These Wounds I Suffer in the House of My Friends: Church as Site of White Racism

Continuing the previous post, this week researchers at Baylor University published a study finding that people who were primed with Christian words (e.g. Jesus, Bible, faith, Christ) demonstrated more covert and overt racism against African Americans than people who were not primed with Christian words.  In other words, people who are thinking about American Christianity (or thinking through a Christian frame, the study speculates) feel and express more anti-Black racism than people who are not thinking about Christianity.  The ABP news service, with a quotation by one of the study's authors, sums up the point nicely:

The study, published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, found that people subliminally "primed" with Christian words reported more negative attitudes about African-Americans than those primed with neutral words.

"What's interesting about this study is that it shows some component of religion does lead to some negative evaluations of people based on race," said Wade Rowatt, associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor, who led the study. 

 According to Rowatt, there is something about American Christianity that leads to whites' anti-black racism.  Rather than preventing white on black racism, white Christianity actually leads to (i.e. activates, maybe even produces) racism.

The study only subliminally primed people with Christian words and measured the effect of that incredibly minuscule stimulus.  That they found any effect at all is remarkable!  In reality, people are not subliminally primed with singular Christian words; they are overwhelmed with Christian words and symbols.  Extrapolating from the study, each Christian stimulus primes people for anti-Black sentiment.  If people in short laboratory studies in which they "heard" only one Christian word exhibit increased anti-Black racism, how much greater is the effect when people have been in church!!!  Given the flood of Christian symbols around us--crosses, t-shirts with verses, people praying over their food, "blessings" when we sneeze--it is no wonder people of color face white racism everywhere, all the time.

Of course, the Church is not the only central purveyor of white racism.  But the study is important because it indicates two critical things: 1) in the United States, Christianity and white racism reinforce one another; and 2) churches are sites where whites do racial harm and amplify racism.  White churches are not sites of racial harmony; they are places where people of color are wounded in the houses of their white friends (see Zechariah 13:6, from which I drew this post's title).     


I have many thoughts on this subject, but I will save most of them for another time.  Suffice it to say here, the white Church has a lot of work to do if it hopes to succeed at the "racial reconciliation" project many churches have taken up over the last half century.  Having worshiped and served in predominantly white churches, I can give innumerable first hand accounts of the covert and overt racism the researchers found.  In one instance, a white evangelical with whom I was living actually said to me "if you were my slave, it would be fine." My experiences are not unique.  People of color who have taken the leap of faith to join white churches usually find those churches to be houses of racialized pain, and suffer many wounds as a result.  The book, Reconciliation Blues, has many accounts documenting that fact.

These Wounds I Suffered in the House of My Friends...

I credit my mother with the great majority of my Bible teaching.  She bought me my first Bible when I was 14 years old.  She drove me to Bible study for the 2 years following.  She taught me memory scriptures from my earliest days, and so beautifully sang gospel music that I still hum her songs to comfort my soul when it is troubled.  Mom gathered the family for Bible reading and prayer periodically.  She also called me to help pray through the family's toughest times.  My spirituality is mostly a reflection of hers.  Nevertheless, the two verses my father taught me reverberate in my mind as often as all the others.  One verse is about having to show yourself to be friendly if you hope to make friends.  The other is the subject of this entry. 

And one will say to him, "What are these wounds between your arms?" Then he will say, "Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."  --Zechariah 13:6

 Despite being raised in New Jersey, my father has a Southerner's gift for memorable phrases.  His sayings, like, "What they do with you, they'll do to you" have served me well.  His quotations of Zechariah 13:6 were given like an old country saying, and I have internalized its wisdom accordingly.  The context for Zechariah 13 is God's prophecy of a devastating military defeat for Judah, and the verse itself centers on a false prophet whom the Jews reject.  Again, I never learned the context for the verse.  In fact, I don't recall Dad ever giving a citation for it all--beyond it being in the Bible.  So, I've learned the scripture and used it as folk wisdom.  Even still, the word of the Lord is never void. 

We've all heard the saying, "you only hurt the ones you love."  Standing alone, Zechariah 13:6 pretty much means the same thing, but from the victim's perspective.  Paraphrased, "I am only hurt by the ones I love."  Through my many hours of therapy  :)  I almost exclusively talk about the "wounds I suffered in the house of my friends."  Though the events are years, even decades, old, I spend countless hours rehashing hurtful incidents--incidents that refuse my best efforts to bury them beyond my memory.  Usually, folks had no malice when they hurt me, but the wounds are so deep that I am still tending to them all these years later. 

The scripture speaks to that sentiment.  The wounds the false prophet bares are actually from his mother and father, who attempted to kill him because of what he spoke (Zech. 13:3).  Though no one tried to kill me, the wounds are so deep and obvious to everyone that it appears the wounds came from a murder attempt.  I'm sure everyone relates to that.  We all carry very deep wounds.   

The point being, the wounds we suffer in supposedly safe and nurturing places hurt the worst and mark us for years.  As Paul Simon said in "Graceland", "Everybody sees you're blown apart.  Everybody hears the wind blow."  Simon concludes by saying, "I'm going to Graceland."  My next post demonstrates why the metaphorical "Graceland," i.e. Heaven, represented by the Church, may not be a sanctuary for safety.  When it comes to race, white Churches apparently function as "the house of your friends." 

Minions

Here is an odd, but very respectful and pleasant, email exchange I had with an MLB reporter yesterday.  Of course, yesterday was MLB Opening Day!  While I was searching for a way to watch the games, I ran across an ad on MLB.tv for their video package.  [The corrected version is now posted.]  Our email exchange will make the issue obvious:

FYI: This is a quote from your story/ad for MLB.tv ("'Baseball's Everywhere' in 2010..."): "As always, the best way to get to know more about MLB.TV is to simply ask any of the minions who consume the National Pastime this way."  Assuming you don't mean to insult MLB fans by calling us "minions," you may want to correct your post. 

  I figured this was just a comical typo...To my surprise, the author replied...

I appreciate this email, Glenn. I have used that word occasionally over a 30-year media career and always thought of it as a synonym for "masses" for whatever reason. Not sure I'll be able to have that replaced in the MLB.TV story because we are engulfed in so much content amid the first week, but going forward I definitely will take this into account. Great call. Thanks.

He later added:

That is being changed now. Thanks again.

 This all made me chuckle a bit, until the thought crossed my mind...how long before the reporter's definition of minions as a synonym for "masses" becomes accurate?  How long before "masses" is synonymous with the dictionary definition of "minions":

min·ion /ˈmɪnyən/ Show Spelled[min-yuhn]       –noun

1.a servile follower or subordinate of a person in power.

 Given that no one has corrected the reporter on his use of the term during a "30 year career," perhaps we have already crossed over from masses to minions.  If we haven't yet, the Texas Board of Education is determined to finish the job. 

"The Racist Generation" (Part 2)

My close friends and colleagues, Jenni and Kristen, added constructive comments about my "Rescuing the Racist Generation" post. You can read their comments at Racism Review. Below is my reply to them. The discussion greatly advances the idea of "the racist generation" and begins to more fully detail Joe Feagin's concept of The White Racial Frame (2010).

I'm very interested in what you all think about the discussion. As a Black man, I do not know the intricacies of white racial dialogue as well as a white person may. Kristen used her experiences as a white woman to challenge some of my assumptions. I welcome all of your comments, especially those that are similarly challenging.

Kristen and Jenni,

I think your comments speak to one another, so I’ll try to combine my response. I think the two issues/factors we need to add are: inconsistent rhetoric and (un)consciousness.

We all agree that millennials/”colorblind” whites need a “racist other” to compare themselves too. I suggested that The Racist Generation is their tool. Kristen suggests young whites use (un)known others, regardless of generation. Jenni asks how rescuing individuals/blocs plays into all this. Does rescuing deny whites the “racist other/past” necessary for their colorblind identity?

My answer is that we’re all right. To coin a phrase, based on “abstract liberalism,” I suggest whites use “abstract racism” as a means for handling all of the problems we’re talking about.

By “Abstract Racism,” I mean the white tendency to maintain a concept of a racist past/other that conceptualizes, reifies, and implicates a “racist generation” without populating that generation with particular individuals.

To “flesh out the rules” as Jenni asked, I still say whites are rescuing the racist generation. To incorporate Kristen’s insights, whites may not always see THEIR OWN grandfather as implicated. But they do implicate an unknown hoard of whites from grandpa’s generation. This “unknown hoard” is so abstract as to be fairytale-like. Unfortunately, this abstract generation (i.e. The Racist Generation) coexisted with grandpa. Consequently, history [unfairly] lumps grandpa in with this racist generation and denies him his proper place in the meta-narrative of progressive and benevolent white goodness/supremacy. This [unfair] circumstance (i.e. miss characterizing grandpa) necessitates taking steps to rescue the racist generation (i.e. as a collective) while keeping the idea of a racist past in tact.

In other words, whites want both narratives to be true at the same time: 1) there was a racist past in which whites, who were not as morally advanced as contemporary whites, were racist; 2) my family member existed during that time, but is not responsible for the racist era because s/he lacked the animus/power/significance/etc to have been a criticizable racist.

Therefore:
3) contemporary whites need to rescue grandpa from this unfair characterization, which requires remaking the historical narrative about the racist time/generation.

The Conclusions/Implications:
1) Taken as a whole, what happens is that: A) “colorblind” whites construct an abstract racist other/generation against which to favorably compare themselves; B) this abstract racist other/generation does not include a particular white’s personal loved one, thus whites effectively rescue their own family members from “the racist generation” without threatening the concept; C) as all whites exempt their own family members, the aggregate effect is that “the racist generation” exists without any actual members; therefore D) whites retain a racist generation/past/other for comparison while denying contemporary people of color any tangible targets for redress.

In that way, INDIVIDUAL whites from The Racist Generation are rescued from direct accusation. But more work must be done to restore the narrative of progressive, benevolent white goodness/supremacy.

That work is necessary because all whites depend on the narrative to justify their racial privileges. An identifiable racist generation in the 20th century disrupts the narrative and threatens all whites’ self-identity and justifications of privilege. Therefore, whites rescue the COLLECTIVE racist generation by remaking history (i.e. the new school board regulations) in a way that makes the racist generation a progressive part of white history–redefined as people who took appropriate steps to “protect America” against illegitimate others/radicals and eventually won that battle, as evidenced by the Conservative Reemergence.

The combination of rescuing the racist generation both INDIVIDUALLY and COLLECTIVELY produces inconsistencies, as Jenni mentioned. Colorblind rhetoric is full of logical and discursive inconsistencies. Rescuing the racist generation from blame, while using it for colorblind discourse, is just another illustration of that point.

This duel project of rescuing the racist generation, both as individuals and as a collective, also incorporates Kristen’s critiques. It accounts for the “racial innocence” narratives white families tell and the general ignorance whites have about institutional racism.

At the same time, the project demonstrates why whites are so emotionally invested and politically committed to the rescuing efforts evidenced by the Texas Board of Ed. Rescuing the Collective racist generation is necessary for the essential narrative of white supremacy that is at the core of white self-identity.

Much of this motivation–and the emotions under-girding it–lies beyond the realm of many whites’ consciousness at times. Quotes from the TBOE sessions and quotes from Two Faced Racism demonstrate that whites are very aware of continuing racism and their own racist motives sometimes. But that is not true all of the time. As Charles Lawrence, among many others, points out, white racism is often unconscious and we must account for that in our analysis and resistance strategies.

I would argue that the project of rescuing the racist generation depends, in large part, upon whites’ unconscious racism–e.g. emotional attachment to the supremacy narrative; lack of dissonance over the logical inconsistency of needing a “racist other” while systemically depopulating “the racist other.” The lack of dissonance is accomplished by assigning blame for past racism to a concept (the racist generation) that has no discernible membership. Whites effectively reify the racist generation as a concept, divest it of actual human membership, then invest it with dictatorial powers and responsibility for the racist past.

As I have said, the sum total is that whites rescue their loved ones (i.e. the racist generation) while maintaining a conceptual racist generation/past for “colorblind” comparison.

Health Care - Continued

My buddy [heretofore, "Buddy"] and I are continuing our health care debate. In an omitted section, he asserted that the health care law is not about health care at all, but rather government intrusion. He also suggested medicare/medicaid are enough. I said the law is about health care and that everyone, him included, wants the government to enforce health care laws and provide minimum coverage. [That's a bad synopsis, but oh, well...]

Buddy replied:

Glenn, don't be deceived my friend! Like I said before, this has nothing to do with health care. This is a ploy to give government even more control. More surveillance. More security. This is just one step in a multi-step process resulting in more government involvement.
With a "free" health care system, this just becomes another benefit to the illegal immigrant.
Look at whats happening already in border towns in Arizona and Texas...uncontrollable crime.
With more [improper/unregulated] immigration, we'll see even greater crime in more cities.
With greater crime the government will have to institute martial law...and POLICE IT'S OWN PEOPLE.
i.e. Loss of more rights.
This could have all been prevented WITH LIMITED GOV'T. Our government doesn't solve problems, it hasn't solved a problem in decades. They create problems, then sell ideas to us. ("deception").
Oh, and ps. It's not a good idea to begin your argument telling me what I want. I DON'T WANT our government's healthcare. I want to work hard, get paid well, and use my hardearned dollar to purchase healthcare in a highly competitive field. Our healthcare insurance companies aren't allowed to compete the way they should. We never gave the free market a chance...and we call ourselves "American." Shame.

I just responded:

Dearest Buddy, I am not at all deceived about this bill or its purpose. If you remember, you and your dad challenged me back in 1992/3 to know exactly what each party stands for and what is in each bill before Congress [the debate then was gun laws]. Since that day, I have done the work to be informed about every major bill. I am forever grateful to you for making me ground my ideology and arguments in political reality.

For that reason, I am determined not to talk past you and just assert dogma. I truly believe that this bill is about health care. I also believe that your actions and self-proclaimed wants indicate support for this bill.

If you want to work hard and buy health insurance, that implies that you want your insurance policy to be enforced if you get sick. There was no guarantee that the insurance company would honor your policy before. This health care bill gives that guarantee. If the government did not enforce contracts, including insurance policies, large-scale industry could not exist. Government actions, such as this health care law, prop up private industry; they do not aid any eventual "government takeover." 

Part of allowing/forcing insurance companies to "compete the way they should" means preventing companies from competing unfairly by selling fraudulent merchandise. Fraudulent merchandise would include health insurance policies that are not honored when people get sick. The new health reform law actually promotes the "highly competitive field" you explicitly claim to want.

Finally, while you and I agree that government's surveillance powers are dangerous and growing, I am not sure this health care law is the biggest threat on that front. The new law forces people into PRIVATE insurance companies and keeps doctor-patient privacy laws in tact. The new law ensures records are streamlined between doctors, but not shared with the government.

P.S. As someone who lives in Texas and has done much work with undocumented immigrants, including in border towns, I think I am best-positioned to speak about what's happening. Please let me assure you and everyone else, undocumented immigrants are by and large extremely good people. They are no more crime-prone than white Americans or any other group of Americans. In fact, they are generally more crime averse because even the most ridiculous, petty offense could separate them from their families for years. Undocumented immigrants are people. My Christian faith demands that I recognize that and, at minimum, provide them with health care. Fellow volunteers and I have worked with many people, undocumented immigrants, who died and left small children, simply because the U.S. would not provide basic health care. Again, as a human, and certainly as a Christian, I cannot accept that situation.

And added:

To be clear, my point is that the health care law is not about government intrusion. The law is actually necessary for the "free-market," private-sector capitalism that your comments suggest you favor.

If we're going to have healthy competition, we must have ground rules and a referee to enforce the rules. That's what health care reform gives us.

Health Care

An old buddy of mine wrote this on his Facebook page:

Hey obama - I'm Pro-Choice!! I'd like to CHOOSE my healthcare!! Thanks for stripping me of my freedom to do so, jerk!

Someone countered: "You can still choose your healthcare." To which my buddy replied, "Um... except for now you're forced to have it. Choose one: Forced Enforcement or Freedom."

Then I chimed in:

You're only "forced" to have something that: 1) you want anyway, and 2) you already had.

Some people may have chosen (and still may choose) not to have a health insurance POLICY, but that is only under the condition that they know if something catastrophic happened (e.g. a bad car accident), they are guaranteed to get emergency treatment--treatment that is only guaranteed b/c the government requires hospitals to treat people and hospitals know that the government will pick up the bill if the injured person is uninsured. If we did not already guarantee that kind of care, everyone--including you and the others opposed to this bill--would immediately get an insurance policy to cover it. So, you already had taxpayer funded, universal health care. We're just improving your benefits....Your welcome!

Opposition to social justice and corporate egalitarian efforts is always conditioned on privilege--privilege derived from government-enforced unity with everyone, including the poor and disadvantaged.

By the way, before I could even post this [within a literal 2 minutes], someone new [a white man] already responded to me with racially problematic overtones: "You have no choice slave!"

I imagine he would deny his racism, but it's hard to believe that the language and imagery he calls up were not sparked by seeing such bold comments next to the only Black face in the conversation.

Justice of the Lord

Reading Habakkuk, parallels between Habakkuk's description of the Chaldeans (i.e. Babylonians) and the U.S. are inescapable for someone who works in social justice.  Equally inescapable is the relevance to our current condition of God's warning concerning the future of the Chaldeans.

Habakkuk opens by pointing out that injustice runs rampant in Israel, and calling on God to faithfully enforce God's law and end unrighteousness.  God responds by saying God will punish Israel by letting the Chaldeans conquer Israel.  A baffled Habakkuk questions God, noting that the Chaldeans are a wicked people.  The Chaldeans build their nation by conquering and dominating other peoples.  They do not worship God.  In fact,

[T]heir justice and authority originate with themselves (1:7)...[and their] strength is their god (1:11)  [The Chaldeans] bring all of them [other nations and people groups] up with a hook...and gather them in their fishing net.  Therefore, they [Chaldeans] rejoice and are glad.  They offer a sacrifice to their net  Because through these things their catch is large, and their food is plentiful.  Will they therefore empty their net and continually slay nations without sparing?"  (Hab. 1:15-17). 

In other words, the Chaldeans are unworthy of God's blessing because they built their nation on conquering other peoples.  In modern language, the reference to Chaldeans "offering a sacrifice to their net" means they set up a military-industrial complex, devoting public funds to an ever-expanding and dominant weapons and war-dependent industry.  Questioning God's supposed commitment to justice, Habakkuk asks, "will they empty their net and continually spare nations without sparing?"  In other words, "how long will you let them get away with this, God?!"

This parallels the United States in obvious ways.  White colonists and Americans built this nation on the conquest of other peoples and theft of their resources.  A quick rundown: genocide of Native Americans and theft of their land.  Every inch of the U.S. is stolen land.  Then, the theft of African peoples and theft of their labor and humanity of their lives (i.e. American slavery).  Later, the violent conquering of Mexicans (remember what happened after the Alamo?) and theft of Mexican land (from which I write this blog).  Finally, the coercive domination of Asian immigrants (initially limiting Asian immigration to men, which denied immigrants access to their families and the opportunity to make families here; Europe's global reach made Asian immigration to the U.S. barely semi-voluntary). 

Like Babylon, the U.S. "offers sacrifices to its net" in the form of the military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned us about.  If you haven't already, please watch the movie, Why We Fight.  You will learn that weapons-producing companies placed parts of their businesses in every congressional district so that they can strong-arm Congress into steadily increasing military spending by claiming that any cut in spending is a "threat to jobs."  No congressperson is safe from that critique.  You might also notice that the most authoritative news programs (e.g. "Meet the Press") are sponsored by Boeing, which makes military planes.  You cannot give news that challenges the need for war if weapons-producers are your primary sponsors.  The people of the United States cannot make informed decisions about wars if they only hear from the weapons-producing industry.

God responds to Habakkuk's complaint by assuring him that God is just and will punish nations who behave like the Chaldeans.  Consider God's answer in Habakkuk Chapter 2:

Write down the vision and make it plain...For the revelation awaits an appointed time; it speaks of the end, and will not prove false (2:2-3)....Because he [arrogant nations like the Chaldeans] is as greedy as the grave and is never satisfied, he gathers to himself all the nations and takes captive all the peoples.  Will not all of them taunt him with ridicule and scorn, saying "Woe to him who piles up stolen goods and makes himself wealthy by extortion!  How long must this go on?  Will not your debtors suddenly arise?  Will they not wake up and make you tremble?  Then you will become their victim.  Because you have plundered many nations, the people who are left will plunder you.  For you have shed man's blood, you have destroyed lands and cities and everyone in them.  

 This is a stark warning to Americans.  Even the child molester and slaver, Thomas Jefferson, understood this point:

For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference for that in which he is born to live and labor for another; in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as it depends on his individual endeavors to the evanishment of the human race, or entail his miserable condition on the generations preceding from him....And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed from their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are the gift of God?  That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?  Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God just; that his justice cannot sleep forever; that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events; that it may become probable by supernatural interference (Notes on the State of Virginia Query XIV).  

 Jefferson, like Nebuchadnezzar, had brief moments of sanity in which he recognized God's justice and his own condemnation.  In his only book, Jefferson both advocates for slavery and anticipates God's wrath on the country for this (and I would add more) injustice.  Americans must learn these lessons and engage in social justice now before God is required to honor God's word and exact justice.  I am afraid that Americans will follow their founding father's example.  Habakkuk and Jefferson call to us from the grave, telling us to pursue justice.  Hopefully, we will not be like the brothers of the tortured rich man.  The rich man, a former oppressor suffering in hell, was denied even temporary work-release from his jail because Abraham realized that no message would convince his fellow oppressors to abandon oppression.  As Abraham said, "They have the law and the prophets...If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

We, the church and body of the living God, are those who are supposedly convinced by one who rose from the dead.  We must demonstrate our faith by turning from oppression to social justice, and pray God and those we have oppressed grant us mercy.  Let us heed and make true the words that another prophet, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., preached 45 years ago this week: "How long will prejudice bind the vision of men....How long will justice be crucified, and truth bear it?....It will not be long, because truth crushed to earth will rise again.  How long? Not long, because no lie can live forever.  How long? Not long, because "you shall reap what you sew."