First Think, THEN Ink.

My exploration of Jona Olsson's essay, about our ways of avoiding a discussion of race in America, demonstrates some very important psychological issues that help define the circumstances we're trying to examine.

Let's admit this. Everyone is living life, dealing with the problems on their own plates, probably feeling a bit like they aren't getting what they truly deserve and likely dealing with their circumstances as best they can, with a minimum of complaint or reaction. Hunker down and get'er done.

When it comes to the topic of racism, white people really don't know anything about it. I mean, they have *some* idea - they know it's about inequality and about slavery and about how black people aren't winning enough Oscars. But they also know that white people aren't allowed to win the Miss Black America pageant, so maybe everything is a little bit unfair for everyone?

Think about this. No white person has ever actually had a racist act committed against them in the USA. And, of course, there will be a number of white people who will immediately refute that statement because they suffered an attack from a black person or persons in school or at work or at the ball game or at a bar. The attack was, we're generally told, unprovoked and focused on the fact that they, the attacked person, is white, and it was harmful and hurtful, and that kind of racism proves that this really is a two way street of hate.

And so, we are perpetually dealing with one of the most common problems of racism: not knowing the definition of racism.

Perhaps we can get a bit closer to understanding what that word means with today's topic:

11) Due Process

“Lady Justice is [color] blind.” White parents who tell their children, “The police are here to protect you. If they ever stop you, just be polite and tell the truth.” Then when a Black teen is beaten or killed by police, those same parents say, “He must have been doing something wrong, to provoke that kind of police response.”


Reality Check and Consequence

Many white people believe that the police, courts, the legal system and social services work without bias; that due process, fair trials, juries, judges, police officers and case workers have everyone’s best interest at heart, including people of color. Or at least, no less than they do for white people. This belief clouds reality. We tend to look at isolated incidents rather than the patterns of institutionalized oppression.

The legacy of institutionalized racism has left its indelible mark on the U. S. legal system. Even when individual police officers, judges or juries strive to be fair and unbiased, the system itself has been corrupted by centuries of racism. “Innocent until proven guilty” may be turned to “guilty until proven innocent” for too many people of color who enter the legal system.

Herein lies one of the clearest pieces of evidence of the "institutionalized" elements of racism that exist in our country. What are we talking about when we use the phrase "institutionalized racism?" It's the way institutions like the government, federal, state and local police forces, college and school systems, even retail sales outlets, restaurants and other places of business treat people of different skin color, differently.

The problem, as Ms. Olsson states, is that the assumption on the part of white people that police always behave exactly the same way with every citizen that crosses their path and that any time there is a deviation from that normalcy, it was created, caused or forced to happen by whatever the minority person must have done during their interaction.

Even when we have videotape proof of what happened, a "believe your own eyes" moment, when a white officer has done something that violates a minority person's Constitutional rights, there is still a strong sense coming from the white community that the police were justified in their behavior and the minority citizen did, in fact, get what was deserved for their actions.

And just as the assumption of minority citizens' actions tilts the scales of justice toward "guilty until proven innocent," so does every police officer have the advantage of a system that will do everything to prevent them from even standing trial, much less getting convicted for breach of protocol. But that's how institutionalized racism works: the agency has to be right and the minority person is clearly wrong.

Here's something important to consider. Police officers aren't drafted into the job. They voluntarily sign up to join the force. As they do, they, we presume, are aware of the benefits and dangers of the job. Then, when they pass their physical, strength and psychological tests, they go to Police Academy, where they are trained in how to deal with all of the situations one might expect to occur on their beat.

As they are trained and tested on their training before they can wear a badge and be officers of the law, they have a higher responsibility to act within those laws. After all, they have received training that the general public has not. They are permitted to carry a firearm so we presume their training has helped them know and understand the appropriate time to use it and when it is not correct to use it. Yet, time and again, we hear officers stating that they "emptied their revolvers" because "they felt threatened."

We understand that shooting first and finding out the facts later is not proper protocol. Yet, in cases where the victim is an unarmed black person, that is never questioned, those elements are taken at face value and the police, who have a very tough job to do, are permitted this judgment call because, well, it was a judgment call.

You see how difficult this is to explain to the family of the person killed?

The trouble with racism lies in that earlier point I made: no white person has ever actually experienced it. Yes white people have dealt with "bias attacks" and have been the victims of prejudice. But no white person has been oppressed specifically because of what color skin they have. This is a problem because there is no context, on the part of white people, to have experienced what many minorities go through on a weekly, daily, or even hourly basis.

It's because of this lack of context that white people imagine that they personally have no privilege, that they believe black people are overstepping their bounds when they protest, that they cannot fathom why, after Barack Obama had been elected President of the United States, we are still talking about racism.

In a system that criminalizes young black boys before they even get the chance to grow up (commonly referred to as the "School to Prison Pipeline"), a system which bends over backwards to find any excuse to justify a cop's devastating actions, even if it's clear the officer did the wrong thing and knew it before they acted, in a system that places more value on a white person's livelihood than on a black person's life, we have a problem.

But it returns to that point that if you have never been a victim of racism, you have no concept of what that feels like, of how that impacts you psychologically, emotionally, physically. You simply don't know how that changes your perception of the world, how it limits what you can and cannot do, how it forces you to reduce your options and squelch your dreams. If you are a white person you can't be nearly as understanding about this, as it is something you have never experienced and you will never experience. This is a language that folks who are not minority citizens don't speak, naturally.

And, when it comes to translation, it's difficult to find the words that could help make racism understandable for white people. Even metaphors fall short when we talk about a brilliant young job applicant who dreamed of working for a company, who showed up for an interview and was left sitting in the waiting room for hours, only to be told that the person who was supposed to discuss the position, somehow wasn't there.

A white person might state, that wasn't "racism," that was bad timing, or an unfortunate circumstance, or a coincidence. But a white person, never having experienced racism empirically, doesn't realize that when you have had a lifetime of situations similar to that, you learn to recognize it for what it actually is. That's another element of white privilege in action: the fact that white people do not fully comprehend what racism is and that they do not believe that black people experience it because white people have no template for it.

It's within that gap between hearing black people complain about racism and knowing that white people have never experienced racism that we have the Mount Everest of issues when grasping the attempt to simply have a conversation about it. How do we get over that?

Well, we need Sherpas: people who can help guide us along, pointing out the pitfalls and potential hazards we face and can warn us away from actions that might slow our climb, possibly create serious problems or potentially cause an avalanche which could kill other people also on our path or us. That's the gauntlet that Ms. Olsson, and the previously mentioned Tim Wise and Jane Elliott have chosen to take up. But, sherpas aren't going to help us if we pay them no heed. And our ascent of this mountain has been going on for a very long while.

To continue the metaphor, the end of slavery was like our arrival at the base of the mountain. The passage of the Civil Rights Act, effectively bringing an end to segregation and finally stopping Jim Crow Laws was like reaching the first base camp, but white people presumed we had made it to the top and that the climb had ended. And that different perception persists through every step we have taken up this mountain. White people assume we have finished the job when we still have so very far to go to reach the summit.

I want to take a separate moment to talk about Jane Elliott, because she does an exercise that can potentially give white people a hint at what racism is and how it feels. Ms. Elliott's "Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes" Experiment was first created shortly after Martin Luther King's assassination, as a way of helping her grade school students understand the underpinning of why King was an important figure, why he was killed, the concept of bias and racism, why it is wrong and how it has an impact for people on both sides, not just those we perceive as the victims of it.

The workshop runs just a few hours of time but it is a way of letting people that have no experience in being discriminated against, based solely on how they look, the blessing of having that happen for them. Through that event, white people have the opportunity to acquire some sense of what minorities in this country experience on a regular basis. Many, through this glimpse into a life experience they never had before, begin to understand the impact of racism and maybe even acquire some empathy for those that have lived underneath it all of their lives.

Due Process, just to bring it back to today's discussion, cannot happen if we always believe that a police officer can never do wrong and that a minority citizen always must have done something to deserve their fate. We are human beings. We make mistakes. We have been conditioned to believe certain things as fact. That changes how we view a situation and the people in it. It's within those biases we are viewing these issues. And if we can't even understand how those perceptions distort how we see these circumstances, our ascent to the mountaintop will be just that much more delayed.


Previous thinkposts in this series:

1. Day One - I'm Colorblind
2. Day Two - Bootstrap Theory
3. Day Three - Reverse Racism
4. Day Four - Blame The Victim
5. Day Five - The White Knight
6. Day Six - Lighten Up
7. Day Seven - Don't Blame Me
8. Day Eight - BWAME
9. Day Nine - We Have Overcome
10. Day Ten - The End Run

A reminder: because of the sensitive nature of the subject, comments directly to this and all previous and future essays in this series are screened. Thank you.

Jona Olsson's important essay on "Detour-Spotting" and the methods that America is using, purposely or subconsciously, to either divert any discussion of racism to some other topic or to avoid the concept completely, is a challenge, is a concern, is a difficult view on all of these points.

My need to review Ms. Olsson's essay began with my post - Killing Police Officers following the Dallas massacre of five local law enforcement agents on July 8, 2016 which opened a bit of a discussion about the issues of race in America.

As I always note on thinkposts, they are thoughts. And other thoughts are welcome. And the discussion that needs to happen has to start somewhere. These are not "lectures" where nothing gets questioned. We need to talk through any confusion or any differences in how we see the circumstances in order to come to some kind of understanding, and clearly, understanding is a major missing piece in this very difficult puzzle. Point being, I don't mean to assume anything. But I hope that if you aren't responding, it's not from some hesitation to speak directly to any of these issues, or to me.

One proviso: all comments left on this series of essays are screened.

It's time for today's topic:

9) We Have Overcome

“We dealt with racism in the 60’s with all the marches, sit-ins and speeches by Dr. King. Laws have been changed. Segregation and lynching are ended. We have some details to work out but real racism is pretty much a thing of the past.”


Reality Check and Consequence

The absence of legalized, enforced segregation does not equal the end of racism. This denial of contemporary racism, based on inaccurate assessment of both history and current society, romanticizes the past and diminishes today’s reality.

We just have to look at the volcanic rise of racist hate groups during the campaign and since the election of President Barack Obama, to know racism is alive and well in the United States.

As always, perspective is a part of the problem when we discuss anything to do with racism, and that will always come back to "White Privilege" and the assumption on the part of white people that "White Privilege" simply does not exist.

I feel like if we can get past the concept of "White Privilege," we might actually be able to begin talking about racism. Unfortunately, it's a really difficult point to make, primarily because the people who need to see it are the ones who are sitting in a blind spot about it.

Tim Wise is another anti-racist activist I have previously referenced. It's funny to discuss Tim because more than a few black people have stated that he is using racism as a method of simply making himself a good payday, as his speaking fees on the topic of race are pretty great: it's been said he earns $10,000 per appearance - making those critics believe that he is yet another white person who is simply profiting from racism.

I can totally understand that viewpoint, even as I don't agree with it. Of course, I wrote an essay equating racism as an addiction, and it does parallel those issues. I bring that thinkpost up again now because within that essay, I briefly touch on the point that:

when it comes to addiction, an addict will not listen to the people who are being abused as a reason/motivation to stop.

which is why Tim Wise is so needed in this discussion. We have seen how the #BlackLivesMatter group has been diminished, equated with white hate groups as if it was the black response version of the Ku Klux Klan, and generally either criminalized, harshly criticized or ignored at large by many white people. We can say the same, or worse, about how the white majority viewed the Black Panther Party throughout the 1960s.

Sometimes it takes a person of the same race to point out the problems of racism to those that don't understand. So, to me, people like Wise, Jane Elliott who created her now famous "Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes" experiment for her grade school class shortly after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and has been teaching it yearly, worldwide, ever since, and Ms. Olsson are important, useful and needed in the struggle to put an end to racism.

To come back to today's point, of course racism still exists. There are still people who not only believe that black people are "inferior" to white people, they take action: they ridicule, they abuse, they may even torture and kill.

This is why the outcry over white police officers who kill unarmed black citizens is so important. It's not just about those singular events where

Freddie Gray

Michael Brown

Tamir Rice

Eric Garner

and literally hundreds of others who have been killed at the hands of the people sworn to protect the public.

No. It's much more than that.

See, with every acquittal that happens in cases like these, two messages are sent. The first message goes out to police officers and says: if you do something like this in the course of your patrol, you will be protected.

A message like that means that police never have to think twice before using deadly force. They know that they will be exonerated at the end of whatever semblance of a court case is created, which also means they are more likely to just go ahead and kill rather than use some logic and common sense and obey the proper protocols they have been taught when dealing with suspects. And, at least in the case of Darren Wilson, the cop that shot and killed Michael Brown, he made a tremendous profit from it, getting money raised for his trial to the amount of nearly half a million dollars.

The second message goes to everyone and it basically says that black people are not equal in the eyes of the law to white people.

That is a message that pervades everyone's thoughts and minds and instills feelings of fear and self-loathing within the black community, but also creates a lack of concern and a sense of justification over any action against black people by white observers. Hatred is perpetuated, justice is ignored and Status Quo rules the day.

All of this goes to help bolster the causes of racism and creates an atmosphere where some desperate people begin to think that a logical choice would be to start killing random police officers. You can see how more innocent people are dying specifically because of racist attitudes.

The only way to "overcome" is to finally have this long delayed discussion about race in America. In this discussion I do focus more on black people as the targets of hate, not only because of my personal history, but because it is the longest and most hateful element of racism throughout this country's history. Some could argue that Native Americans received bad treatment as well, and indeed we can certainly point out many instances where that was the case. But the issues of slavery and Jim Crow, which took up about four-hundred years of our collective American experience, cannot be ignored.

Again, we aren't talking about slavery or Jim Crow Laws for that matter, to lay blame on currently living white people. But we have to talk about them to put them in context with racist thoughts and actions of today, as they are the groundwork that set the stage for everything that has followed.

We are still hoping to overcome.


Previous thinkposts in this series:

1. Day One - I'm Colorblind
2. Day Two - Bootstrap Theory
3. Day Three - Reverse Racism
4. Day Four - Blame The Victim
5. Day Five - The White Knight
6. Day Six - Lighten Up
7. Day Seven - Don't Blame Me
8. Day Eight - BWAME

A reminder: because of the sensitive nature of the subject, comments directly to this and all previous and future essays in this series are screened. Thank you.

Jona Olsson originally wrote the essay "Detour-Spotting" almost twenty years ago, but she could have written it yesterday, based on the movement (or lack of movement) against racism we have seen in that nearly two decade span. I know there have been some high profile changes and victories during that time, not the least of which are Barack and Michelle Obama, but the point is not to look at any individual case. Rather, this is about the entire landscape of race in America and how everyone is doing at this time.

That brings us to today's important and possibly most controversial point on the list:

7) Don’t Blame Me

“I never owned slaves.” or “I didn’t vote for David Duke.” or “None of my family joined the Klan.” or “I taught my children that racism is wrong.”


Reality Check and Consequence

Often white people hear blame whenever the issue of racism is brought up,

whether or not blame has been placed on us. As beneficiaries of racism and white privilege, we sometimes strike a defensive posture even when we are not being individually blamed. We may personalize the remarks, put ourselves in the center, but most references to racism are not directed personally at us. It is the arrogance of our privilege, that drags the focus back to us.

When we are being blamed or personally accused of racist behavior, this defensiveness and denial further alienates us and probably precludes our examining our possible racist behavior.

This is a really tough one for many white people to fully understand, primarily because of their own fears of "reprisal" and/or "revenge." And this is one of the biggest methods of derailing any conversation about race in America, simply because of white fear and ego getting in the way.

This discussion also relies on the point that white people have what's known as "privilege," which is a word, like "racism" that has a meaning that doesn't seem to be understood.

"Privilege" - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

That should be pretty easy to understand, right? So, when we speak about "White Privilege," we're talking about the rights, advantages and immunity granted to white people that other minority groups do not have.

For example, a white teenager having an interaction with police in an affluent suburb of a large American city will likely have a very different experience from a black teenager having an interaction with police in a ghetto of a large American city. Even if the white teen was a drug dealer and the black teen was an upstanding scholar, we implicitly know that, because of racism, the black teen will suffer a more difficult interaction than the white teen. That's privilege.

The problem occurs when we attempt to discuss the issue of "privilege" and white people immediately deny that they have it, usually by saying things like "I don't have it easy," or "nobody gave me anything in life, I had to work hard to get it."

But that's where we have a problem within the definition of privilege. It's not about what anyone personally did to achieve, it's about the system that prevents minorities from having the opportunity to do the same hard work to permit them the chance to succeed too.

What we're talking about here isn't the fact that white people have an easy time of living. But they have fewer obstacles in their paths when it comes to achieving, they have fewer concerns about negative elements that have proven to be a major problem for minorities and they have a support system that works to help them, where many minority communities either have no system or the system of racism that works against them.

The problem is that white people, immersed in their own world views, cannot see their own privilege because to them, it's just normal life. It's only when something comes in to change their view - like Affirmative Action for example - that suddenly they sit up and take notice. Now, minorities are gaining "advantages" over them. Now, it's time to do something. How dare they come in, unqualified or underqualified, and take a college placement away from a better educated white kid? It's time to protest and sue.

But when you have had all the advantages for all time, and then we try to tilt the scales ever so slightly to make things more fair, it feels like an attack on white people and something must be done. White people don't deserve to be attacked, especially ones that haven't done anything racist!

And here we are. Defensive white people stating as loudly and as clearly as they can that they are not responsible because they are not racist, meanwhile, they are complacent because they are willing and able to overlook their privilege and how that impacts both their success and the failures of minority people in our country.

Arguably, this is one of the most difficult elements of racism to understand, and even the most supportive anti-racists sometimes don't quite get it, either. It's going to take more high-functioning people like Jona Olsson to chisel through the concrete of this concept so that white people won't immediately flinch, deny or shout it down before we properly examine it.


Previous thinkposts in this series:

1. Day One - I'm Colorblind
2. Day Two - Bootstrap Theory
3. Day Three - Reverse Racism
4. Day Four - Blame The Victim
5. Day Five - The White Knight
6. Day Six - Lighten Up

A reminder: because of the sensitive nature of the subject, comments directly to this and all previous and future essays in this series are screened. Thank you.

If you haven't been following along, I've been taking a good long look at Jona Olsson's "Detour-Spotting" essay, where she lays out every single excuse white people have for not confronting their participation in perpetuating racism, and how that has ostensibly prevented any significant forward progress, despite things like the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act and the election of the First African American President of the United States.

Ms. Olsson wrote this essay for people like her, white folks who have no stomach for racist actions and attitudes, because even within the desire to repair and reassemble our country with the novel thought that all of us are created equal, there is a systematic element within our country that helps prevent even the most staunch and determined anti-racist from making any inroads away from How Things Are.

Today, we're examining another in the list.

5) The White Knight or White Missionary

“We (white people) know just where to build your new community center.” or “Your young people (read youth of color) would be better served by traveling to our suburban training center.” or “We (white people) organized a used clothing drive for you, where do you want us to put the clothes?”


Reality Check and Consequence

It is a racist, paternalistic assumption that well meaning white people know what’s best for people of color. Decisions, by white people, are made on behalf of people of color, as though they were incapable of making their own. This is another version of “blame the victim” and white is right. It places the problems at the feet of people of color, and the only “appropriate” solutions with white people. Once more the power of self-determination is taken away from people of color. Regardless of motive, it is still about white control.

This one is far from the worst offense on our list, but it is clearly problematic for a couple of obvious reasons. First, the white people in question are looking to both control a circumstance and, presumably, be rewarded for their efforts. They are coming in to "save" black people whom they view as not capable of handling their circumstances. The term "patronizing" comes to mind. But it also speaks to a mindset that has, at heart, an overarching sense that black people are like children that must be given things or must be treated in a manner other than full fledged humans. On that point alone, this sort of thinking can do tremendous damage.

Keep in mind, the people who might be involved in a scenario like this are as well-meaning and likely as full of good intentions as anyone could be. But again, unintentional racism doesn't make the action any less racist.

The fact is, most of the issues that pepper this list could be resolved with relative ease if the people who are working as white anti-racists would simply see and understand that they don't see and understand black people as being at all like they are. This is rooted in neighborhood enclaves where only white people live and office scenarios where only white people work. If you aren't around any black people, or even just a tiny handful, you really have no concept of who they are, what they do, how they act or what they want. It's pretty much impossible to prove the kind of person you are when you are never there. That's what we're talking about when it comes to racism.

Again, most of these issues are not A + B = C. It's a bit more challenging and a bit more arcane. That means that people may not be willing or able to follow along, and that continues to help prevent a suitable resolution, even among people who are trying to participate. With so many ways to go wrong, how can any of this work out right?



Previous thinkposts in this series:

1. Day One - I'm Colorblind
2. Day Two - Bootstrap Theory
3. Day Three - Reverse Racism
4. Day Four - Blame The Victim

A reminder: because of the sensitive nature of the subject, comments directly to this and all previous and future essays in this series are screened. Thank you.

As we go through Jona Olsson's essay on spotting the Detours regarding racism in America together, one day at a time, one point at a time, there are clearly some elements that are more frequently a problem than others. This time, we're looking at one that has been getting a lot of play lately.

3) Reverse Racism

(a) “People of color are just as racist as white people.”

(b) “Affirmative Action had a role years ago, but today it’s just reverse racism; now it’s discriminating against white men.”

(c) “The civil rights movement, when it began was appropriate, valuable, needed. But it’s gone to the extreme. The playing field is now level. Now the civil rights movement is no longer working for equality but for revenge.” or

(d) “Black Pride, Black Power is dangerous. They just want power over white people.” (Include here any reference to pride and empowerment of any people of color.)



Reality Check and Consequence

(a) Let’s first define racism:

Racism = Racial Prejudice (white people and people of color have this)

Plus

Systemic, Institutional Power (white people have this)

To say people of color can be racist, denies the power imbalance inherent in institutionalized racism.

Certainly, people of color can be and are prejudiced against white people. That was a part of their societal conditioning. A person of color can act on their prejudices to insult even hurt a white person. But there is a difference between being hurt and being oppressed. People of color, as a social group, do not have the societal, institutional power to oppress white people as a group. An individual person of color abusing a white person - while clearly wrong, (no person should be insulted, hurt, etc.) is acting out a personal racial prejudice, not racism (by this power definition.)

(b) This form of denial is based in the false notion that the playing field is now level. When the people with privilege and historical access and advantage are expected to suddenly (in societal evolution time) share some of that power, it is often perceived as discrimination.

(c + d) c is a statement by Rush Limbaugh. Though, clearly he is no anti-racist, both c + d follow closely on the heels of “reverse racism” and are loaded with white people’s fear of people of color and what would happen if they gained “control.” Embedded here is also the assumption that to be “pro-Black” (or any color) is to be anti-white. (A similar illogical accusation is directed at women who work for an end to violence against women and girls. Women who work to better the lives of women are regularly accused of being “anti-male.”)

Here we have a major stumbling block to any discussion of racism in America. The definition of "racism" is not seen the same way by white people and black people. If we can't even agree on what the word means, how can we even begin to talk about this issue, let alone resolve it? Decades, even centuries, have passed with this "defining" issue being... well... a defining issue.

This definition problem speaks directly to self-image and the myth that white people are, by default, always good and always right. If "reverse racism" existed, then nobody is better or worse because everyone is doing it. We are collectively sharing in the bad behavior. But, that doesn't jibe with the fact that oppression is something black people have no ability to wield over white people in this white supremacist nation, and it's oppression that creates many of the problems we are discussing when it comes to this topic.

It's important to be very clear: the United States, being a white supremacist nation, is part of the reason why many white people refuse to examine the proper definition of racism. If you can overlook the privilege of the position that white people have in our society, you can continue to believe that the playing field is actually level and that everyone has a fair chance to succeed.

Inherently, we know that the US is a white supremacist nation. And that is also why there is fear of "retribution" on the part of white people, afraid of "revenge" from black people. Better to continue to oppress and avoid any chance of that occurring.

Of course, all of these assumptions of why black people are "causing issues" or "what they might do if they had the chance" are based in white fear fantasies, in "what would I do if that were me" imaginings, in echo chamber discussions with other white people who may not even know or speak with any persons of color who are friends, neighbors or relatives. And that has its roots in our distant history.

The big issue that Jim Crow created, aside from the obvious advantages of property ownership, better schools and all of the elements that white people demonstrably benefited from during that era, is that there was no opportunity for white people to empirically view exactly who black people were, just how they behaved, just what they wanted for their lives and families, just how hard they were willing to work for this country, for their freedom, for themselves. After all, look how hard they worked as slaves. They literally built the cities, roads, and provided vast wealth from their labor. It's both saddening and telling that when they simply wanted to be treated as the humans they are, black people started being treated with hate and ridicule, being called "lazy" and stereotyped as "do nothings" by white people.

To me, the issue of defining the word racism is possibly the single biggest element that is preventing our discussion of race in America, and that has to be by design. It's easy to clarify any word, to find its meaning, to know what we collectively are discussing when it comes to any topic. How could it be so challenging to understand the meaning of this one word?

Will we all come to an agreement on what racism even is? Or will we continue to postpone the discussion we must have in order to work through this issue once and for all?

Previous thinkposts in this series:

1. Day One - I'm Colorblind
2. Day Two - Bootstrap Theory

A reminder: because of the sensitive nature of the subject, comments directly to this and all previous and future essays in this series are screened. Thank you.

There's something pressing on my mind and that is related to an essay by Jona Olsson.

Ms. Olsson is one of the first white people since Jane Elliott and Tim Wise who really has a handle on race in a way that allows her to explain it in terms that break it down into pieces that are easily digested.

She had written a lengthy essay titled "Detour-Spotting" subtitled "for white anti-racists" and it essentially gives a guided tour of pretty much every single argument for why we haven't been able to have a proper discussion of Race in America and why racism still has a stranglehold on our country and its collective citizens. I can't recommend this piece enough because it really allows a better understanding from the perspective of a white person trying to grapple with the concept of "privilege" and "oppression" in our society, and is very worthwhile. Of course, the essay is not "new," it dates back to 1997, with updates in 2005 and 2011. But, the time has come to re-examine this piece, as I'm sure you will agree.

The link to her original essay is HERE, and it deserves to be read, in its entirety.

But I wanted to go it one better. Because of the massive size of her composition, and because some of the things she discusses really do need to be unpacked in a more complete and/or a more precise way, I thought I would go through and take each of her points, one at a time, and expand on them, giving you a better and more comprehensive view of what she is talking about. I'll post her portion of the essay, then give some commentary about it.

( We begin with Ms. Olsson's opening comments... )