Why I Will Not Write or Post Anything Anti-Hillary Until Nov. 9

This is probably the definition of self-indulgence, but as Faithful Reader knows, I have bipolar disorder (it doesn’t have me!) and one of the ways that I can slow down and stop cycling thoughts is to write. It can provide catharsis.

I have been a supporter of Bernie Sanders since he declared his candidacy. I pray to God that I have not been one of the Bernie Bros, but I voted for Bernie in the Ohio primary and I share his vision for what our country should be. I have been very turned off by some of the rather aggressive Hillary supporters in my FB news feed who have called Sanders a delusional old man and who issue vitriol to those that disagree. To be fair, that’s just in my news feed and I am not saying anything about Hillary supporters as a whole. My MIL has been down with Hillary since day one, and we love each other likes peas and carrots. Or something like that.

So today I (hopefully) gently pushed back on a post regarding DWS leaving the DNC and going to the HRC campaign. My friend gave a thoughtful, principled reply and while I disagreed with some nuances, it was an amicable exchange. I was trying to communicate my frustration that Progressives have been told, in some ways, to shut up and get in line. I said I think that the convention is exactly the place and time in which these difficult conversations should happen. I left the conversation feeling heard.

And then I saw my feed fill with people using #NeverHillary. I flipped on the convention and saw that the minister giving the opening prayer was booed because Hillary was mentioned. Elijah Cumming’s speech was at times drowned out, and he was also booed for mentioning Hillary Clinton’s name. I heard chants of, “This is what democracy looks like.”

Now I know that conventions can be rowdy places, but after watching the White supremacy fest that took place in Cleveland last week, watching an African-American man be booed at a convention that will make history as being the first major party to nominate a woman made me uncomfortable. That is not being politically correct. That is being a person who understands how much of our country’s history has been spent locking people out rather than ushering people in. For too long that has been the look of democracy. 

And then my friend posted that she asked Bernie supporters, especially White men, to think about how they post or write about Clinton and her supporters. I felt the earnestness in her voice, and as I now listen to a female speaker at the convention talk about how Trump has kids shouting “Build that wall!” at basketball games, it seems clear to me that the best thing I can do right now is stop contributing, even in a small way, to the notion that Clinton is equal to Trump.

Seriously. Let’s stop this nonsense. One of them wants to withdraw the USA from the WTO, NATO, and NAFTA, and the other one actually knows what these organizations do. One is running for dictator while the other is running for president. One is a misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamaphobic bigot; the other knows how to spell each of these words.

I have made it clear that I do not think the DNC represents my progressive ideals clearly and consistently enough. I have serious concerns about how the DNC handled the primary race, but I’m done writing about it. Talking about it. Complaining about it. It happened.

Get ready. I’m bout to start whoopin’

preaching.jpg

And while-ah, I think-ah, we need-ah, to investigate, conversate, litigate, mitigate, and contemplate. Not today-ah. Today-ah, we need to look to the left-ah, look to the right-ah, and behold what is in our sight-ah.

Okay, enough of that. But you get the intensity I am trying to communicate here. Clinton and Trump are not the same. And pretending that they are, pretending that she really killed Vince Foster or purposefully ignored intelligence that led to the deaths of six people in Benghazi, continuing to throw fuel on the fire and champion a narrative that gives a false equivalency that will allow Trump’s truly extreme behavior to be counterbalanced, as though Clinton is an equal counter-valence, is irresponsible and dangerous. At least for me. I am not making a request of anyone else. I am writing for myself. Until this election is over, I will not write or post anything (barring some sort of major, documented, authentic scandal) that can be interpreted as equating Hillary to Trump.

I hope that five years from now we have four viable parties and I will feel passionate again about voting for a candidate. That will be nice. But as Bernie said today, we live in reality. Our highest priority is to prevent the destruction of our Republic; to stop the eradication of LGBTQ+ families; to refute Islamophobia; to protect the most vulnerable in our society. If you really think there is no difference between the two candidates or parties, just look at the RNC and DNC platforms. Look at the havoc Drumpf has wrought on small businesses. Look at the bankrupt pensioners who went to Trump U. 

Chances are, I will not vote for Dems moving forward, especially if other small parties become viable and feasible on the local and state level. But that’s academic. That’s with the sense of security and stability that comes with strong leadership at the helm of the ship. And while we may have disagreements after Nov. 8, until then #ImWithHer.

A System of Competing Goods

Much of philosophy is concerned with the good. Good understood in the meta sense; good as both a means and an end. Good as peace. As love. As compassion. As justice. Greek philosophers yearned to describe the eudaimonia, the good life. Not swimming pools and movies stars, but morality and ethical consistency. And much of human history can be understood as clashes between systems of competing goods. 

I wrote earlier on the Wikileaks scandal and how, in my limited opinion, it demonstrates the corruption of the Democratic National Committee. The release of emails, when paired with my growing disdain for how the DNC obviously favored one candidate over another, has left me with little to no faith in a party that I grew up favoring. A number of my friends disagreed with me, which is not unusual and one of the reasons I write as much as I do: intelligent conversation and informed disagreements are part of the good. Of the eudaimonia. I conceded a number of points–election fraud/tampering is often charged but rarely proved; Clinton thoroughly trounced Bernie in a process that has served the party for decades; and people are imperfect, so chicanery happens, especially when competition is involved–but what I pushed back against were arguments that were based in accepting the premise of competing goods. 

To wit. We all can agree that stealing $10 million from an orhphanage is loathsome. So is stealing their food. One can criticize the latter without reference to the former. What I won’t accept is the idea that stealing food isn’t really that bad because the theft of ten million dollars is so much worse. Is it? It depends on our rubrics. It depends on our perceptions. For a diabetic child whose blood sugar drops and goes into a coma, the chances that the theft is worse are pretty good.  


Bandying about ideas as to how Bernie Sanders’ atheism might make a difference to evangelical voters in southern states is not as loathsome as wanting to put a ban on all Muslims entering the country. But I wasn’t writing about the latter yesterday, I was writing about the former. And to me, this is one of the problems with two party politics: any criticism of one system can be interpreted as a damnation of the entire thing, and ipso facto an affirmation of the other system. Decrying that the CFO of the DNC floated an idea about how Bernie was “skating by” on his Jewishness whilst really an atheist seems to me a legitimate position to take. It is not an endorsement of the RNC. It is not a statement that one should not vote for HRC . It also seems pretty fair to point out that the emails are symptomatic of larger issues which are alienating for younger voters, particularly Millennials, with whom Bernie did well (and, no, this is not a post about how Millennials did not show up in large enough numbers during the primaries).  Many Millennials are distrustful of party politics and they have tried to express that; sadly, I feel that often their concerns are met with defensiveness and closed ears. I’ve read about how Bernie wasn’t really a Democrat; that of course the party is going to support Clinton because she has been loyal for so long; that this is how things work and people are getting upset over nothing. It goes again to my point yesterday that party politics are about money and quid pro quo relationships, and it seems any critique of it is passed off as naïveté, sour grapes, or immaturity. I understand the contemporary political reality; I get that there are far worse dangers and concerns, and that most of them are squarely within the GOP. But what I don’t accept is the idea, which has been voiced, that pointing out the deficiencies in the DNC’s approach to this election is somehow inappropriate given what is going on in the GOP. I think we’re adults. I think we can do more than one thing at a time. 

As always, I appreciate feedback and comments!

A Deficit of Trust Amidst a Surfeit of Fear

Over the past few hours, various news outlets have been reporting the recent Wikileaks release of nearly 20,000 emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that, among other things, seems to evidence collusion between the Hillary Clinton campaign and the supposedly neutral central party apparatus. This as the presumptive Democratic nominee builds anticipation for her VP pick by first engaging in an unannounced visit to the Pulse nightclub. One feels torn between the absurdity of last night’s RNC closing ceremonies and the anguish many are feeling at the prospect of voting for the other option.

I should start by saying that this is not a Clinton-slamming post; this is about a political system that is so deeply broken, belief and confidence in either of the parties seems impossible. At least, it is for me.

My politics really aren’t a surprise to anyone who knows me; if you’re interested in knowing more click here or here. But definitely not here. I am a registered Democrat only because of state laws; I have no party affiliation and, frankly, I do not think either party can ever again convince me that I can place my trust and confidence in a system that is so thoroughly corrupted. While I absolutely do not think that there is parity between the two candidates–both are deeply flawed, but Trump is an unabashed huckster using my faith tradition for his own despicable advantage to sound cultural and racial dog whistles–I think there is equal corruption of the parties. It seems obvious to me that one side has far more extremists than the other, but I readily admit that I am biased. I like to think I am biased by facts, but most people do. What I am not biased by is ideology.

The Democratic National Committee should be exposed for the disingenuous, Machiavellian cabal that it is, with an infrastructure that is built upon lobbying dollars and incestuous political relationships that tilt the playing field for the established, entrenched players. There is an endless list of things that are odious about Donald Trump, but I’ll give him this: he managed to back down the RNC and secure the nomination. To be sure, Trump needs the Committee and I don’t think they’ll deliver, but Trump came in as an outsider and pissed all over the carpet until the Party called it gold. Bernie Sanders, despite what detractors may say about his policies, was not able to overcome the road blocks the DNC placed in his path. Despite evidence of voter tampering and mounting evidence of illegal maneuvering and collusion during the primaries, the DNC is still trying to convince Xers and Millennials that they have our best interest at heart. That they represent Progressive values. That we can trust them.

Clearly, we cannot.

Bernie never had a shot. I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but Trump is right that Bernie never had a chance.* I have not read through the entirety of the Wikileaks cache, but it is this email (screen captured above) that bothers me the most. The Chief Financial Office of the DNC, Brad Marshall, casually wondering how pushing a religious angle–pitting Judaism and atheism against one another to capitalize on Evangelical assumptions–could put Sanders at a disadvantage. The idea that using a person’s religious beliefs as a purity test is always something Democrats accuse Republicans of doing. The DNC claims to be above that; that it represents the Party of religious inclusion** where reasonable people can disagree but unite behind the idea that there is strength in diversity.

And this email proves that to be exactly what it is: malarkey.

I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but I plan to take the advice of Ted Cruz and vote my conscience. even amidst boos. I cannot fathom the details right now, but I know enough to be confident that Trump will be a clear and present danger to the country in general and specifically to Muslims, women, GLBT+ persons, immigrants, and anyone else who does not toe the ever changing line he draws. This is not a man who has the disposition, discipline, intelligent, or gravitas to sit in the chair that is currently occupied by someone who has all of those attributes (and more) in abundance. But this is it for me as someone who will put any energy or confidence into the Democratic party.

*I seriously need a shower.

**This article by Mother Jones is absolutely worth the read.

We’re Not Allowed to Laugh

maxresdefault.jpg

They started appearing almost the instant Donald Trump “humbly” accepted the nomination of the once proud Grand Old Party to which my grandparents were lifelong members (except for my beloved grandma who voted for Obama twice). The tweets. The FB posts. The IMs. Usually this is my favorite part of both conventions: the witty, urbane, deeply educated comments from my wide circle of friends that includes rocket scientists, professors, pastors, teachers, nurses, welders, writers, actors, artists, dancers, photographers, retail workers, business owners, managers, lawyers, diplomats, economists, and trust fund babies. I count Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, Socialists, Democratic Socialists, Anarchists, and Communists among my friends, at least the ones with whom I remain in digital contact. We squabble, but over the years I’ve managed to weed out the most obstreperous on all sides and am lucky to have a pretty awesome FB and Twitter feed.

There was no congenial jocularity last night. No moments in which we could reach across the proverbial aisle and type in response, “If this candidate wins despite my voting for someone else, I known I can support a few things in the platform; I’d prefer to not have this president, but I understand why others do.” Even my staunchest Republican friends were either silent or posted about deep pain in watching their political party hand over the reigns to a grossly incompetent narcissist who all but promises martial law, racial profiling, mass deportations, foreign policy chaos, and economic recovery (despite the relative strength of most major markets and indicators).

My night went a little something like this: I tried some attempts at humor.

Screenshot (17)

If I do say so myself, that is kinda funny. Chuckle-worthy at least. Then I saw a post from a friend who came to the country as an refugee, is Muslim, and has children. He wrote that before his family escaped Iran in 1979, there were similar promises for purity, strength, security, and elimination of undesirables. I stopped chuckling. He has family who are not citizens but who understandably do not want to go back to Iran.

I tried an intellectual approach.

Screenshot (19)

Rather astute, if I do say so myself, and at the time I felt rather proud of myself for having such a sweeping grasp of historical geopolitics. Then a friend reminded me of the homeless man who was beaten by Trump supporters for being an immigrant, an action Trump refused to denounce. Intellectualism also was not successful in keeping me at a distance from the shitshow unfolding before the world.

I tried sarcasm, the last refuge I could see that might keep me from a total surrender to despair.

Screenshot (18)

As Trump struggled to pronounce GLBTQ+ and promised our community protection from a “foreign ideology,” a not-so-coded reference to the shooting at the Pulse nightclub, which has yet to be connected to Islamic extremism, into my feed came this Advocate slideshow about the trans* persons who have been killed this year. Crap. Sarcasm wouldn’t work, either.

Righteous indignation at the baffling ignorance being trumpeted as strength and leadership seemed the next logical approach:

Screenshot (16)

As the balloons fell down upon the assembled crowd all I was left with was this:

Screenshot (21)

The song selection seemed so meta I reasoned it had to be unintentional. Certainly neither Trump nor anyone in his clusterfuck of a campaign could be witty enough to chose the song as a slight to states like my own, which loudly and proudly cast delegate votes for Gov. John Kasich, who has been disastrous for Ohio but seems downright Churchillian in comparison. No way, I thought, that this was a pointed jab at Ted Cruz, who refused to endorse Trump the penultimate night of the convention. No. Way! Right? And it certainly couldn’t be pointed at the American people, could it? A message to the so-called “moochers and takers,” to use House Speaker Paul Ryan’s verbiage, and the “losers,” which Trump believes includes Republicans who dare to disagree with him. That couldn’t be what we just saw, right?

Right?

bueller.gif

Right.

A friend of mine who is a scholar of dystopian literature and one of the sharpest thinkers I’ve ever known, usually is able to pull me out of Chicken Little mode. But even he was almost speechless and described himself sad, noting that Orwell was not writing a political handbook. Alas, we have found ourselves in Oceania. War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Ignorance is strength. One has to wonder if Trump wins the presidency, will yearly conventions be held in Cleveland? If so, one can only hope that it one day hosts international criminal court proceedings to bring to justice the regime that we are on the precipice of putting into place by so-called democratic means.

Finally, it pisses me off that this is exactly what Trump wants. He desires his supporters to feel emboldened and justified, and he wants to imbue with fear those of us who do not view the world in an infantile “winner and losers” rubric that most people shed by kindergarten. He wants us to believe his dark, ominous, wildly inaccurate claims and depictions of the United States. He wants to play upon White fear and insecurity; label as enemies immigrants and Muslims; and celebrate as wisdom ignorance of such gobsmacking depths that even Jules Verne couldn’t imagine the bottom.This is how we will make America great again.

4-star-wars-quotes.gif

 

 

 

 

Define “Religious”

I talk about religion a lot, often because I am asked to or I am asked questions about religion. For a number of years, even after my conversion and after I became serious about practicing the faith, I hesitated to call myself religious. It seemed to have so many negative connotations for others and even for myself. I actually fell, for awhile, for the New Atheist insistence that to be really religious means to be a fundamentalist, which is absolutely not true and perhaps the topic for a future blog post. But in the past five years, and right around the time I started this blog, I have evolved on my position. Yes, I am in fact religious. As the tagline of this page states, “Reasonably Religious, Religiously Reasonable.”

The origins of the English word religion are interesting. It begins with the Classical Latin religare, which means “to bind.” Religare morphs into religio, which adds a connotation of reverence or high regard. Scholars trace the first written use of it to Cicero, who employs the term in connection to strict observance of local cultic practices. Further, we see that by the time Middle English emerges with “religion,” Old French had added to the word ideas of monastic strictures such that the term has been freighted with all sorts of expectations and requirements, yet without the specific details of what expectations must be met. We know what religion means, but what it is remains to be decided.

At its heart, religion seeks to bind us. To God, to ourselves, to one another. Religion is about relationships, and a sense of obligation and commitment to remain in those relationships even through difficulties. Religion might mean a commitment to certain behaviors and moral codes; it might mean the performance of certain rituals or rites; it can be attenuated by sacred scriptures or other written/oral traditions; and a whole host of other features. And defining religion? Well, it depends on your discipline. The legal definition is very different than the one provided by the IRS. Academic definitions can vary widely; and if you ever want to start some static in a room full of intellectuals, ask whether Buddhism is a philosophy or a religion. Then run. Or get a drink and some popcorn. Either way, something dramatic is going to happen. I used to give the assignment as a final essay to my students, and some of them would hand in the papers with the look of someone who had been crying all night.

I offer all of this because I have spent most of my academic and professional life thinking about and reflecting upon religion. I love having conversations with people in various traditions and disciplines to talk about religion, faith, community, and all the other things that come hand-in-hand with religion. That wonderful yet terrifying creation that has been responsible for some of the most beautiful and more destructive forces in the world. And the more I learn and discover the more I know that I don’t know, and the more that I understand religion can come in ways that are surprising, revolutionary, and unexpected.A religious act can be eating bread in mindfulness, or anointing the body of a person recently deceased. It can be sprinkling water on the forehead of a child, or the passing of an ancestral sword to the next generation. Religion–that which binds us–can be indescribably beautiful.

What it can’t be is the amoral, opportunistic, vapid, insubstantial, self-aggrandizing, Mammon-serving claptrap that Donald Trump displays in his life. He is bound only to himself, to his fragile ego that can only be protected by a worldview that relegates people to being either “terrific” or “losers.” He has never asked forgiveness from God because he does not know how to extend it. Or maybe that should go the other way around. He famously holds grudges for decades, sending quippy notes and emails to rub his perceived success into the face of someone who was inadequately fawning. For him, being religious means winning the Evangelical vote.

If this is not a gut-check time for Evangelical America, I don’t know what is. You’ve been saying to us for years that you vote your values. You have excused horrible treatment of women who seeks abortions, GLBT persons who want to marry, and immigrants who want to have a track to citizenship for years because of your values. And you’re willing to vote for this man, and accept that he calls himself “religious”?

So, I guess I’ve been wrong the past five years. Guess I’m not religious after all.

 

Augustus*/Pilate 2016: The Preferred Ticket of Megachurch Pastors

Listen to this:

If you are anything like me, you are having this reaction:

post-53126-Bill-Murray-looks-at-camera-gi-68fK.gif

So Pastor Robert Jeffress, who once said that trans* friendly businesses were more of a threat than Daesh (no shit), has come out in favor of Donald Trump because he is a strongman. Okay. That’s a stupid thing to want–you’ve got a doctorate, Bob; read a book on the rise of fascism in 20th century Europe–but it is not totally unreasonable. We’ve seen that on all the continents. And while I think it is a ridiculous political desire, I have to admit that it is one that has shaped politics in the past. Generally for the worse, but people do pull the lever for a strongman. Fine

But the asinine contention that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount would not make sense for governance (which is in itself not necessarily a wrongly stated position) because Jesus didn’t claim that it was a governing philosophy shows the danger and limitation of biblical literalism. To wit, Rev. Dr. Strongmanwanter believes that Christians should be against homosexuality because it is in the Bible. Yet Jesus says exactly zero things about homosexuality. But, you might object, there are prohibitions elsewhere. Yes, there are; kinda. But Jeffress argues that the Bible does not say anything about government.

good fellas.jpg

Yeah, no. Evidence? The Torah. Kiiiiiiinda filled with laws about how the covenant community should be formed and governed. Now, there are a lot of caveats. And Christian fundamentalists most often don’t get that the covenant code is not for us; Jewish fundamentalists often forget that the laws are applicable only in a Jerusalem that contains the Temple. Despite the nuances that most certainly are not being discussed in any real form here, it is safe to say that the Bible is absolutely concerned about how a society is governed.

Reasonable people will hopefully agree that Jesus was Jewish and was interested in helping to reform and rejuvenate the religion. (Marcus Borg’s Jesus, A New Vision, is a great starting point for people wanting to understand this perspective.) He wasn’t a law-maker, but he was a law-interpreter. In the Jewish tradition this is know as midrash. Notice how Jesus often says, “You have heard it said, but say to you…” and then goes on to say something that emphasizes the Spirit of the law over the letter of the law? That’s midrash. It’s kinda a big deal.

See, we Christian pastors need to read more than the Bible because we are charged with midrash. It is what we do with our sermons. We need to read books about the Bible. About history. Archaeology. Sociology. Linguistics. Literature. And the good pastor knows this; he has an impressive education from schools that I might not have chosen to attend, as I am not a Southern Baptist, but that are accredited by reputable services and that is no joke. Seminaries lose accreditation if they do not follow strict guidelines; schools like Liberty University don’t get accreditation or try to create their own agencies to circumvent the standards. All of this to say that Jeffress knows better. He knows that Jesus’ words directly relate to the power dynamics that exist between people and the religious hierarchy; the people and the Romans; the Jewish hierarchy and the Romans; and how they pertain to the people’s relationships between themselves. I find it most probable that Jeffress has read or is familiar with Walter Wink’s work on the roles power plays in Jesus’ vision of the faith. In a nutshell, Jesus is anti-strongman. Jesus’ entire ministry is about the kin-dom of God, which he imagines (according to John Dominic Crossan) as God sitting on the throne of Caesar.

Jesus was inherently political is the Greek sense of the word; politics is that which relates to the people. In many ways, our weekly liturgy (which means “work of the people”) is a form of politics, because it concerns our relationship with God (and one another). For Jeffress to argue that the Bible supports a “strongman” is ludicrous. If God likes a strongman, why does David win? If God likes a strongman, why did Jesus come as a carpenter and submit himself to the cross?

I don’t like to question other people’s faith, but Jeffress’s words make me think he would have made a great campaign manager for the Romans.

aaaaa

*The author is aware that Tiberias was emperor during Jesus’ ministry and execution. But Tiberius/Pilate doesn’t have the same zing 😉
 

White Rage

For the past few years, the media has been reporting on the anger of White men. And make no mistake, there are plenty of White women who hold the same views; Juan Williams argues that they are even angrier. I’m a White dude and I’m married to a White chick (a term with which she self-identifies), so just based off of our lives on paper (pastor married to someone who runs a small business; massive student loan debt; live in a Republican heavy county), you’d imagine us something like this:

Tea-Party-Rally-2010-J.-Scott-ApplewhiteAP-640x480 Now it is time to play everyone’s favorite game, “Can you spot the spelling and grammatical errors in the signs?”

But of course, we’re not. Neither of us feel caught up in the zeitgeist that is gripping so many who feel that we need to take our country back, who believe President Obama has made the country racistwho believe politically correct culture is weakening our country,or who regard the Black Lives Matter movement as a terrorist organization. In fact, we believe the exact opposite. I’ll stop writing on behalf of my dear wife and just stick to my own ideas, but when it comes to “White” America we’ve got cred. We have White people in our ancestry as far as the eye can see.

I realized pretty early in my life that so-called White men have probably caused more death and destruction than any other “racial” and gender group. I wrote yesterday on the myth of whiteness and how pernicious it is. There comes a time in each White man’s life–at least if he is thinking–when he has to realize that he has been pushed and shoved into a certain identity. Everything around us informs us that we are important, even in the most dire of circumstances. While money is the ultimate divider in this country, race and gender are huge as well. Laws have been codified giving us the “right” to touch and violate women. We are taught that our gaze does not need to be controlled, but rather that women who wear revealing clothes know what they are doing. That they are asking for it. That it is for our benefit. As White men, we are taught that all the “founding fathers” looked like us; that we are the creators  and the innovators and the masters of all we survey. Anyone who tries to challenge that is seeking to usurp what is rightfully ours. Our notions of freedom become such that any slight inconvenience or redress to us is an assault on our God-given liberty. We are taught that our feelings are more important than is the oppression of others; we are fed and many of us believe a narrative that the sins of the past have no bearing on the present. We are encouraged to be defensive and to hear any criticisms of structures that benefit us as a critique of us as persons. As though they are attacks on us individually, and we are provided venues in which those views are repeated, held into the light, and are manipulated by self-serving politicians and religious leaders who tell us that the enemy is everyone who is not like us or refuses to act in ways that we deem acceptable.

So, White men, we should have rage. We should have rage exploding from our every cell because we have been sold a bill of goods. I cannot tell you how much time, reflection, prayer, anger, agony, frustration, and embarrassment I have had to undergo in order to get woke. How many POC had to take time and energy to assist in my education. How much of a waste it has been to mentally dismantle this shit that should not exist in the first place.  Think about this, guys: things could be different. I believe that most of us want everyone to have equal opportunities. Most of us want schools to be better, neighborhoods to be safer, prejudice based on race, sexual orientation, gender, bodily ability, etc to be erased. We’ve been taught to believe that other people want to punish us for the work of our ancestors; that the culture is shifting against us, despite the fact that the country is for us; we not only have to fight against this narrative, we have to change it. We have to continue to educate ourselves about the structures and systems (legal, economic, political, educational, penal) that promote white supremacy, and to work toward either transforming or eradicating them. Our rage should be against not only a system that keeps others oppressed, but also a system that brought us up with such a skewed view of the world. A system that made us racist without our consent, without our volition, without our desire. A system that gives us not only a backpack filled with privileges, but also a backpack filled with toxic shit that destroys lives. It perverts worldviews.

The thing is, it doesn’t have to be this way if we reject. It. Sadly, I don’t see it going away in my lifetime. But maybe within my niece’s. If we do the work. If we take this opportunity, here and now, and rise up against the ugliness that is Donald Trump and talk to one another. The anger many of us feel is from fear. That’s what monied interests want; our continued separation and division makes money. It sells advertising on news shows. It supports toxic publishers who churn out hate-mongers like Ann Coulter. Many of us want to replace this system with something more equitable. And I am not saying that I have all the answers. But what I am saying is that we in the so-called White community have to talk to one another. We have to address the ways in which supremacy culture impacts us. That also means talking to people who have bought in to the lies, but who are reasonable. People who honestly do not harbor hatred or prejudice in their hearts, but who do not understand how racist structures undergird everything in American life.

One privilege we no longer have is the privilege of silence. That’s it. Over. Finished. Each one of us, in our own ways, have to seriously address these facts. Especially those of us who ask communities of color to refrain from violence. We can’t do that if we are not placing our bodies and lives on the line, too. It means going into areas that are hostile to us and holding difficult conversations. It means calling out racist language and behavior in our presences. Silence is complicity. Silence is privilege. Silence is death.