Baltimore Women’s March Gathering Rally, January 2018.This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Author: Elvert Barnes from Baltimore, Maryland, USA
If we learn of yet another murder of a person of color by police and do nothing about it, we are partly responsible for the next murder.
If we refuse to recognize the costs to everyone of the centuries of oppression, denied opportunity, income inequality, enforced poverty, and deliberately-induced hatred experienced by some of us, we are endangering the future of all our nation’s children.
If we blame peaceful protesters for the violence perpetrated by right-wing infiltrators in their midst, we are supporting the infiltrators and encouraging their violence.
If we support “law and order” over peace and social justice, we are promoting fascism at the expense of democracy.
If we “talk a good ballgame” regarding the evils of racism, but do nothing to end it, we are facilitating the next injustice.
If we take the knee once to show support for resistance to racism but do nothing more, we need to look harder for ways to make a real difference.
If we label protesters “terrorists” and let the government treat them accordingly, we are not only undermining First Amendment rights for everyone, but also empowering govenment terrorism against anyone (of any color) seen as a threat to the wielders of power.
So what can we do?
We can, for example, arm ourselves with facts-e.g., click here
We can also learn and share what white people can do to deal with the racism plaguing this continent since the first gun-toting white Europeans arrived here:
[Here’s just one example from that list: “Google whether your local police department currently outfits all on-duty police officers with a body-worn camera and requires that the body-worn camera be turned on immediately when officers respond to a police call. If they don’t, write to your city or town government representative and police chief to advocate for it.” ] Check out the others.
[Today’s hint: Universal education for development and critical thinking are better ideas than Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) programs.]
Chad Brown* with youth at the Owyhee River in southeast Oregon. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Author:Bureau of Land Management Oregon and Washington from Portland, America
by Alice LoCicero
If communities want to help youth to evolve into responsible, self-sufficient, and non-violent adults, they have a variety of scientifically supported programs to draw from. These do not have to be fancy, expensive programs. Big Brother/Big Sister programs have been shown to be effective.
Indeed, numerous programs and approaches oriented toward youth development and critical thinking are well-supported ways to assist youth in the transition to responsible adulthood. But: they must be available universally, not targeted to some community chosen on demographic, cultural, or religious grounds.
Perhaps most important, the application of these scientifically supported types of programs must be education-based, not enforcement-based.
Law enforcement at all levels has potential to help communities (although the record of law enforcement in relation to communities of color is abysmal). Unfortunately, even the best law enforcement professionals have only a few options at their disposal—all of them involving accusation, criminalization, and punishment, and thus all of them are useless for the purposes of promoting the developent of socially-responsible adults.
Students must have the opportunity to think a wide variety of thoughts—none can be criminalized—while coming to their own commitment to a point of view. Criticism of the status quo—long encouraged in adolescents–must not be criminalized or reported to the police. Rather, kids who make intelligent critiques of the status quo must be helped to find active, non-violent ways to effectively create change.
We cannot predict who will become a violent white supremacist, but we can, and should, help all kids to transition successfully to becoming thoughtful, responsible, effective, and non-violent adults.
*Chad Brown explains, ‘I came from a broken home…I ended up going down a bad path, I got involved with gangs.’ He credits a police officer from the Big Brothers and Big Sisters Program with putting him on the right path to college and service in the military. After his service concluded and his education was complete..the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) began to manifest themselves. Then, Brown said, a friend took him fishing. He was hooked [and]…got the idea to start a non-profit. Soul River Inc. was born—an organization that seeks to employ U.S. veterans as mentors to inner city youth and to connect them both with the outdoors.” Story & Photos by Larry Moore, BLM. From Wikimedia Commons.
Crowds of anti-Trump and pro-Trump protesters meet at the Minnesota State Capitol. March 4, 2017, This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Author: Fibonacci Blue from Minnesota, USA.
by Roy Eidelson
Trump’s high-profile attacks on the protesting NFL players who “take a knee” give direction and inspiration to his authoritarian supporters. Using the flag and anthem as compelling but deceptive props, he and his surrogates smear critics as inauthentic, ungrateful, and unpatriotic Americans whose views and preferences undermine the country’s greatness. The onslaught against these athletes is just a microcosm of the dishonest offensives that target the broader Black Lives Matter movement. For instance, former Fox News star Bill O’Reilly told his TV audience that the movement is “essentially a hate America group.” Current network kingpin Sean Hannity compared Black Lives Matter to the Ku Klux Klan. And frequent Fox guest Rudy Giuliani argued that the group is “inherently racist” and “puts a target on the back of police.”
The reality is quite different. Launched by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi after the killing of teenager Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman back in 2012, Black Lives Matter is “an ideological and political intervention” and “an affirmation of Black folks’ humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.” The group’s policy recommendations include criminal justice reforms; demilitarization of local police forces; community oversight in cases of police misconduct; greater investments in education, jobs, and health services; and a commission to study reparations for harms suffered by descendants of slaves. Fortunately, despite ongoing right-wing efforts at misrepresentation, a Pew Research Center poll from last summer shows that far more Americans support the movement than oppose it—and this is especially true among younger adults.
But overt racism isn’t the sole engine that drives opposition to Black Lives Matter and the NFL player protests. Like every social movement, these efforts represent a threat to those who benefit most from the status quo. Atop that list are Trump himself and other tremendously wealthy Americans who choose to exploit their political power in order to advance selfish interests at the expense of the greater good. For them, billionaire tax cuts are worth any price and outspoken celebrities, including professional athletes, are a serious annoyance. That’s because they turn the public’s attention away from the mass consumerism that one-percenters work hard to cultivate and also give voice to the mistreatment of millions who, in light of their circumstances, might otherwise never be heard. In short, authoritarians and plutocrats find common ground and shared purpose in the ruthless betrayal of democratic principles and equal justice under the law.
Pro-Donald Trump rally in Washington, D.C., March 4, 2017. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Author: Ted Eytan from Washington, DC.
by Roy Eidelson
Note from Kathie MM: The theme of engaging peace, since its inception, has been “From study to action . . . Choosing peace for good.” Dr. Eidelson’s two-part essay, like his earlier ones (e.g., see here , and here ) illustrates effectively how psychological research studies can help us understand how ordinary people can become supporters of dangerous people and policies that threaten not only democracy and human rights but also classic ethical principles such as the Golden Rule. As for action, engaging peace’s goal has always been to support nonviolent resistance to the violence so often embodied in the isms–racism, ethnocentrism, sexism, fascism, etc. (and, consort to all of them, militarism). The insights in this article should help you do your part.
Authoritarians, Plutocrats, and the Fight for Racial Justice, Part 1
by Roy Eidelson
On the campaign trail, Donald J. Trump routinely lashed out at protesters brazen enough to disrupt his choreographed rallies. In Birmingham, Alabama, he shouted, “Get him out of here. Throw him out!” The next day he added, “Maybe he should have been roughed up.” In Burlington, Vermont, Trump ordered his security personnel to “Throw them out into the cold…Don’t give them their coats. No coats! Confiscate their coats.” In Las Vegas, Nevada, he told the crowd, “I’d like to punch him in the face” and reminisced about earlier days when demonstrators would be “carried out on stretchers.”
Trump’s belligerent stance toward dissent provides context for the National Football League’s decision last week: players on the field will now be required to stand during the national anthem. In adopting this restrictive policy, billionaire owners of professional sports franchises have chosen to serve as Trump’s newest security guards, responsible for keeping all reminders of today’s racial injustice and police brutality as far from the fifty-yard-line as possible. Not surprisingly, Trump was quick to publicly endorse the change: “You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn’t be playing, you shouldn’t be there, maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.”
Such pronouncements from the most powerful person in the world are jaw-dropping. Yet Trump’s strongman antics haven’t actually changed very much from his days inflaming the crowds—“Lock her up! Lock her up!”—in Birmingham, Burlington, Las Vegas, and beyond. What is different now, however, is that President Trump sees the entire country—over three-hundred million strong—as his own gigantic arena. Those who share his intolerant, racist, and plutocratic agenda are always welcome to participate in his round-the-clock “Make America Great Again” soapbox performances. For anyone else, the gates are closed. The alternatives he offers range from disregard to demonization to deportation.
Regrettably, Trump’s divisive language and outlandish policy prescriptions resonate well with the many Americans who give undue and uncritical support to those in positions of power. Excessive deference makes us surprisingly easy targets for manipulative appeals designed to stoke our fear, distrust, and contempt of others who are “different.” Indeed, a psychological mindset called right-wing authoritarianism, characterized by a strong tendency to condemn anyone who questions established authority, is more common than we might wish.
Psychologist Bob Altemeyer has identified three specific markers of this mindset. The first is authoritarian submission, which involves strict obedience toward the designated leaders of a group. The second is authoritarian aggression, which takes the form of deep hostility toward those who appear to fall short of the group’s rigid standards. The third marker is conventionalism, which revolves around dutifully honoring and observing the group’s traditions and norms.
Right-wing authoritarians—members of the neo-Nazi, white supremacist “alt-right” are perhaps today’s most extreme examples—consider group boundaries to be sacrosanct. They value conformity and find diversity alarming. For them, clear and firm borders protect those inside the circle from those who are outside and are deemed undeserving of inclusion. Research has linked this psychological profile to ugly prejudices—including toward people of color, immigrants, those who are unemployed, and people with disabilities. But the specific prejudices aren’t entirely fixed. Since these individuals submissively look to their leaders to tell them which groups to reject, they’re primed to change course or focus when directed to do so.
