you to write the piece. I was sad to see the hate-filled uninformed letter that you were responding to. What also made me sad is that you seemed to validate one of the false premises you blogged about: 'You're not a part of [insert demographic here], therefore you don't get to talk about [insert demographic here] things.' Your thoughts on privilege are less than perfect.

I agree with you on this much: the above premise is false and using the premise as well as the phrase 'check your privilege' is too often used as a method to suppress dialogue rather than encourage it. That is sad. However, it has been the experience of many of us that white people in America don't quite understand what it's like to not be white and furthermore, don't know the implications of being so. It also seems to us that whites don't care to learn about or attempt to understand our lives and history and who could blame you – it doesn't do too much for your social, economic, or legal security or advancement. As a consequence of this mindset, when it comes time to discuss these things, many white people find themselves unequipped to deal with race issues displaying ignorance, defensiveness, and dismissiveness – yourself included, Matt.

Let's start with the blog where you address the hate-filled email. You issue a challenge relatively early: “name me one particular right or immunity that I possess and you do not? What is one specific and tangible benefit that white males universally enjoy, while all other people are deprived of it?” Challenge accepted.

White Male Privilege

You'll probably never have to explain the harsh effects of systemic racism and sexism to your boys.

You can excel without being labeled a 'credit to your race or sex'.

You can seek political office without your race or sex being part of your platform.

You're probably never expected to speak for all white men.

White privilege

When you open your mouth to speak, people don't act surprised at the breadth of your vocabulary and call you 'articulate'.

You won't have to worry about stop and frisk.

You can go shopping without fear of being followed or harassed.

You've probably never been taught to 'give up the sidewalk'.

If you need legal or medical help you're probably not afraid of your race working against you.

You can criticize political figures without being labeled as a cultural outsider. Maybe a bigot, but not a cultural outsider.

You can easily find toys, greeting cards, and magazines that represent people of your race.

The 'nude' color was made to match your skin tone.

If you walk into any barbershop, there will more than likely be someone who knows how to do your hair.

When you get a job or a promotion, people can only assume you got it because you were highly qualified.

People don't wonder if your college application was just a picture of your face.

If you decide to bomb or shoot up a building, you know you likely won't be labeled as a terrorist.

If you decide to bomb or shoot up a building, you know members of your race won't be labeled as a possible threat.

Male Privilege

You can walk down streets without fear of sexual harassment.

You can have sex with multiple partners and be praised for it.

You can go on a date without fear of being raped.

If you do get raped you don't have to worry about the way you were dressed being used as a defense.

If you don't decide to have kids, your manhood won't be called into question.

If you ask to speak to the person in charge, you're pretty confident that you'll speak to someone of your own sex.

I can keep going.

Maybe these examples don't meet your definition of tangible, but I don't think you can dismiss these relatively simple to pick out manifestations of privilege.

Let's move on to your earlier blog from May. You first tackle something that I admit is a problem. People of ingroups dismissing the opinions of people from outgroups because they are members of outgroups. I'll also admit that I fall into this trap occasionally. When faced with an issue I'll typically seek help from someone that has both knowledge and relevant experience rather than somebody with just the knowledge. The latter simply isn't as good. People want to be understood. As a Christian, I can't discount the value of empathy when it comes to ministering to others and I assume you blog as way of ministering to the masses. That said, I believe Christ was the perfect minister and I believe that one of the reasons Christ had to suffer as He did is so He could empathize with us. And if He could empathize with us, He could help us perfectly.“...and [Christ] will take upon Him [His people's] infirmities, that His bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that He may know according to the flesh how to succor His people according to their infirmities” (Alma 7:12, The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ). I'm not trying to say there's logic behind the treatment you've been receiving as a result of your opinions on matters that don't directly affect you. I am saying your inability to empathize with the ingroup guarantees that you will never have a perfect understanding of whatever subjects you tackle with regard to those people and they know it.

The issue then, Matt, isn't that people aren't interested in what you have to say simply because you're not part of their group. People aren't as interested in your opinions on Sterling, abortion, affirmative action, and feminism because people know that you, at the very least, don't completely understand what you're talking about by virtue of your whiteness and your maleness.

Furthermore, white people in particular don't have the best track record when it comes to assessing equality with other races. In the early 60's, 80% of white people said they felt minorities were treated equally in their communities. In the late 1800's, southern whites thought the same. In the mid 1800's, slaves that wanted to be out of bondage were actually considered mentally ill. In each time period white people believed they weren't out of the way and we acknowledge today that they were. In each time period, blacks believed they were oppressed and we acknowledge that they were. Basic statistics tell me, Matt, that if you tell me today white privilege is an illusion while there are many non-white people claiming to feel its effects, that I shouldn't believe you.

You made a semi good point about having people with no emotional attachments to weigh in on matters (thus eliminating bias) with your jury selection analogy. In your analogy you say that if a car thief is on trial, you don't stock the jury with a bunch of people who got their cars stolen. You mix it up with victims and non-victims. That makes sense to me. What you don't stock the jury with is people like you, Matt. While you may be unaware of what it's like to have your car stolen, you're also unaware or denying that car theft is taking place.

Moving on to the second premise – I think it's half right. Anyone of any race, religion, creed, gender, orientation, etc. certainly can experience discrimination and prejudice in one form or another. In saying that, I must clarify that you and all white men have never experienced the kind of institutionalized and systemic racism and sexism that people of color and women in this country have, thus introducing my agreement with the second half of this 'false premise'.

Finally, you cited this white dude at Princeton as 'masterfully' handling the issue of white privilege. You both miss the mark. No one is trying to diminish what you or Princeton dude accomplished despite your adverse circumstances. We don't want you to apologize for your accomplishments or your race. We don't want you to say that you were given handouts. What we want is for you to acknowledge that you till more fertile ground than the rest of us by virtue of your whiteness and your maleness. We want you to acknowledge that in THIS country if you put identical people with identical circumstances in different skin colors, the lighter one will likely yield the greater harvest. Princeton dude didn't quite get that as exhibited by this statement: “[America is] a country that grants equal protection under the law to its citizens, that cares not about religion or race, but the content of your character.” I believe you know better, Matt. There is too much evidence and experience to the contrary.


If you don't want to say you're privileged by your race or your sex, the evidence certainly must persuade you that you are at least not hindered by them. Again, that's okay. Just acknowledge it and maybe we can get you one less cancer/suicide wish.

Miami Dolphins, Knock-out, and Mr. Barkley

With the whole business about the Miami Dolphins and this knock-out video I've been seeing circulate around the web, I've been seeing a lot of people come out of the woodwork with opinions on race that display a disturbing amount of ignorance. I'm afraid that people who know too little decide to speak too much and a recent exchange with a man I called my friend was the straw that broke this camel's back. I may have misunderstood his original query as to my opinion on the n-word's use, but his response to my opinion worried and saddened me. After explaining what I felt was a pretty simple and reasonable concept, I was dismissed quickly with the same thoughts and attitudes he had before. What I found more sad was that I know there are other people out there that subscribe to such dismissive thinking without proper knowledge of that which they dismiss.

This is a problem.

I'm writing to blow off steam and posting to warn and plead with those who are not Black to educate themselves on Black history before trying to talk about race relations and be aware of your privilege. These are the most common thoughts I've seen expressed during the past week. If you subscribe to any of these thoughts I list, I am telling you emphatically that you are not well enough informed to talk about race like you know:

1. "If Black people want everyone else to stop saying the n word they should stop saying it themselves."

In a discussion with the aforementioned individual, he cited Jay-Z and Kanye when trying to put forth a valid argument for the use of the n word not being a big deal. I believe the words were "apparently they don't think it's a big deal". I was livid about the awful argument that was sure to follow and about the fact that when non-Blacks say something like this they go to the people who support their argument who tend to be the ignorant Black folk. Do you hear Colin Powell, Cornel West, T.D. Jakes, Will Smith, T.J. Martin use the word? No matter. You get the point and this isn't a good argument anyway.
Personal responsibility is the big thing here. My issue is that non-Blacks are trying to do nothing more than absolve themselves of it when this statement is used, but in doing so they forget that they're the reason the word hurts.
The purpose of the n-word is to insult, degrade, and dehumanize Black people and us alone. No amount of sympathy will allow you to feel that pain or share that burden. Therefore, the pain of that word is our burden to bear and ours alone. That makes it our word. Acknowledge that and deal with it. It's true we use the word, but I agree with Charles Barkley's statement this past week when he in effect said that our use of the word is not something we need to explain to you. The conversation of when, how, and if to use the word is ours, not yours. The word doesn't affect you the way it affects us, therefore you are not entitled to or owed an explanation for the word's use nor are you invited to the conversation. Any assumption otherwise is racist. If you assume our free use of the word with our accompanied response to the word coming out of your mouth is imposing a double standard or is hypocrisy let me say this again. OUR pain. OUR burden. OUR word. NOT YOURS. This is a double standard the same way that arresting people without a license to drive for doing so is. That's right. My ancestry give me license to say the n word. You cannot share in that simply because you are not Black. Nothing more nothing less. Acknowledge and accept it. That's the short answer why we can and you can't. With that knowledge it should be clear that the responsibility to educate you on the word's use and it's implications is on YOU and you alone.

2. I don't use the n word maliciously, so it's okay.

No it's not. Not okay at all. This is also manifest in the responses 'It's not racist', 'How is that racist', 'Whatever', etc. I watched someone correct a non-Black person when they used the word and the offender responded by saying 'no big deal' as if to say 'I don't mean it in a racist way'. Lots of people use this excuse. After all, if you really aren't using the word (or saying/doing ANY racist thing for that matter) maliciously then what is the big deal? Let me tell you.
Assuming you read number 1, you know the definition of the n word. This word hurts us. When you insist that you don't mean it that way (or try to defend the racist bs you were just called on), you are insisting that your desire to do so is more important than the pain of Black people. It's dismissive, dehumanizing, and disrespectful. When you hurt somebody, no matter your intent, you apologize and cease hurtful behavior. You don't try to prove to them you didn't hurt them.


3. I don't see color

I loathe this statement in all it's forms ('I don't see color', 'don't care if you're black, white, blue, only the human race, etc.). We all know what sentiment you're trying to communicate and I might even say that it's noble, but it's a lie. Stats: We are not treated the same or receive the same privileges. We don't live in the same worlds. People treat us differently and you know it. Your use of this statement proves you know it. So not only are you dismissing a very real difference, but now you're making racism about you by talking about how not racist you are further minimizing the problems I face. Not needed or appreciated.
The other problem with this statement is that you're implying that there's something wrong with seeing color. Is there something wrong with it? I've yet to hear a good answer and am willing to bet the same for you.

4. My Black friend says it's okay

Manifests itself with "I have Black friends", "I grew up around Black people" "I saw Red Tails" (yes, I've heard this used), or "My Black friend says it's okay". At work a fellow employee used the word. When I called him on it, he replied with "my Black roommate said it's okay". Never mind the generalization (my Black friend is king of the negroes because they subscribe to my racist thinking). Never mind trying to dismiss my hurt (see 2 above). Never mind the attempt to pit Black people against each other(king of negroes friend vs a bunch of pissed off Black folk). My problem is the lie this person bought into - not just that using the word is okay, but that this person feels entitled to the word's use and that feeling was validated when they were granted 'permission' by another Black person. This sense of entitlement is what brings people to believe that they have the Black people trump card when in reality, it doesn't exist. You're still a doo doo head. Your mere thought that it does is racist.


Disclaimer: I'm not the first person to say or feel any of this. If you still have questions as to why I and other Black folk feel this way, please pick up some books. Please don't go to your nearest black acquaintance. That's not what what we're here for.