I drive a Chevy Tahoe that’s supposed to average 17 miles-per-gallon according to EPA estimates. But between my lead foot and the fact that no one under the age of 65 actually averages that number, I get around 14.5 MPG. I’m also a firm believer that humans contribute to climate change, and more specifically, that by driving a car with poor gas mileage, I am one of those humans.
In some ways, I’m a hypocrite. In other ways, I realize it’s not realistic to spend all of your time doing everything you can to combat issues you’re against. No one person can do everything good 100% of the time. We’re human. But the objective is to get as reasonably close to 100% as we can, and the first step to getting there is to recognize and admit the ways you’re contributing toward problems.
I can admit my role in contributing toward climate change, regardless of how small that contribution is. From there, I can come up with ways to lessen my impact. I could buy a more fuel-efficient car, stop using a car and just bike, or do other things to offset the harm my car is doing. But there has to be that initial understanding of how you are contributing to the problem in order to find a solution.
Such is the case with racism and white supremacy. If you have no idea that you are contributing to it or are in denial of your role in it, any hope of solving the problem is lost.
The same way driving my car contributes to the larger issue of climate change, supporting politicians and policies that harm women, minorities, LGBTs, the poor, and other marginalized groups contributes to the larger issue of white supremacy.
I have my reasons for driving the car I do: I’m tall and can’t fit comfortably in smaller cars; I have a family and need the space; I love speed and prefer cars with good pickup; and I personally think it’s a great looking truck. And I certainly understand that people have their reasons for supporting the Republican Party: They typically advocate for larger military budgets than Democrats do; they typically advocate for lower taxes; they are typically against more immigration (of people of color); and they generally advocate for a smaller government and less regulation. But just as my reasons for contributing toward climate change with my SUV are selfish and personal, so are the reasons for supporting white supremacy through the Republican Party.
A larger military, lower taxes, less immigration, and smaller government all benefit wealthy, white men at the expense of marginalized groups. This is white supremacy: The system that benefits wealthy, white men and keeps them in power at the expense of marginalized groups.
I know when a lot of people think of white supremacy, they think of white hoods, or now, Tiki torches. That type of white supremacy is only the visible part of the tumor of white supremacy. You see the Tiki torch white supremacy because the rest of that tumor is getting so big that it starts protruding from America’s body and causing issues you can no longer ignore. The rest of that white supremacist mass lying under the surface that most of us are either unaware of or just try to ignore is conservatism and the Republican Party.
If the United States government maintains policies that benefit wealthy, white men, while hurting minorities (as it has since the country was founded), that only further empowers the Tiki white supremacists to come out of the shadows. By maintaining these harmful policies, the government is openly justifying the extremist white supremacist idea that this country is theirs, since the government is also engaged in policies that harm minorities. They are the same cancer. The institutional white supremacy fuels the extremism by sharing a common enemy: Minorities.
It’s easy to call out Nazis and say they’re wrong and don’t represent the Republican Party, and then go back to supporting the same political party and ideas that gave birth to those Nazis in the first place. By doing that, all you’re doing is attempting to slice off the visible part of the tumor, and that won’t work. It’ll grow back. All while the invisible part of the tumor–that you neglected to treat–grows larger and more dangerous. It’s the institutional part of white supremacy that needs the most attention, since without it, the extremists have no fuel. They will have no institutional support to prop them up. Shrink conservatism, and you shrink the extremism.
Barack Obama’s election in 2008 unintentionally gave a jolt of life to conservatives and white supremacy, not because of anything Obama actively did (other than winning the Presidency), but simply because of what he represented: A threat to white supremacy. He was the signal to white supremacy that if we don’t wake up, we’ll have less power and–heaven forbid–have to share this country as equals with a diverse, non-white group of fellow humans. And so that tumor of conservatism grew, and with it, the extremism.
Recognizing how the two ends of white supremacy (institutional and extremist) are connected is crucial in understanding the harm individuals cause by supporting it. If I don’t understand how my car’s emissions cause harm to our environment, there’s no way I would even think about getting a more fuel-efficient car or bother to help minimize climate change in any way. The white supremacy maintained by conservatism and the Republican Party is harmful in itself, but it also gives birth to right-wing extremism on top of that. Conservatives must recognize the harm they support, regardless of any personal benefits they may get from supporting the Republican Party.
One byproduct of this resurgence of conservatism since the Tea Party movement and birtherism started under Obama is that people on the left have, possibly for the first time in history on a large scale, been able to widely call out conservatives as racists. Whether it be with the active Trump supporters, or the staunch conservatives who don’t really like Trump (but are loyal to their party), people on the left have noted the racism inherent in supporting policies that harm minorities.
After being relatively silent for centuries, this massive onslaught of finally telling conservatives about themselves–in addition to the threat to white supremacy itself–has elicited conservatives to push back offensively, defensively recoil, or both. The offensive push back took the form of transforming an entire political party into a strictly anti-leftist party whose only policy is to upset liberals and minorities. Hence, the walking embodiment of white privilege and antithesis of Barack Obama being elected president.
But, it’s the defensive recoil that has many questioning, however briefly, if they really are racist and a bad person. Many conservatives are now going through a major internal conflict to reconcile the idea that they are a good person while still supporting a party they are being told is racist and harmful to people they believe they are not racist toward.
The most common defensive recoil move is the Billboard #1 hit, “But, I Have Black Friends.” It’s an attempt to justify their support of racism by suggesting they can’t be racist because _______ (fill in the blank). It’s like me saying I can’t possibly be harming the environment with my giant SUV because I recycled a few times. I mean, it’s cool that you have a black friend (who probably wouldn’t claim you if you asked them to), but that’s got nothing to do with you contributing to white supremacy in other, much more harmful ways.
The mental gymnastics conservatives are going through right now to try and keep their affiliation to essentially a white supremacist organization–The Republican Party–and hold onto the idea that they are a good person is out of control. I could twist my mind into knots to try and justify my ownership of a gas-guzzling SUV with the idea that I’m not harming the environment in any way, but I prefer not to do that. Instead, I’m owning up to my contribution to the problem, and working toward a better solution. One such solution is that I support politicians and policies that promote clean energy and help the issue of climate change in far more drastic ways than my ownership of even a water-powered car ever could. I also support politicians who promote clean energy and give companies incentives to create powerful, large, more fuel-efficient vehicles so that I can still have my power, not have to drive in the fetal position, and help save the environment at the same time. Win-win.
With conservatives, it’s often the reverse: They localize their help, and broaden their hurt. They purchase the hybrid car, and then support a politician who is against clean energy. They treat black people with respect out in the street, then support a politician who helps throw thousands of black people in jail for marijuana possession. At some point, you have to take a step back and ask how much good are you really doing? And are you only doing those individual things to assuage your guilt of consistently supporting a party you know does harm to people?
A lot of people genuinely may not know they are harming others by supporting conservative ideas. Others may know deep down, but try to deny it in order to live with themselves. And the rest actively know it and don’t care. For the folks who don’t know it, ignorance is not an excuse in the information age. Step outside of your bubble and talk with people who are impacted by these policies. If you don’t care to reach out to them and find out if you’re actively doing more harm than good, then you’ve answered you own question and it’s obvious that doing good isn’t your aim.
For the folks who are in denial, you are still aware you’re hurting someone, but you’re trying to suppress it. That doesn’t make you any better than the person who knows, and yet still does it. Both of you are knowingly supporting harmful policies. Hiding from what you already know and trying to suppress it doesn’t change your support of white supremacy. It only creates confusion and inner turmoil.
Since every conservative in the country already has the “black friends” part of being a good person down, you’d think that the other part of just supporting politicians and policies that don’t hurt those (alleged) black friends would be the next logical step. Then, you could say you 100% support black people and no one would ever call you racist again. But here we are where people who consider themselves good people are supporting a president who is unable to definitively say Nazis are worse than people who oppose them. Other so-called good people also support a party that still wants to leave millions without health care and rip hundreds of thousands of hard-working productive members of society away from their families.
Deciding whether you’re a good person or not is a personal decision that you have to make for yourself. But what I’m seeing from far too many conservatives is an internal struggle that is being caused by repeated mental gymnastics to try and mesh being good with the knowledge that you support racism. It seems to me that the question of whether or not you’re a good person would be a lot easier to answer if you admitted to yourself that support of the Republican Party also supports white supremacy. You can then choose to give in and actively support white supremacy, or make the choice to reject conservatism and fully commit to the idea that you want to live in a truly United States of America, free of guilt and people calling you racist ever again. Because the easiest way to avoid being called a racist is to…umm…not support racism.
White men need to decide if they want to share this country with the rest of us
To those who think they do want to share: You’re probably helping those who don’t more than you think.
America has never been shared. It’s big enough for everyone to play together nicely, but white men have been playing with it for 242 years, rarely–if ever–letting anyone else play with them.
That’s not sharing.
This country was originally founded by–and for–white men. There’s no denying that. Women and minorities had little or no rights for centuries. Based on the above data, we can see that white men still have not been willing to adequately share positions of power and influence with others. White men need to decide if they want to continue to keep this legacy alive, or if they genuinely want to share this country with the rest of us.
I imagine most white men who either don’t want to share the country–or are indifferent–simply believe that they would be worse off in an equal society. That’s not how things work. Right now, we are experiencing record inequality where the three richest Americans have the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the U.S. population. And every election cycle, half of the population comes out to support the top 1% to continue this wealth inequality that they will never benefit from, whether they’re white, black, or purple. Republicans have a long history of enacting policies that benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, and Trump is just the latest and greatest to continue that legacy.
While non-wealthy white men may benefit from the racial hierarchy that conservative politicians uphold, you are being crushed financially just like the rest of us. Instead of thinking your piece of the pie will shrink if women and minorities get their fair share, in reality, everyone’s piece of the pie grows as the wealth stops flowing almost exclusively to the top 1% and we’re able to build a stronger middle class. We are stronger, together, regardless of race or gender.
When it comes to wanting to share this country, white men generally fall into three different categories:
“Go back to your country!” – These are the obvious, outwardly bigoted white men who believe diversity is a weakness and that whites are a superior race. They believe this country should exclusively benefit white men. They march with Tiki torches, troll people online, commit acts of domestic terrorism, and are the face of white supremacy. These men cannot be reasoned with, and are radicalized extremists. These are the children who are asked to share their toys, but they refuse and throw a tantrum. Examples of white men in this category are David Duke, Richard Spencer, Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, and just about any white male in the Trump administration.
“I can’t be racist. I have a black friend!” – These are the men who would like to believe they genuinely care about equality and generally treat people equally in their everyday lives, but support politicians who do the complete opposite. They like the theory of diversity and equality, but in practice, they aren’t willing to change their life in any way to make it happen. They enjoy their lives and the benefits they receive as a result of living in a white male-dominated society, and also fear how living in an equal society would negatively affect them. These men either stayed home during the 2016 election, voted third party, or even voted for Trump. They claim to be “fiscally conservative, but socially liberal”, but don’t understand how the two are not compatible since fiscally conservative policies are exactly what create the problems that socially liberal people are against. These men essentially want to have their cake (benefit from white supremacy) and eat it too (be seen as a good guy who isn’t one of those wack-job racists). These men indirectly contribute to the division and inequality they pretend to be against. These are the children who are asked to share, refuse to, but they find another toy they don’t like to give to the other child and act like they shared something. Examples of white men in this category are pretty much 70% of the white men you know.
“Welcome to the cookout!” – These are the men who understand the history of white supremacy in this country and are actively making changes in their lives to try and correct the problem. They speak up when others say racist/sexist/homophobic things. They support politicians and people who have a direct interest in diversity and equality. They educate themselves about and engage with people who are not like them. They don’t mind having uncomfortable conversations and understand that it is necessary to overcome our inequality and division. These are the children who like to see other kids happy and are ready to share their toys equally so that everyone has a chance to be as happy as they are. Examples of white men in this category are Tim Wise, Gregg Popovich, Chris Long, and Jim Wright (Stonekettle).
You either want to share this country, or you don’t. Like Yoda said, “Do, or do not. There is no try.” The 70% of white men who are “in the middle” are actually just helping those who don’t want to share the country. They help them by either directly voting for the same politicians, or by staying out of the way and not getting involved. If a kid refuses to share his toy with another kid, and you stay out of the way, you’re helping the selfish kid by allowing him to keep that toy. There is no such thing as an unbiased, neutral third party with regard to equality.
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” – Bishop Desmond Tutu
The sooner white men decide whether or not they want to share the country, the sooner we can come to a resolution about our inequality. If enough decide they don’t want to share, then I guess we can go to war and decide who stays and who goes. Of course, my preferred path is that white men simply realize that we’re all better off when we share this country as equals. But the current path we’re on where one side doesn’t want to share, the other does, and the ton of folks in the middle are just standing around doing nothing while politicians fleece every last one of us isn’t working. Make a decision and commit to it. Stop being lazy. If you don’t want to live in a country with black people, Mexicans, or gays, then stop being a coward and say so. Rip the band-aid off and let’s get it over with. But if you genuinely care about other people who don’t look, think, and pray like you and want to coexist, then commit to that idea and start acting like it. Share, or share not. There is no try.
I boycotted the NFL while my team won the Super Bowl, and I’d do it again
If owners are willing to sacrifice wins and profit in order to stand by their (backwards) values, why would I do the complete opposite and sacrifice my values…while giving them my money?
I watched a total of 13 seconds of the 2017 NFL season, and that was only because I didn’t want to miss the beginning of This Is Us. My wife and I were catching up on SNL and Desus and Mero during the game, but changed the channel at 10:15, which was when the show was supposed to start. Of course, the game ran a little late, and as if it were planned all along, my first live images of the 2017 NFL season were of my ex-favorite team, the Philadelphia Eagles, celebrating their first ever Super Bowl win in the 52-year history of Super Bowls.
And it sucked.
I made it through an entire season without watching one second of football, and in order to watch one of my favorite shows, I’d be forced to watch the culmination of all I had missed these past five months. It was the bitter icing on top of the colostomy bag I had been eating all season. But if given the opportunity, I’d go through it all again.
While waiting for This Is Us to start, I watched the post-game coverage and heard one of the announcers basically commend Eagles quarterback Nick Foles on the fact that he went from contemplating retirement a couple years ago to now winning the MVP of the Super Bowl. My first thought was “it’s amazing what you can do when you have the opportunity,” and it reminded me all over again why I boycotted in the first place.
I can’t count the number of times I heard NFL fans question Colin Kaepernick’s desire to play football as an excuse for why he wasn’t signed, and here we have a quarterback who–unlike Kaepernick–actually did think about leaving the game, and he is being lauded for his courageous act to continue playing and become a Super Bowl champion.
Despite being just a qualified, if not moreso, Kaepernick was not given the same opportunity as Foles because the NFL owners were more interested in silencing his voice than they were in improving their teams. It could have easily been Kaepernick filling in for the fallen Carson Wentz and eventually hoisting the Lombardi Trophy for the Eagles, which would have been one of the most compelling stories in recent sports history. But the team, along with the other 31 in the league, have refused to even invite Kaepernick in for a workout for the past 11 months and 5 days since he became a free agent.
Like former MLBPA Executive Director Marvin Miller once said, I don’t think people truly understand what it means when teams band together and refuse to sign free agents.
“Most people don’t understand what that collusive effort meant,” Miller said.
“That it was an agreement not to improve your team. That it was an agreement that no matter how important these free agents are, superstars available to improve your team, to fill in holes on a team that could otherwise be a pennant contender, it was an agreement to NOT, under any circumstances, make an offer to any free agent, no matter how good he is. And that is really a conspiracy to fix the pennant race. And I think, in terms of scandalous proportions, that collusive conspiracy really was far worse than what is generally conceded to be the worst scandal, the Black Sox scandal, involving 8 players. This involved all 26 owners and all their officials and not for one series, but for 3 consecutive and possibly 4 years.”
The same could be said of any time a group of owners decides to collude. Whether it is to keep an entire race of people out of the league, a group of a dozen free agents, or even one player.
In some ways, pro sports owners are more principled than their fans. They have historically been more willing to place their own personal beliefs ahead of profits and winning. For 60 years, MLB owners each had the opportunity to sign the most talented players alive and win championship after championship. They instead elected to band together, stuck by their “values”, and kept black players off of their clubs.
If owners are consistently willing to sacrifice wins and profit in order to stand by their (backwards) values, why would I do the complete opposite and sacrifice my values…while giving them my money? If we don’t boycott when they stand by their poor values, the owners sacrifice nothing, while we sacrifice our own values and our money, all in the name of entertainment.
I fully understand that sports is an outlet for a lot of people, and without it, there isn’t much positive to look to, especially nowadays. It has always been an escape and a distraction from the sometimes harsh realities of life as most entertainment is. Baseball has always been one of the go-to national distractions we’ve had going all the way back to World War I. Sports makes people happy, and most importantly, it gives people hope, no matter how superficial. The hope that it’ll be your team winning it all and that you’ll be able to celebrate and have pride in your city as the champion.
I get it. I really do.
And that’s exactly why this entire ordeal has sucked. Because I’ve been torn between my love of sport, and my desire to see an end to social inequality. I know people want to just be able to escape and celebrate and enjoy their lives, but on the other hand, I know what it means to support an organization engaged in silencing one of the most prominent Civil Rights leaders we have today. I hate that the NFL put me in this situation, and I especially hate that the Eagles are taking part in that silencing, depriving me of the opportunity to celebrate along with 99.99% of the people I know.
I boycott because something has to change. People think that problems will just disappear or even dissipate with time if we just ignore them, but that’s not how problems work. Our racial issues in this country have dissipated only because people acted to make that happen. If there were no MLKs, or Frederick Douglasses, or Nat Turners, we sure as hell wouldn’t be where we are right now with regard to race. I’m sure people thought Nazis would just go away if we left them alone, and yet here they are creeping their way back into our society because we don’t want to change anything about how we live our lives.
I boycott in the hopes that others will join me, and I want to thank the folks I know who have. Through all of this, I’ve basically shifted my allegiance from the NFL and the Eagles to the the sport of social justice, as corny as that may sound. Politics and sports have always had more in common than not, and instead of rooting for a sports team to win, I’ve decided to devote my time to rooting for justice to prevail in this country. And I can’t do that while supporting the NFL, no matter how many championships the Eagles win.
From hated to hero: Why it takes decades for America to embrace black leaders
America has had a horrible habit of rejecting young black voices and waiting until decades later to realize they all had a point.
President George W. Bush referred to Muhammad Ali as a “man of peace” when he tied the Medal of Freedom around the late boxer’s neck in 2005. Nine years before that, Ali was honored by lighting the Olympic torch to open the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. 29 years before that, the greatest boxer of all time was the most hated man in America for doing exactly what Donald Trump is celebrated for today: Telling it like like it is.
Ali was very blunt about the inequality that existed here in America and famously refused induction into the military in 1967, citing the following:
“I ain’t draft dodging. I ain’t burning no flag. I ain’t running to Canada. I’m staying right here. You want to send me to jail? Fine, you go right ahead. I’ve been in jail for 400 years. I could be there for 4 or 5 more, but I ain’t going no 10,000 miles to help murder and kill other poor people. If I want to die, I’ll die right here, right now, fightin’ you, if I want to die. You my enemy, not no Chinese, no Vietcong, no Japanese. You my opposer when I want freedom. You my opposer when I want justice. You my opposer when I want equality. Want me to go somewhere and fight for you? You won’t even stand up for me right here in America, for my rights and my religious beliefs. You won’t even stand up for my right here at home.”
Ali sits on a mile-long list of black leaders who were once spat on by most Americans while they spoke out against racial inequality, yet were lauded as heroes decades later by the next generation who had somehow awakened to the wrongs of their forebearers, as if to say that time and old age–or death–are the only things that make black voices palatable. America has had a horrible habit of rejecting young black voices and waiting until they are dead or reach old age to realize they had a point.
Ali, Jackie Robinson, Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Harriet Tubman, and a host of others were labeled disruptive, divisive, criminals, anti-American, and every racial slur known to man whenever they dared fix their mouths to plead for the only country they’ve ever known to treat them as equals. Decades later, they were honored with days dedicated to recognizing their legacies, had streets and schools named after them, and were labeled as heroes and shining examples of what America should be.
It seems like we prematurely praise white leaders while prematurely condemning the black ones.
King’s message didn’t suddenly change when he was shot and killed. Ali didn’t soften his stance on white America even as Parkinson’s disease silenced his once immutable voice. Robinson actually grew more jaded with his country as he grew older and wrote about how he would never stand for the National Anthem in his autobiography. If the message didn’t change, why are black leaders suddenly accepted and embraced by society when they die or become senior citizens?
This doesn’t happen with white people who are hated by most Americans early in life. In fact, it’s becoming the opposite where white leaders like Christopher Columbus, Robert E. Lee, and other Confederate leaders who were once celebrated are now being recognized as dishonorable by the majority of Americans. It seems like we prematurely praise white leaders while prematurely condemning the black ones.
Whether intentional or not, there has been an historic knee-jerk reaction to condemn anyone who speaks up against white supremacy. No matter the style or method, saying “please treat us equally” has always elicited a defensive response from America rather than just saying “yeah, let’s do that.”
America always has an excuse for why it can’t just respond in the affirmative. From asking to be released from the shackles of slavery up until today where people are asking to be treated fairly by law enforcement and the criminal justice system, the answer continues to be “well…”, followed by several decades of fighting, then an “OK, let’s try that out.” Why is it so hard to just skip the several decades of fighting and listen to black people when they plead for equality the first time?
Colin Kaepernick is the latest black leader to be ignored and shunned rather than listened to and worked with. The exact same “we agree with your message, just not your method” rhetoric was used against Martin Luther King and every other black leader before and since. It’s time to admit that it’s not how black people are saying things, but that they are saying them at all. What America is telling black people is that the only way to push for progress and equality is to state your case and we’ll mull it over for a few decades and get back to you when you’re either dead or too senile to appreciate the new, better world you helped create.
If the pattern holds, Kaepernick will be the latest in a long line of black leaders whose voices were heard on a delay instead of in real time. At this point, it’s not a matter of if Kaepernick will be honored by his country, but when. If my math is correct, America will be calling him a hero by 2037 and labeling some other young black voice as “divisive” and “anti-American” for saying the exact same thing. Rinse. Repeat.