My Perspective: Race in America: Let’s Address It

Race in America has been at the forefront of America’s history way before this nation was a nation. Therefore it is not surprising that with America having an African American President that racism and race is still a central issue to much of what is happening in America. Just last March Barack Obama said let’s have a race discussion but instead our nation has reverted back to our old way of doing things which is have we have race baited and finger pointed rather than have that discussion. Or in some instances we have avoided the issue much like Obama has done since saying let’s have a race discussion.

Nonetheless, race in America will never go away until we really have that discussion and key events within the last couple of weeks have given us that opportunity to discuss racism and race in America. First it is the House of Representatives passing a bill apologizing for slavery while the Senate version wants to prevent any lawsuits against the government for reparations in their version which shows that even our own government wants to admit their wrong but not at the expense of giving money to the descendents of slave. Still race in our own government is still an issue when there is only one African American U.S. Senator. But the second is the recent ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the New Haven, Connecticut firefighters who felt they were discriminated against based off the color of the skin in promotions within the fire department.

Now the reason way the case is more important than us is because Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor preceded over the case when she was the Court of Appeals for that District and she as well as two of her colleagues ruled that the case should be sent back to the original court. Also they ruled in favor of the city not the firefighters. But in a divided 5-4 Supreme Court decision, they struck down the appeals decision. To some it was a case that spoke volumes to Sotomayor's outlook on race relations but what Sotomayor’s race relations matter if she was white. More importantly, the decision could have serious implications in the way race is viewed in federal courts in the future.

Thus, let’s not forget two and half years ago the Jena 6 case were the D.A. wanted to bring attempted murder charges and other horrendous charges against 6 African American young men in the small town of Jena, Louisiana. However because of public outcry the charges were reduced and the case was resolved quietly just last week. Still race in America is at the forefront now of the judicial system and politics because both have straddled the face on many racial issues from the voting rights act to affirmative action to equity in the workplace. But both the judicial system and our own government have overstepped each other time and time again but the Supreme Court’s recent ruling regarding Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act leaves open the option for the voting rights act to become obsolete and its ruling in the New Haven Firefighters case leaves open the possibility for affirmative action to be struck down in future years.

Nonetheless, race in America is at the forefront of our nation again and now many view it as being the core of divisiveness for why we as a nation can’t get further than we have ever done. For example, after the Supreme Court ruled in the New Haven case, many people felt it dealt a major blow to Sotomayor’s qualification as an associate justice on the Supreme Court. However if the case is looked at closely, it is not Sotomayor’s fault when a previous case similar to it was ruled the same way that Sotomayor and her colleagues ruled. Still the case was brought about in the city of New Haven because the city threw out leadership tests for a group of firefighters because the test resulted in obvious gaps in eligibility for advancement based on race. The only people that qualified for promotions were white or Latino - no African-Americans scored high. The city threw out the test because it left too few minorities qualified, and a group of twenty mostly white firemen sued under the pretext of "reverse-discrimination." The process wasn't fair, they said.

The Supreme Court though agreed with the firefighters, delivering its majority in favor of the firemen. People hailed it as a slap in the face to Sotomayor, who had taken criticism shortly after her nomination for remarks she made implying that she may be better qualified to make critical decisions because she is neither white nor a man. The decision was all about fairness, the ruling implied, and treating people differently based on the color of their skin is simply unconstitutional. Most republicans agreed, and so did plenty of democrats. However what does this do for affirmative action and what does this do for race relations in America.

So race is once again at the forefront of our society and for those of us who want to finally have a race discussion, this is the opportunity for it. When it comes to race, fairness is key but not why it discriminates against others race. Anyone denying that fact needs to take a long look at the available information. What hasn't been discussed in the wake of this decision is the overwhelming income gap and stunning disparity in net worth that white Americans enjoy compared to their counterparts. If we are going to talk about fairness, this is the place to start. The rash of white people claiming discrimination in recent months needs to be noted, and I believe that in this case the firemen had a descent argument, but they're still wrong. They may have lost a promotion, but on average, they still are exponentially better off than their black co-workers.

Justices may strive to make their rulings based on a "colorblind society," but that's not what exists in America. The romantic notion of racial harmony isn't realistic because the playing field isn't even. Living in a colorblind society means that each group is treated exactly the same in all aspects of life, including economics and social mobility. They aren't. To suggest so is pure ignorance. On average, blacks are less likely to go to college or finish high school. They also attend poorer funded public schools on average and are more prone to experience child abuse, substance abuse, neglect, divorce, teen pregnancy, health complications and about every other challenge available. They don't grow up next to country clubs. Most importantly, they are more likely to be poor, a fact that makes economic progress much more challenging.

Larry Adelmen wrote in a San Francisco Chronicle article in 2003 titled "The Houses that Racism Built," that much of this has to do with inheritance and net worth that is passed through generations. It read, "Today, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical white family has ten times the net worth of the typical black family...Even when they make the same income, white families have over twice the wealth. Much of that gap is due to home equity and family inheritance." If the conversation is going to center around an even playing field - what some would call the "best man for the job" scenario - this fact must be part of the conversation.

What occurred in the Supreme Court ruling is significant because it made the Supreme Court weigh if enough has been done to further race relations in America through programs that take race into consideration. And while we may see less overt racism today, we still see extreme discrimination in the structure of our institutions. If Sotomayor and others really want to make progress in the battle against racism, this is where the conversation must begin. The statistics speak for themselves. Thus let’s address it once and for all and here is how we do it.

First we must understand racism in America. Racism is a danger which has plagued America throughout its existence as a nation. In the years following the heyday of the Civil Rights movement of the 60's this danger has both increased and receded. Many pundits have offered their opinions, explanations and accusations. But where has this really left us? It has left us where we are now and few persons since Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have offered a clear path toward a resounding resolution to this issue which can be readily embraced by all concerned. Would Dr King have supported Affirmative Action? Some say that his call to judge by the "content of one’s character" indicates that he would not, but scholars who've researched his comments on the issue indicate that he would. Are those who oppose the continuance of Affirmative Action the modern equivalent of the 60's racist, as has been contended by noted activist Julian Bond - or do organizations such as the NAACP, where Bond is chairman, signify the face of modern racism with it's clearly race based (Where 'CP' equals "colored people") point of view?

Or are none of these people "racist" at all, but merely attempting to solve the same problem using different means? Many questions need to be answered and it is time to address all these issues when it comes to race and racism in America once and for all. President Obama’s race speech started it, Attorney General’s Eric Holder’s comments “A Nation of Cowards” during Black History Month reheated the fire and now the two recent Supreme Court rulings as well as other things has enflamed us to this point.

So in order to deal with race and racism, we must first understand that there are many different types of racists. The first type is haters. The prototypical racist is one who expresses fear, loathing and hatred for persons who are of a particular race or ethnic background. These are most often the people who come to mind when the term "racist" is applied. Persons who during the "golden era" of the Civil Rights movement where embodied by the KKK, corrupt law enforcement such as Sheriff Bull Connor whose force to quell peaceful protests, or Alabama Governor George Wallace who authorized such use of force and once proclaimed "Segregation Forever". But is this truly an accurate picture of the perspective of these people? Are they simply hateful and nothing more?

The modern equivalent to the KKK of old continues to exist and to expose their point of view. Former grand wizard David Duke has created the "National Association for the Advancement of White People" or NAAWP. But supplanting the KKK has also come a new breed. The Racist Skinhead is another example because these are disaffected White Youths, dressed in Dr. Martens boots, close cropped or shaved heads, with a tendency toward violence and mayhem. Lessor known racist organizations such as "Christian Identify" groups such as the Church of the Aryan Nations (aka The Church of Jesus Christ Christian) continue to exist and grow in the modern age. Just as god and the bible was used to justify and maintain slavery, segregation and the internment of Japanese-Americans in previous years, these organizations argue " ...that Adam, man of Genesis, is the placing of the White Race upon this earth. Not all races descend from Adam. Adam is the father of the White Race only.... Genesis 5:1"

In modern times the Hater/Racist has gone paramilitary, gaining ties with the Militia movement via groups such as the National Alliance. This group plans and conspires to eventually overthrow the U.S. Government which they feel has violated and voided the Constitution, and start a race war which will cleans the American Nation of the "mongrel hordes", just as is foretold in the bible/bluebook of modern militant racism. The Turner Diaries, a fictionalized novel documenting the final war between Aryans and other races for control of America, describes the destruction of a Federal Building by use of ammonium-nitrate bomb (the same technique used by Tim McVeigh and others to destroy the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The Turner Diaries was reportedly McVeigh's favorite book and also the murder of an outspoken Jewish radio talk show host by a secretive military "cell" group known as The Order. The Order is a sub-group of members of the Aryan Nations that were arrested and convicted of the murder of Jewish radio talk show host Alan Berg in 1984. The group also called itself The Order because it was inspired by the Turner Diaries.

Non-white groups of "haters" also exists. Many people point to the Louis Farakhan and the Nation of Islam as an example of black separatism, and violently anti-white and anti-Semitic rhetoric. Many others disagree with this view, pointing out that even though the Nation of Islam does expose very strong and often harsh criticisms, it has never been involved in the repeated acts of violence even remotely similar to the KKK or Skinheads. Strangely, or maybe not so strangely, most of these organizations do not consider themselves to be "hateful", but argue that they are only doing what they have to, out of "love". Love for their particular way of life, their culture and their continued survival. Love for themselves....all others be damned? Sounds like hatred to me. Still contrary to the claims of people like Dinesh D'Souza, violence by these groups has gradual increased over the last few years according to the data available from the FBI, the Simon Weisenthal Center, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (an organization responsible for virtually bankrupting the Klan) which maintains an annual Intelligence Report on the activities of Racial Hate Groups.

However some of the groups on this list can be questioned because the methodology for who gets added has never been known to the public and when asked, even the FBI can’t explain to you accurately why certain groups are on the list and others are not. Nonetheless the danger should not be dismissed as irrelevant or meaningless in modern times because neither should anyone be paralyzed with fear of them. Many of these groups remain small even with active and virulent recruitment efforts. Pointing a finger at these people as being in the "wrong", is easy and frankly ignores the depth and gravity of the racial issues and the divide within this nation.

The second type of racist is the Covert Racist. Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the establishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, it has become a crime to act out on the types of racialist ideas that are exposed by a Type#1/Hater Racist. Just as many of violently racist organizations have gone underground, so have many other individuals who share their views. Being an open Racist is no longer en vogue. Demonstrations or marches by and for racist causes are often picketed, banned and shutdown before they can occur. Casually exposing on the flaws and failures of a particular racial group, or the greatness and wonders of another racial group is no longer a common occurrence.

Most people feel that this is a good thing, and take it as a sign that Racism in America is diminishing. That point of view is somewhat debatable; however overt racialism, particularly Aryan and white-power racism, has been discredited and is generally frowned upon as not acceptable within polite and civil discourse. This does not mean that those who have these particular beliefs’s have necessarily changed their opinions, (although some of them have) it is also quite likely that they have decided to take the prudent course and limit their potential liability by not discussing their views with "outsiders" who do not share them. When and if they act on their biases, over the decades a method has been developed to establishing "plausible denial" for their actions.

Egregious Discrimination Cases--Speaking generally, an example of the type of actions that could occur might be when someone (from the "wrong" group) is applying for a job is never given an interview or is told that the "position is filled", when - in fact - it is not. The following are specific real life examples. First Alabama Bank of Mobile Alabama which in conducting a compliance review of this Federal contractor, OFCCP's compliance officers discovered that there were disproportionately few minorities that had been hired for entry level clerical positions. Of 588 applicants, 143 were minorities. Of these, only 11 were hired, although minority applicants were as qualified as non minorities. A review of the interview notes of the bank's personnel officer included statements pertaining to race, the color of one's eyes, hair and other physical attributes. For example: One candidate who was selected was described as "attractive white female, blond hair, blue eyes, teller-type appearance." A black candidate not selected was labeled, "very large lips and hips, overweight, dark skin, black girl, her hair is longer than most, and appearance is not good enough to meet the public."

Now the San Diego Marriot and Marina is another example where during a tour of the facility, OFCCP compliance officers noted that there were no Black women in any visible jobs on the worksite, such as restaurant servers, banquet waiters, room service attendants, hostesses and guest attendants. From reviewing the contractor's workforce analysis and applications, OFCCP staff found that while Black women applied for these jobs, and were in some instances better qualified than the non-minorities selected, they were not selected and the contractor could not offer a nondiscriminatory reason for the non-selections. As a result of the compliance review, 34 Black women received job offers, back pay with interest minus interim earnings and other benefits totaling $627,000.

Another example might be someone applying for a loan being denied with only the vaguest of reasons given. Yet another example might be someone attempting to rent a home is rejected or told that the space is no longer available, when this is not true. How is the person that they have acted against to know the reason for their action? Was it bigotry or just bad luck? Was it discrimination or some other intangible, subjective factor? A racist or bigot in a position to take the above types of actions...a person in a position of responsibility or relative "power"...can have a devastating impact on people lives. Actions such as these, if taken for racial or bigoted reasons are illegal - however, if taken for other reasons which are considered "bona-fide"...are in fact, fully and completely legal. Determining the difference between the two possibilities is sometimes nearly impossible for the person that they have acted against.

Few of these people are caught in the act of discriminating or employing bias, unless they happen to "confess" their actions via documentation, or to someone who they incorrectly believe may be sympathetic and supportive of their actions. The EEOC and OFCCP have attempted to determine this kind of bias in effect by using Audits and Civil Rights Testers...as opposed to quota or even goal based systems. The long term result of this behavior has been an air of increasing fear, suspicion and outright paranoia among those people who may have, or may not have been the victims of the actions of a covert racist - even while the actions of unqualified overt racists have certainly diminished since the Civil Rights Era. Accusations are made, fingers are pointed. Sometimes incorrectly, which in turn brings bitterness and resentment by people who have not acted out of racism or bigotry, but are accused of it all the same. As success is achieved and progress is made, further progress becomes more and more difficult and challenging.

Furthermore, this situation is worsened by the actions of the Type#3 Racist, The Unconscious Racist aka the "Rational" Discriminator. There are often many situations where race is a factor but the person considering those particular factors is not a "hater", either overtly or covertly. Various situations where people are unfamiliar with each other require them to make "snap" decisions. When meeting someone for the first time in a dark alley, practically any person will have a tendency to assess any others in a fairly quick, slap-dash fashion. They will, in the effort of self-protection, attempt to answer several internal question, while having very little factual data. Does he (or she) look dangerous? Is he (or she) watching me? Is he (or she) moving to a position to attack or confront?

America is world famous for its level of crime and violence, especially within its cities. Extraordinary tragedies of death are common fixtures on our news and media. Although in all fairness when considering a population of over 200 Million - an annual murder rate of 1/10,000th of that (approx 20,000 per year) is not quite as frightening. Far more people die of traffic accidents and suicide in America than violent murder by a margin of over 2 to 1, but Fear sells. It drives the news media. It sells newspapers, it keeps news programs on the air and provides the grist for the entertainment mill as well. One of the facts often and repeatedly reported in the news media is the percentage of minority, particularly young black men, who are arrested for violent crimes. Considering the frequency that this is reported it would be rather difficult not to take this into account when running through the questions..."Does he look dangerous"? - by consciously or sub-consciously appending..."Does he look dangerous - like one of those violent young black criminals?"

Essentially, it is common for most people to act as amateur statisticians, mentally calculating the odds and percentages for various outcomes when they encounter a person they have very little information about. It is entirely "Rational". A decision, or judgment which is circumstantially based on very limited facts and information. Not only does this occur in dark alleys, but in banks when loans are applied for, and in job interviews. This is why most people endeavor to present their "Best Face" when in these situations, even though doing so actually legitimizes this type of "Rational" Discrimination by catering to it.

Like most real life situations, these kinds of events of discrimination can be seen from multiple dimensions. They are more than just a "one-way" street. Let's take the alley scenario and presume that our first hypothetical person decides when spotting another person, to exit the alley based on the presumed risk to themselves purely based on the "Look" of the other person.
What then is the second person likely to presume? If it is reasonable and "rational" for the first person to act on limited visual information, would it also not be reasonable for the second person (similar to the victim of "Covert Racism") to make some presumptions based on the first persons action, even if those presumptions may be completely wrong?

"Discrimination" in its most basic form means to make a decision; to make a choice. Making a choice - discriminating, in and of itself is not wrong - however what may be wrong may be the method employed in making the choice. Has it been fair? Has it been reasonable or has it been premature? Has the first person in this scenario acted in a discriminatory and/or bigoted manner for presuming that the second one is a danger, simply because of the way they look? Would the second person be a bigot for presuming that the first person has behaved in a bigoted way by acting in accord with their own self-preservation?

The answers depends on the circumstances. Certainly additional elements can be brought to bear on this scenario which would get more or less credence to the presumption of either person. In either case, we are still dealing with two persons who in all good faith, are not a Haters, or Covert Racists. They are simply people who have rationally "played the odds", and decided to err on the side of caution in both cases. This kind of discrimination is the kind that has been reportedly perpetrated by Taxi Cab Drivers in many cities across the nation, such as Washington DC and New York. Cab Drivers are in fact, robbed at a fairly high frequency, often at gunpoint. Many of them have opted to use discretion when accepting fares which "appear" to be more dangerous than others. This has often meant that they have avoided taking on young black men as fares. Their choices in this are often bolstered by information reported by the media, from places like the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which indicate that the lifetime likelihood of a black male going to prison is nearly 8 times higher than for whites (16.5% compared to 2.5% respectively).

Even black Cab Drivers have been shown to behave in essentially the same manner, avoiding "undesirables". And of course, there is the very famous Jesse Jackson comment about turning around and seeing that he was being followed by someone white, and feeling relieved. The argument has thus been made that this isn't really - "racism" as black people are prone to it as well, but that ignores the fact that "race" is still an integral component - even if the persons involved are of the same race. The problem of "Rational Discrimination" is clearly pervasive, but does that make it right? Even if you are to take one of the most egregious statistics available, that nearly 1/3 of black males between the ages of 18-24 have been under the supervision of the justice system, and look at it another way, that same information indicates that nearly 2/3 of young black men have not so much as received a parking ticket. Nearly 2/3 have never been accused of a crime or been in a court of law, but the point of fact is that - contrary to popular belief - you can't visually tell the third that has some type of criminal record (which could in fact mean everything from probation for a traffic ticket up to an including murder) from the other two thirds that DO NOT.

What has happened, even in the Cab Driver scenario is that more often innocent people are being unlawfully denied services and treatment to which they are entitled, simply because of the preconception and ultimately prejudice of other people. People who don't hate them. People who, if you were to confront them, would be quite taken aback, if not indignant at the accusation of "racism" on their part. Many of those so accused - then presume that the "true" racist is the person making the accusation rather than themselves - and so the cycle continues. One finger pointed, then leads to another finger pointed back, and so on, and so forth. No, none of this is "racism" per se. This is fear and laziness on the part of both of these people in this scenario. Neither has taken the time or applied the personal courage required to find the truth. Unfortunately, Racism is exactly what the results of their actions wind up being, even if unintentionally.

Now that we understand the various types of racists, we now must understand race. So what is Race? Many have argued that there are 5 or 7 distinct "races" in the world. Usually these "races" correspond with the various continents and land masses on the earth, with each race designating a particular continent as their "Homeland". However, this idea has given way in recent times to a different idea. One that what it is we consider "race" has far more social and cultural significance than it does genetic. Reports of work with the Human Genome Project have shown that there are as many genetic differences between people within the same racial classification, as can be found between nearly any two people of different racial classifications. This idea is further supported by the common idea to consider Hispanics as a "Race", when Hispanic people can be just as blue-eyed, blond and light-skinned as any Anglo or dark as any African or Native American.

Ultimately there is only one "Race" in the world. The Human Race. What we commonly call "Race", is in fact a matter of social convenience, not a matter of predetermined genetics. Therefore Racism itself has been argued by some to be an artificial construct, rather than a universal one, and that it therefore can be "cured" or completely removed from our daily lives. I find this particular argument dubious. Although we may not have always used the term "race" the way we do now, we have certainly always recognized that individuals are different, as well as individuals are similar. Those that are similar are often more comfortable with each other and may congregate together, which also means they have separated themselves from other individuals who are different, creating factions.

Factions have always been with us, and always will. The long term issue, to my mind, shouldn't be trying to eliminate factionalism, for that is a fruitless task, but to devise ways in which different individuals, and different factions, can maintain a healthy respectful relationship in spite of their differences and similarities. So is race something we are or is it things we do?
To some extent, it is both and neither - to a large extent, both race and racism are matters of what we individually believe. People are free to believe whatever they might wish, but they are also responsible for the actions they take based on those beliefs.

This brings about the question of whether stereotypes are ever justified. A stereotype is a noun and it is defined in two ways. First it is something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; esp.: a standardized mental picture that is held in common and that represents an oversimplified opinion or affective attitude. Secondly it is a metal printing plate made from a mold of set type. However we are dealing with the first definition. All forms of racists are usually taking actions based on a Stereotype. Some have argued that the solution to racism is to therefore, to remove all Stereotypes. They argue that Hollywood and the media perpetuates negative stereotypes about certain peoples, particular those that are black. The assumption being that Hollywood has a responsibility to present minority characters in the best possible light. But I think this issue creates an even greater danger because the idea that the scarcity of black characters in Hollywood (or the media and entertainment industry in general) tends to push forward the idea that every black character presented should be "representative" of the best and most positive aspects of those particular people - this is just as much a distortion of reality as the stereotype itself.

It simply isn't realistic on several levels. It isn't how movies get made because they get made based on having a high likelihood of generating money. Characters appear in films based on the quality of the character. Actors get parts (usually) based on the quality of their acting. The idea that simply because social preconceptions and stereotypes exist, you can't address them or reflect the reality of them in film or TV is (common, but I think) preposterous. If the characters are good, the actors are good and everybody involved is working under good faith (which isn't always the case)...chances are enough diverse black characters will become available that the fact that they all aren't saints will become irrelevant. Essentially, I believe that the "stereotype" problem would continue anyway, but instead of being false, unflattering stereotypes they would become false, flattering ones.

Also many movie characters are based, at their core, on real people and real events. Or at the very least realistic people, whom the film producers judge are believable because they reflect back a reality that we are already experiencing in large measure. Often more compelling dramas are taking place on the News, than in the theater. Quite a few stereotypes arise from the simple reporting of the factual news, regardless of editorial bias. Factual information from the Census Bureau concerning average incomes, crime statistics, levels of education by various people from various backgrounds...all, continue to foster stereotypes. None of this addresses the root cause of stereotypes themselves (they are short-cuts), or their misuse by individuals who assume they are true about other individuals when they are not (which is the real problem). Overall, trying to "remove" or "ignore" them is no improvement, some people will still misuse them.

The assumption that all stereotypes should be avoided is, I think...an extremely Politically Correct argument - but I personally, don't tend to be very "PC". I say what I believe, not what's "popular" or necessarily "acceptable". For my own personally purposes, and the purpose of this article - truth is crucial. Even unpleasant truths. The "PC" argument almost appears as if to say, that simply because a rifle can be used to kill a human as well has hunt for food...that no rifles should be used, as opposed to holding the user responsible for the quality of his or her usage of what is essentially - a tool. I think ultimately, the questions involving the quality of human life hinges more on our judgment and responsibility in properly using the tools we have before us...not on a restrictive path that assumes we are all incompetent, untrustworthy, and irresponsible and should have those tools taken away. Setting such a low standard, increases the chances that we may live-down to its level, rather than live up to our personal responsibilities.

So what keeps us apart and what are the sources of the fear that make us discriminate or not deal with race in America head on. It is simple, all forms of bigotry, prejudice and stereotypes are essentially based on concepts, opinions, knowledge and memory. Specifically it is the way in which our brains process this information that causes much of our problems. Memory associations are several methods which can be used to memorize ideas and concepts. Typically people use repetition (cramming) to force an idea from their short-term memory into their long-term memory. But there are other methods which occur naturally. One of the most effective is by association, linking something that is unfamiliar conceptually to something that is familiar. For example, visualizing a shopping cart on your front porch may help you remember to get groceries on the way home. Stereotypes are essentially an association between two items, one which is known and one which is unknown. Because associations are a natural part of the way our minds and memories function there is no real way to avoid the formation of stereotypes, per se, and in and of themselves stereotypes are neither good nor bad, they just are.

Then there is the “Paradigm Effect”, which is the situation turns problematic when multiple and overlapping associations occur. Generally, people are more likely to form conceptual associations which are similar to associations which they already have. Familiar ideas are easier to accept and believe, they are re-affirming and supportive of a point of view. These ideas seem to almost Leap out at us. Conversely, concepts which are contrary to our already held ideas, concepts and associations become increasingly more and more difficult to fathom as time goes on. In some cases they can become physiologically "invisible" to a person. People literally can't comprehend or see them in their mind's eye. Collections of association and concepts which enhance and support a particular point of view, are called Paradigms. The tendency for associations and concepts which are contrary to a person’s current point of view to be ignored and discounted is called the Paradigm Effect. The impact of this effect has been documented throughout history. Scientist who simply and honestly looked at the facts like Galileo and Copernicus where ostracized, intimidated and threatened for presenting new concepts and ideas which were outside the accepted Paradigm which was held by the "mainstream" of society (and church) of the day.

When people conceptualize about other people of various heritage and/or cultures ("Races" if you will) they quite naturally use associations and create stereotypes, which in turn become part of complex Paradigms. It is my view that Prejudice and bigotry are the result of the Paradigm Effect on Stereotypes...when facts and the truth concerning individual people are ignored in favor of the previously conceived group which they have been associated with. Thus brings about the “Paradigm Shift”, which is the answer to racism therefore, is for individuals to form "open ended" Paradigms, which support what is called a Paradigm Shift. A Paradigm Shift occurs when a person (or persons) come to the realization that their current Paradigm is inadequate and/or inaccurate and they revise it by (finally) accepting and incorporating new information which had been previous ignored, or gone unrecognized. Everyone forms associations in their mind, it's unavoidable since that is partially how our minds function. Everyone builds Paradigms from these associations. Everyone does.

But, we must not allow ourselves to simply rest on our own individual Paradigms, we must constantly seek to challenge them, especially when the Paradigms themselves are taken out of context. A Paradigm (or a simple stereotype) which applies to a particular group, may or may not necessarily have any validity when applied to any particular individual within that group. If that is one of the first conceptual Paradigms that a person forms and learns, then that persons is essentially "inoculated" from bigotry and prejudice. Still if it is not, then overriding their current Paradigm with this idea becomes increasingly difficult as time goes on and they become more and more entrenched in their particular point of view. There is no way to guarantee which Paradigms any individual will form. But if we have a clearer picture of the problem, we can devise methodologies to help us reach the goal. Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet to erasing racism, bigotry or prejudice. It will always be with us to some degree because it is a "natural" by-product of how we "nurture" knowledge. It will always, to some extent, keep us apart.

However what can bring us together is the fact is that what we commonly call races are actually different social groups which share a common familial and cultural heritage. Each has their own unique perspective and is signified by that more than they are by any physical or visual traits which may be apparent. This idea has given rise to a new concept of how to solve racism. Assimilation which is believed by some that, at least within America, the natural course of social and cultural evolution leads to the assimilation of disparate cultures into one single mainstream culture (or faction). That once this is accomplished, our "differences" will disappear and we will all finally "get along", because will all finally be "one" - with a common set of allegiances and goals. It is argued that the continued divisiveness within America is the result of those who resist assimilation by separating themselves into ethnic, cultural and social enclaves.

But is it really even feasible for everyone to join the same "faction"? Is the idea viable that in order to reduce partisan strife, we should all become members of the same political party? Which party would that be? Would the largest one win by default? What tools would be used to entice the stragglers to join you new all inclusive party? It would, similarly, be like requiring everyone to join the same religion. Wouldn't this create many more problems than it solves? A single party system would be prone to monopoly abuse. It would act to preserve itself by stifling opposing viewpoints and different ideas from those that were officially sanctioned by it. The same would be true of a monopolistic cultural structure. Individual freedom would be greatly endangered by such an event.

To some extent assimilation does work for immigrants and immigrant cultures. The choice of coming to America voluntarily tends to mean that a person wishes to participate in what America has to offer. That usually entails it's culture, it's economy and it's protections of personal freedom. It is quite common for immigrants, and their native born children to minimize elements of their native culture and adopt element of American culture readily. Conversely, portions of their culture are often co-opted into the mainstream of America forming a link between the two cultures. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with this. However, there are several cultural strains within America which are not founded on immigrants and immigration such as America's Native Culture better known as Native Americans or Indians and others.

The first is the culture of Native American's, which clearly predates modern American culture by many centuries. America was once the home of many proud Indian Nations, each with its own unique culture, traditions, language, religion and point of view. The modern day Native American civilization and culture is still merely a shadow of itself, and is still greatly divided on how and how much of the ancient traditions can maintain their relevance in the modern world. The second is the culture of Latinos and Hispanics, which is a hybrid of Native American and Latin cultures originating largely in Spain. Modern day Latino's and Hispanics are the ancestral decedents of the meztizos, who were part Indian (Native American) and part Spanish. The impact of assimilation on the indigenous culture of these peoples clearly shows that much of their native American heritage has been abandoned in favor of the language, religion and traditions of what had been Spanish Conquistadors. The culture of these indigenous peoples has been practically assimilated out of existence.

The third indigenous American cultures is that of Blacks. Contrary to the opinion of some, it's basic genesis isn't from Africa, it's America. Some of its elements come from Africa, but very few largely because of the process of "identity stripping" that took place as African Slaves were brought to America. Some have argued that "Black Culture" doesn't exists, but there are many example to indicate this is incorrect. They were not allowed to speak their natives tongues, nor were they properly taught English - hence they created a hybrid language using English words with African syntax ("Juba") - this was used as a means to communicate freely among blacks by disguising what was said apparent "gibberish" so as to avoid punishment from overseers - over generations this changed becoming the Jive speak of the early 20th century jazz juke-joint during Jim Crow, to modern speech of modern Hip-Hop, commonly referred to as Black Vernacular Speech or Ebonics. Their names were taken from them and new "Americanized" ones provided (Just as many indigenous Indians had their names "Spanishized"), if any. They created new names and families which crossed what had been tribal and geographic lines in Africa.

New customs were adopted to deal with many families broken by random sale or trade of a member. Their native method of worship was denied, nor were they originally allowed to participate in American churches - eventually this gave rise to an independent church system. Black Baptist. (AME) African Methodist Episcopal and Nation of Islam as well as others. Slaves were often given what was considered refuse for food. Hog-jowls, Pigs Feet, and Chitterlinks (pig intestines), together with vegetables like Collar Greens, Black Eyed Pees. From that sprang new forms of cuisine, commonly referred to as "Soul Food". Music in Africa was primarily a means of communication rather than entertainment. From the Black Churches sprang a unique form of music (Gospel, Spirituals) which expressed the level of pain, frustration and hope in the kinds of dramatic outbursts that blacks were not allowed to voice in public. Following the Gospel and Negro Spirituals of 19th Century, came Jazz, Blues, Rock n' Roll, Soul, Motown, Funk and Hip hop of the 20th - all were the expressions (originally and predominantly) of blacks in response and reaction to the circumstances of their lives under Jim Crow, through the Civil Rights Movement, up to today and our current social climate.

Still unlike immigrant cultures - there is no real evidence that Native American, Latino, or Black culture thrives in any way, shape or form on any other "homeland" than America, as the culture of Polish, Irish, Asian, Jamaican, or even more recently immigrated African's does. It therefore follows that if these cultures were completely assimilated into the mainstream, they would cease to exist for all practical purposes. Elements which are absorbed into the mainstream would exist, but largely as echoes of a culture that would no long function, change or grow. Would this be a good thing or bad thing? Personally, I don't see it as good on any level. Assimilation may be a natural process for immigrant cultures, but it isn't for indigenous ones, and America has several different indigenous cultures as I have pointed out. Which one should be dominant? How will that dominance be achieved and enforced? Will those who fail to subscribe to the dominant mainstream culture be ostracized and harassed for their defiance and refusal to conform?

Didn't this kind of ostracization, harassment and intimidation typify the Jim Crow period of American History? Wasn't it endemic of the internment of Japanese American's during World War II? Wasn't it used to proclaim that the Native American's were uncivilized savages, deserving of nothing but death and enslavement? Didn't it justify and excuse the horrid treatment that the Irish received in America? I don't believe this is the path we should embark upon. This is not a real solution to the problem of racism. However respect for freedom is. The U.S. Constitution states "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." "Liberty" is defined in Webster’s dictionary as the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice.

A "Culture" is defined as a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group. So it follows that in order to preserve the right to "Liberty", you must preserve the freedom and power of choice by individuals to enjoy "social forms" which may involve their own unique independent cultural (i.e.. social, racial, religious) group. With this in mind, I believe that the solution to the Hater and Covert Racist is vigorous (and fair) enforcement of Anti Hate, Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity Legislation. People are free to Hate, if they want to. However, when dealing with other people they are required to do so fairly and justly, not based on their hate.

I do not believe that Civil Rights need to turn into Special Rights for anyone in particular, I believe that people can be protected from abuse, without the protection itself become abusive, but that the danger and risk of this possibility should not be downplayed. The solution to the "Unconscious" Racist, is much more difficult, in my opinion and I think is where our efforts need to be focused primarily. I believe that fundamentally, we are all Human. That recognizing this concept is paramount to any solution. Also paramount is recognizing that we are all individuals, in some ways we are alike and in some ways we are different from each and every other individual. We must commit ourselves to the idea that regardless of our differences and our similarities, we must respect each other’s freedom and right to fair treatment - as is documented in the U.S. Constitution and the International Declaration of Human Rights.

This commitment should not be taken lightly, for it may often require us to bet against what commonsense and statistics tell us are the "odds", it may require us to take a personal risk in order to preserve fairness and the rights of others. We have to be willing and able to Shift our own paradigms, to reflect the truth and reality accurately, not just the way we are comfortable. To a large extent, none of the above is "natural". It doesn't just "happen" and it's not going to unless people put forth the effort needed. Fighting racism takes personal courage, and unless people draw forth the courage to fight the pre-conceptions, laziness, fear and hate both inside and out, things will not improve. People have to commit themselves to this struggle and keep that commitment, individually and one at a time. I hold no illusion that everyone will make this commitment, we are after all, different individuals, but my hope is that with this and other knowledge as our tools we can do far better than we have. With these tools, at least we will be fighting the problem and not each other. And we do, have so very, very far to go in this struggle.

Still this is a struggle that has been a long time coming and a change will come but we have to individually put forth the effort to create this change. We as a nation cannot continue to discriminate but we must understand that there are some disparities in this nation both economically and socially that is rooted from slavery and Jim Crow that we as a nation must put forth the effort to change without preventing future discriminatory acts against other people. This is easier said than done but this is no slippery slope matter, we have to address race in this nation once and for all but it all starts with each us understanding what racism is and moving forward from it. We all must understand what discrimination is and work to prevent it. We can no longer sit on the fence when it comes to racism and discrimination. Race in America needs to be discussed, addressed and solved once and for all.

We the People can’t continue to allow our politicians to straddle the face on it and we can’t allow our judges to make decisions on race without looking at the law and the social circumstances of the land that created many of the laws that we have today. We have to modernize our political and judicial system to deal with race once and for all but that all starts with us the people putting the right people in office who are willing to rewrite the wrongs of history with an educational and economic approach that will change our nation socially once and for. We can’t look back on this moment and say that we didn’t do our job in addressing the race issue in this nation once and for all. Our nation has to deal with race in America right here, right now. We have to address it not now but right now.