Permission is granted for this essay to be freely distributed, published, copied and used so long as full credit to author is given and copyright notice is acknowledged
A Solution For Our Racial Division In America
By Evan Mahaney
Copyright 1995
Fallout from the O.J. Simpson murder trial is illuminating the glaring polarization between the minority (12%) African-American community and the dominant white community.
The problem is not whether OJ is guilty or innocent.
The problem is that we are not talking directly to each other -- white and black, one-on-one. White citizens have absolutely no idea what gut-feelings drive the black citizens. African-Americans think they know what drives white gut-feelings, but they are wrong more often than right. And neither side is willing to concede an inch to the other side.
Dating from the 1954 Supreme Court decision integrating public schools, blacks and whites have been posturing. Both have learned new ways to irritate the other. Both have enjoyed turning the knife at every opportunity. Both have turned that knife often. Since the Simpson verdict, knife-turning has been refined to new highs -- or perhaps that should be new lows.
Folks, we have a real communications problem here.
Preaching to one another through mass media will change nothing. The time has come for one-on-one understanding. It's either that or by the year 2000 we will literally be shooting at one another on a daily basis. We could find ourselves living under guerrilla war rules, much like those in Bosnia.
Since it is the white population that is numerically much larger, and the white community that might lose the most should open warfare break out, it would behoove the whites to initiate an action that opens up communications. But it won't hurt the black population to start some similar action also. Because there is a solution.
That solution is the essence of this article, and is detailed later in the article.
The only way white people can overcome racially divisive thinking is to search out and find an African-American who will talk to them, address their questions, ask questions themselves -- and be brutally honest in the dialog. The major problem any white person faces in doing this is an age-old problem of acceptance and credibility. The major problem any black person faces in doing this is and age-old problem of credibility and acceptance.
In researching a book I wrote on affirmative action, I came in close contact, one-on-one, with a lot of African-Americans. Prior to researching the book I was merely another white liberal who donated money and name to civil rights. I was a text book civil rights activist who had seen a little action in the 60s. But I knew zip, nothing, zero about the way African-Americans process information. In short, I knew the "talk" of civil rights but knew nothing of the "walk."
The Simpson trial is a perfect micro-study of the vast gulf between our races and how we think along entirely different lines.
Take Detective Mark Fuhrman as a starting point. The following excerpt from a letter-to-the-editor fully illustrates the thinking and reaction of the vast, vast majority of white people: "The evidence was overpowering, yet because of one racist white policeman, they let the murderer go free."
If this was said once it was said a million times. Each time the same identical mistake is made, leaving the black community to realize once again that the white populace does not understand the situation. One three-letter word sets whites and blacks on opposite routes.
Black people have much closer knowledge of the police than white people. They have met the police personally far more often than a white person. Any given black person, regardless of his or her position or wealth, knows personally several black friends and acquaintances who have been stopped by police, questioned, arrested, searched and sometimes beaten or abused. Statistically 32 percent of all the black men age 20 to 29 throughout United States are now in jail. One third of black men in the prime of their life are in jail. The odds are that if you are black, you personally know one or more of them.
As a black person, you know that there is no singular cop who is racist. You realize that not all cops are racist, but you also know that there is no such thing as "one racist white police officer." Cops don't act like the Lone Ranger when they deal with black people. They come in pairs, they come in groups, they come sometimes in battalions. And if one of their ranks abuses a black person, the others historically help cover it up.
Mark Fuhrman boasted of cover-ups during his taped conversations. Judge Ito would not allow those excerpts to be played to the jury, but it made no difference. Any given African American juror serving on any given jury fully understands that there is never "one racist cop." There is never just one cop willing to tamper with the evidence. Again, Mark Fuhrman tells us that point blank. And any given black person personally knows of instances where cops (plural) doctored the evidence and lied in their testimony.
White people really do not understand this. White people do not have the same reference point from which to judge something. We refuse to believe that our men in blue would cover up a misdeed or become involved in tampering with evidence.
Therefore white people continue to talk in singular terms of "one racist cop." By accepting and repeating the singular philosophy, white people are unwittingly (in most cases) blowing on the coals of racial hate.
Here is another example of how black people view an incident versus how the white community views it. This example comes from Dallas, TX. It erupted just before the Simpson verdict came down and is still being played out as this is written.
Someone illegally tapped the phone line of Dan Peavy, a Dallas school board member. The phone tapper made a kind of witches stew by splicing several conversations together. The tape then made its anonymous way to other members of the board and some of the news media. On the tape, Peavy repeatedly uses of the word "nigger," usually preceded by the infamous F-word. It was an ugly, ugly sound bite of a racist speaking in uninhibited racist language.
Again, the singular term "one" was utilized by the white community. There was "just one racist" school board member. Other white board members were sure Peavy "would do the right thing," therefore none of them immediately called for his resignation. Peavy even attempted to deny that the remarks were his -- but he fessed up later in a miserable attempt to apologize.
The black community is talking about a conspiracy and a veil of silence from the white board members. They have a gut feeling that racism runs much deeper in the administration of Dallas' schools than one racist board member. Part of this comes from the admitted fact that white school board members acknowledge that in his private conversations with them, Peavy talked the same way to them as was captured on tape.
It was the black community that raised holy hell, finally forcing Peavy to resign. White Dallasites honestly want to believe that racism in the school systems starts and stops with Dan Peavy. The white community is far more incensed over the illegal phone tapping and the anonymous way the tape was delivered. The FBI has been called in to find the culprit.
On the other side of the coin, I know of a white building contractor in Dallas who genuinely wants to give work to minority sub-contractors. He seeks them out, he helps them financially and spiritually. Yet when the bids come in there are no black bids that meet the very fair, and even lenient, specifications. And he is often vilified by blacks as a racist contractor.
White people do not understand affirmative action. It is fair to say a substantial majority of white people view affirmative action as an evil foisted on them by the government and the black community to pay for past discrimination policies. The reality of the situation is that affirmative action is dead. The problem is what to do next.
Presidential candidate Phil Gramm says existing laws are good enough. Black leaders say, "We've been there, done that and it is unacceptable."
Racial tension exists in every community in America; every last metro area, mid-size market, village or town in America. Without exception.
White people aren't talking with black people. Blacks are not talking with whites. Both like to talk to one another through the media, through sound bites, through slurs and swipes on radio and within their own online computer forums. But they aren't talking with each other, one-on-one.
A white friend recently ask me, "Why do they (blacks) wear those eye-jarring African clothes and hats?" I was a little brusque saying, "Don't ask me -- ask them. And I really mean ask them face to face."
However . . . .
If you are wearing cowboy boots and a Stetson, don't be surprised at the look of disbelief on the black person's face when you ask about their wardrobe. If you are dripping in diamonds and pearls, don't be alarmed at the look of angst.
If you are man sporting a burr haircut exactly like you have worn for 25 years and are asking about "weird hair styles" African-Americans have, don't be surprised at the look of hilarity you receive.
If you are a woman talking to a black person, don't desperately clutch your purse then be surprised when the African-American turns her back and leaves.
If you ask in a patronizing, condescending manner why there is so much black crime, why so many black young men are in jail, don't be surprised when you get verbally punched out. Patronizing and condescending people historically have a hard time relating to 25% unemployment; poverty so severe that sometimes the only avenue for survival is drug dealing.
The friction factor between whites and blacks in enormous. It is fast approaching a point of no return.
For example, just prior to the O.J. Simpson jury verdict, ABC News took one of their nationwide polls. Look closely at this: 77 percent of the white people polled said OJ was guilty; 72 percent of black people said he was innocent. A totally inverted stance between white and black.
And this is neither a phenomenon of the Simpson trial nor a recent trend. On November 7, 1993, the Dallas Morning News did a poll with which I became quite familiar. One of the questions was, "Does John Wiley Price reflect the views of blacks?" It is a simple "yes or no" question about a black leader in Dallas who has taken on the police and fire departments, hospitals, schools, courts -- everyone and anyone. He is truly despised by most white people in Dallas. What the poll discovered was that 69 percent of the whites said "no" and 65 percent of the blacks said "yes." A nearly identical inversion of belief, but taken two years prior to the Simpson trial.
Folks, we have a real communications problem here.
There are hundreds of questions that white people need to ask black people, and vice versa. But to be effective it should be one-on-one. If a white person tells a black person, honestly and sincerely, how frightened we are walking the streets, the black person cannot deny the truth in this. And can probably offer some suggestions, some things to think about.
If two people will go through some conversation and learning cycles with each other, the denial on both sides will evaporate. Some realistic progress can be made.
How do you do this? How do two Americans traveling such divergent racial routes meet to have open discussions?
There aren't many ways to do it for the ordinary citizen. If we work with a person from the other race, we don't want to run the risk of spoiling a working relationship. If we know someone in one of our civic clubs, again we don't want to risk the inherent danger of opening up real dialog. It may not be right, but it is realistic.
I submit that the church is the best route available. If you are white, I would suggest that a small group of people in your church seek out a small group of people in a black church. Be careful not to make this a big debate. You don't want 25 people from your group meeting 25 people from their group. This will lead to monumental debate complete with denial, pain and irascibility.
Rather, I suggest four or five people from your church meet with four or five people from a black, church. A small group qualifies for one-on-one footing. Your object is simply to talk to one another about the current racial differences.
I suggest the pastor or priest of your church run interference and make initial contact with a pastor or priest of the black church. And do not think one meeting will do it. A commitment of 10 meetings might get you over the hump. Initially I would nix any thoughts that you might make a friend from someone in the other group. If it happens, fine. But if it doesn't, that's OK too. The intent and focus should be on how and why we think as we do and what can we do improve our understanding.
In some areas of the country, and Dallas is probably at the top of the list, there are white ministers who will flatly refuse to open communications to the black community. And again, vice versa. Their fear is that the lay leaders of their church will send them packing for even suggesting something so radical.
Solution: Find another church if you are really interested in bettering yourself and your community.
Learning to talk to and listen to each other is not simple. You can become angry, hurt, distraught, outraged, and fearful You will yourself shout, experience shallow breathing, and thump your fist. When honest communication begins to take hold, you will also laugh, smile, feel good and genuinely be interested in your counterpart.
Getting to the point where you can ask questions demands bite-your-tongue discipline in four areas. (1) When asking questions we must become listeners and learners when those questions are answered. (2) When discussing how your counterpart feels, remember that you are not the designated defender of the faith who must debate each point. (3) Recognize that both of you will do some tap dancing around the facts and feelings being exchanged. Don't fret about it. Honesty will eventually win out on both sides if you keep talking. (4) Realize that both of you can trade horror stories about racial relations. The real problem is in separating wheat from chaff, deceit from truth and fact from fiction in the horror stories.
When you and your one-on-one partners become relatively comfortable with one another, you will pick up on nuances, code words, buzz words, and out-and-out propaganda. But at this point, you will no longer be at the butt-end of the phrase both whites and blacks utter endlessly: "You don't understand." Instead, you will understand.
I have offered one way to accomplish some open communications. I now offer now a way to slam the door shut once and for all. Simply call your local talk radio host and vent your feelings. Listen attentively to others who do the same. Pay particular attention to, and repeat often, the themes of your host's monologues.
Talk radio is not an effective communications tool. Whether the host is liberal or conservative makes no difference. Talk radio hosts are paid to be advocates of only one agenda. There is no debate, no looking and listening to "the other side." Talk radio is the exact opposite of open discussion.
Open discussion is the only way to ease the gigantic rift between the white and black communities. It won't happen over night. It won't happen very quickly at all. The rift has been growing and growing for several years. But if it is not stemmed soon, there will be blood on the floor of the American dream.
The idea that shooting and killing will erupt between the races can be judged as, take your choice, radical, rabble-rousing, intimidating, threatening, idiotic, far-fetched and at least 100 other descriptions.
But I submit that it is already happening. We have come to accept the term "aggravated motorist" when talking about freeway and highway shootings. We are now accepting the rationale that these are caused by frustrated drivers irritated at someone's driving.
Look closely at the victims. Examine each of these stories carefully. In a recent freeway shooting in Dallas where a young black man was killed, the official judgment by the police was that the car with the black men in it was going too slow and an irritated, motorist snapped.
Was the killer annoyed at the way the victim's car was being driven, or was the person irritated at seeing several happy, animated, young African-American men in a car?
There have been questionable situations where a white person was killed and the official explanation was the familiar "aggravated motorist." I submit that some of these incidents are the beginning of a real fire fight between whites and blacks.
It is bad enough that many people of both races do not feel safe walking the streets. It will be a terrible ordeal when we feel the same trepidation on the freeways. I submit that the shooting has begun and we best get busy on closing this terrible racial wound in America.
