Fear of Saying (or Writing) the Wrong Thing

The wrong thing. There, I wrote the wrong thing. 

White family and friends, is it possible to get past the fear of saying or doing the wrong thing during this struggle for racial justice? Can we move forward and take action rather than perseverating on eggshells? 

Robin DiAngelo called White Fragility the idea that any mention of racism will cause White people, even White people who call themselves anti-racist, to become defensive, self-focused, angry, and/or deny feedback from people of color. If you haven’t heard Dr. DeAngelo speak about this concept, please watch one of her many video interviews. 

We say to ourselves, “If I am not going to be afraid of saying or doing the wrong thing, then why do so many people challenge me when I do something that is anti-racist and helps the cause? It feels like even when I try to do the right thing, I am wrong!” 

The truth is that we will get it wrong sometimes. While our intentions may be good, we may not yet have the skills, knowledge, or context to do what really needs to be done. We must take feedback, learn how to do better, and then try again. 

White people sometimes deflect feedback from others instead of addressing the substance of the feedback. This is a “I know what you are saying is correct, but couldn’t you say it in a nicer way?” Thus white people don’t have to address their attitudes and choices because the feedback wasn’t presented in a pretty enough box. Nope! 

“But I meant well! Don’t I get credit for that? My intentions were good. I am still learning!” Welcome to the road to hell. Intentions are intangible, but impact is real. The focus on intentions is also a deflection. The effect of our choices is the real measure of their power. No one intends to make an error. The intention is minor, the result matters. We must own those effects, regardless of our intentions. 

As we learn how to be strong, thoughtful, and reflective anti-racist proponents, we will fall down – a lot. Rather than rationalizing our mistakes and dancing around the embarrassing moments when our ignorance or racism slips out, we must take another approach. 

DiAngelo talks about asking people of color, “What would it be like if you could just give white people feedback when we showed our inevitable and often unaware racist assumptions and patterns and had us receive that feedback with grace, reflect, and seek to change our behavior? What would that be like? And I’ll never forget this man of color raising his hand and saying, ‘It would be revolutionary.’” 

Think about the power of this concept: instead of the tap dance of deflect, defend, and deny, we instead say, “Thank you, you’re right. I am going to think about this and do better next time.” Of course, saying this means nothing without real action. 

Think about the power of this kind of dialogue: focusing on the core issue, taking our ego offline, accepting and acknowledging someone else’s point of view, giving their words serious thought, and then altering our choices.  

DiAngelo is right: it might be a revolution! 

The Emotional Fallacy: The Mirror in the Media

I was introduced to the idea of the emotional fallacy when studying literary criticism in college. The idea was that, instead of evaluating a work on the characteristics and qualities of the work itself, people sometimes respond to their own emotional response to the work. Thus, we are analyzing our individual and personal reactions and not parts of the work. 

For example, few people regard those highly sentimental movies about lovers, one of whom gets a terminal disease, and we watch their relationship grow as one of them dies, as great art. However, someone suffering from an illness or whose lover, mother, or friend had a similar situation might be touched emotionally. They would identify with the characters and situations in the movie. Their evaluation, therefore, might be a function of their response and not a result of the quality of the writing, acting, cinematography, editing, or other pieces of the craft of movie-making. They like the work because they relate to it. 

Yet, people judge works based on their own emotions all the time. They like things that make them feel good, inspired, or uplifted. They recoil from works that challenge their firmly held beliefs or make them think too hard. Sometimes, they miss the real art, skill, and beauty of the work because they are too caught up looking at themselves. Instead of examining the work, they see a mirror that reflects parts of themselves. 

We identify with a character and then that character becomes a stand-in for us. We think we know how they feel. We know how this plot goes because we have encountered situations like this in our lives. The work feels authentic and rings true because it mirrors our experience. 

Or our values. A work that confirms and supports our view of the world can be more appealing than one that challenges us to see a different perspective. A work that is simple and sweet goes down easier than one that is complicated and depends a great deal on the craft of storytelling. We like pretty pictures more than complex puzzles. 

Have you ever talked to someone who read a book you read or saw a movie you saw and thought to yourself, “Did we see the same thing?”  They may make a minor character into the protagonist because they see themselves in that character. They may impose their view of the world on the world of the story. They embellish the work with their values and experiences and transform it into an extension of themselves. Their response to it is no longer about the work.

Of course, creators want their audiences to connect with their works. They rejoice when their characters and situations are real to people. However, when the response centers on the viewer to the detriment of the work, we are no longer focused on the work – but on the viewer. 

It is not difficult to play with people’s emotions using words, images, music, or story. Advertisers, politicians, and propagandists frequently use anecdotes and compelling tales to manipulate their audiences. They are so good at this that their audiences rarely look behind the curtain to evaluate the vehicles themselves. They only see their images in the mirror. 

They see themselves in the characters and rewrite the story to fit their world, values, experiences, and prejudices. Think about the responses to the first Hunger Games movie when a Black woman was cast as Rue. The book made it clear that Rue was Black. However, many people who claimed to love the book rewrote that fact in their minds. They brought their bigotry to the novel and, when its explicit features were turned into a movie, it no longer matched what they recalled from the book – and they got mad! 

We recast the world in our own image. We rewrite the story to fit our values, wishes, and worldview. We think we know who are the oppressors and who are the victims because of course they reflect what we have seen and experienced in our world. 

And if it is not the same, if the story is not our story, we sometimes ignore those aspects of the text and rewrite it to reflect us. We create a confirming and comforting carnival mirror instead of analyzing the work itself. 

But the real story, the real movie, the real world doesn’t change. It isn’t just a mirror of us – and that can be difficult and uncomfortable to accept. It can make us the pawns of manipulators and Machiavellians. It can make us allies with evil.  

Reading for Treasure: What is "Woke?"

Recently, someone asked me if the teachers in my school were woke. I asked him what he meant by “woke.” He struggled to give me any form of answer. Does it just mean liberal? Does it mean Black? Does it mean whatever those in Florida want it to mean? What do they want it to mean? Do they know? 

Those who are banning books, worrying about drag shows, and storming school board meetings know what they are doing. It doesn’t matter what woke means. They have turned it into a weapon against those who coined it. It is an attempt to make schools and society white-centric – again. After accusing liberals of being snowflakes, the battle against woke is an attempt to protect the feelings and power of those who benefit from the status quo and don’t wish to be reminded of it. 

If eliminating any signs of “wokeness” might make some comfortable, it will make others uncomfortable and unsafe. There are some who stand to benefit if “woke” ideas are suppressed and we all go to sleep. But those who have been bullied, beaten, and brutalized also deserve to have their voices heard. Their history is our history, it is American history. We must face it because it is painful and difficult. 

The issues of our past do not go away because we wish they never happened. If we ignore health issues, things don’t get better because we pretend we are well when we know there is cause for concern. We must have the courage and fortitude to confront the issues that the anti-woke people are trying to silence. We can’t move forward until we deal with our past and present. 

With that in mind, here are some other voices that helped shape my view and may give more context to this issue:  

Clarence Page’s editorial in the Chicago Tribune, “What is ‘woke’? More than a joke.” 

NewsOne’s article, “Fox News Host Whitesplains Why Conservatives Can’t Define ‘Woke,’ Says It’s Just A ‘Feeling.’” 

Two articles from The Atlantic: “Woke Is Just Another Word for Liberal” and  “Wokeness Has Replaced Socialism as the Great Conservative Bogeyman.”

Michael Harriott, writing in The Grio, looks at how the word “woke” and other terms have been twisted into new definitions and speculates on what other words might suffer the same fate, “After white people redefined ‘woke’ and ‘critical race theory,’ these 6 words or phrases might be next.” 

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction.

I am currently reading The Spare Man by Mary Robinette Kowal

When You Say You Are Voting Based on the Economy, What You Are Really Saying Is…

Saying you are voting on Tuesday based on your concerns about the economy is really really a way to avoid saying you are voting for other issues that you might not want to admit because voting for Republicans is not going to improve the economy. 

How could you vote for people who condone political violence? The attack on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband was an attempted political assassination. Countless Republicans have made light of it, spread absurd conspiracy theories, and even openly celebrated it. This is more than a lack of empathy, it is an acknowledgment that they approve of political violence. Since January 6th, that should not be a surprise. 

Aren’t they supposed to be the anti-crime party? They have done nothing to ensure the safety of kids in classrooms? They have prevented legislation that would stop dangerous people from getting guns and defended people who used them to kill. They protect people who kill as long as they didn’t like those who were murdered. Violence is never good for the economy. 

The real reasons for our economic issues are more complex than our current political leaders. One major driver is the continuing effect of the COVID pandemic. Did the Republicans handle COVID well while they were in office? How much of our current situation is due to their choices while in power? 

Another major economic issue is the current war in Ukraine. The war’s effects on energy and food prices are being felt all over the world – but most powerful in Ukraine itself. Republicans have made it quite clear that they think we are doing too much for Ukraine and want to reduce our support. We know that some Republicans have a crush on Putin. Would further war and bloodshed in Ukraine make everyone safer and more prosperous? 

How could people vote for candidates who are unqualified for the positions for which they are running? Candidates who can’t answer questions, recently moved into the areas they are running to represent, and have problematic and disturbing pasts will not make strong leaders. Please judge a party by the company it keeps. If these weak candidates are elected, will they have the skill to move the economy forward – or move anything forward? 

What about the hate speech, racism, Anti-Semitism, phobias of all kinds, white nationalism, and religious extremism? When asked to wear a mask to protect their neighbors, they cried, “my body, my choice,” and now they will not extend that “right” to women. A race-based theocracy will not create more jobs or reduce costs, although it might make the trains run on time. 

And will these candidates concede if they lose? What about their allies who are now running some of these elections? Many still cling to the lie that the last election was not legitimate, even though the same ballots they contest for one office, they accept for others! This kind of election denial could create dangerous chaos! 

Of course, voting based on personal (selfish) economic interests is an American tradition: “It’s the economy, stupid.” Nope, let’s rephrase that, in 2022, it is stupid to believe that people are really doing that. They are condoning and supporting a party that continues to threaten our economy, democracy, and way of life.  However you read the economic tea leaves, it is clear that those who say that the economy is their main issue are really supporting a dangerous agenda: it will worsen the economy –and it will diminish and degrade America.   

Reading For Treasure: Gun Terrorism

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

Guns and their extremist worshippers are terrorizing our country. There are shootings so often that this entry will be out of date the moment it is posted. We have no regulated militia or anything when it comes to firearms of all types: hunting rifles and automatic weapons designed to rip people to shreds. It is far past the time that the majority of Americans who support common sense gun legislation insist that our lawmakers make our schools, malls, movie theaters, churches, synagogues, and communities safe from the terrorists who insist that their right to kill trumps everyone else’s right to life. Here is a selection of articles exploring this issue. 

While Uvalde and Highland Park have proven that the “good guy with a gun” will not stop loss of life from gun terrorists, there is another issue with school resource officers: they may make some students feel less safe and be more likely to arrested. The AP in The Grio’s article, “No. Placing more officers in schools will not make Black students feel safer in the wake of mass shootings” provides this perspective. 

Even though a "good guy with a gun" shot the terrorist in Indiana, this opinion piece from The Grio makes it clear that, "An Armed Bystander Is Not Your Savior."

The Highland Park, Uvalde, and Buffalo shooters acquired their guns legally! The New York Amsterdam News lists how the shooters from 22 recent acts of gun terrorism got their weapons: “22 mass shootings. 374 dead. Here’s where the guns came from” 

I love this idea even if I am skeptical that it would work. However, Gal Beckerman acknowledges all of this in his article “Students Should Refuse to Go Back to School” in The Atlantic. Could we mobilize in the next few months? 

Get ready to be frustrated by this second article from The Atlantic. In, “The Real Reason America Doesn’t Have Gun Control,” author Ronald Brownstein shows how a minority has “veto over national policy.” 

Scalawag Magazine shares powerful Southern student voices about guns, fear, and the need for student power: “'Young people need power.' Southern students on safety, school, and accountability.” 

Peter Bergen lays the case out succinctly and clearly in his article in CNN: “Opinion: This is how we stem America's mass shootings” 

Finally, arming teachers in school is so dangerous that only satire can do it justice. Read this school memo from McSweeny’s. I don’t want to tell you more, just read it: “Regarding the Recently Passed ‘Arm the Teachers” Bill.” 

I am currently reading Light From Uncommon Stars by Ryka Aoki and I love it! It is wonderful! If you are looking for a delightful and delicious book, read it and then talk to me about it! 

Where are the Guardian Angels?

The shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas is overwhelming. Each time I think about the horrible events of May 24, I find it is so painful that I need to deflect to something else, anything else. The thought of that kind of loss is nearly too difficult to imagine.  

I was teaching the day that Laurie Dann walked into Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka and began shooting. My school moved to “red alert,” which was designed to prevent senior pranks, when it was reported that the shooter was headed northwest. My school is only a few miles northwest of Hubbard Woods. This was more than thirty years ago. 

There are no words to console a grieving parent or partner. There is no pain I can imagine worse than the death of a child. It is so hideous and powerful and painful. Why must parents keep experiencing loss because of school shootings? 

What is wrong with us that we refuse to protect our children sitting in their classrooms? What is wrong with us that we argue about the rights of children not yet born, but we refuse to protect fourth graders? How can people rush to protect gun rights at the cost of children’s lives?  Anyone who has worked in education knows that putting more guns in school will not address this problem. It is a false fantasy solution that ignores everything we know about these situations. 

Even the National Rifle Association prohibits guns at its convention! Arming teachers will work, but having a convention full of gun owners won’t? I don’t understand. 

Let’s start a new organization: No Retro Abortions. This organization would advocate that we ban abortions beyond the 15-week or 3-month or the latest of late-term timelines and argue that even abortions that take place after birth should be forbidden. The organization could be called by its initials: N.R.A. 

Recently, I read a short story called, “Mr. Death” by Alix Harrow. The story is nominated for the prestigious Hugo award, and.I read the nominees every year so I vote for the winners. 

This fantasy story follows a relatively new “reaper” who ferries souls across the river of death. He is given assignments and then sits with the person as they die and accompanies them to the other side. However, as the story opens, he is given a horrible assignment: a child of only 30 month: a two year old. 

Our focal character has deep misgivings and does his best to rationalize and justify the child’s death. But he can’t. He lost his own child and has experienced this kind of pain first hand. As the story proceeds, he moves from giving the child a little extra time to being unable to complete his assignment. He refuses to complete the assignment even though it will mean much more than losing his job, it will probably mean he will be consigned to oblivion. 

If you are going to read the story, this is the place to stop reading. I am about to spoil it. Read the story and come back or skip to the paragraph beginning, “Lovers of life…” 

Here is the connection: when our reaper refuses to take the child and is willing to sacrifice everything, he is surprised to find that he is transformed. He is no longer a reaper and instead, he is a guardian. He stands beside the child as a  protector. 

Lovers of life, pro-choice, pro-life, we need guardians now. Our children need us all to become angels who protect them: in their classrooms, churches, synagogues, movie theaters, and homes. Not with more instruments of death, but with thoughtful and rational laws and rules. Other countries do this; we can do this. 

Can we transform from partners of death to protectors of life? The Supreme Court will soon rule about how the unborn should be protected. What about the newly born? What about the fourth graders? What about our children and grandchildren? 

Thou shall not murder. Put down your weapon and accept your wings. Protect the children. Please. 

Reading For Treasure: We Need to Keep Talking and Reading About Racism, Roe, CRT, and Hate

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction! 

The news overflows with horrible stories of racism, sexism, and other forms of hate. Here is a small selection of articles and videos to further your understanding of these critical issues. 

Imbolo Mbue writes in The Atlantic about the recent biography of George Floyd. Neither he nor the writers of the biography shy away from a nuanced and complex picture of Floyd – and that picture is also one of our America:  “The America that Killed George Floyd.” 

The overturning of Roe v. Wade puts several other rights in jeopardy. This article from Blavity outlines how this Supreme Court decision could open the door to eliminating other rights: “5 Other Rights That Could Be Struck Down If Roe V. Wade Is Overturned”

Alexis McGill is the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood. She writes in the New York Amsterdam News that “The end of Roe and what it would mean for the Black community.”

Two pieces that focus on Critical Race Theory: Lifehacker provides a clear piece on “What Critical Race Theory Actually Means (And What It Doesn’t).”

John Oliver discusses Critical Race Theory on this episode of Last Week Tonight.

How do we prevent white children from becoming white nationalists? My former colleague provides teachers, parents, counselors, and coaches with information about “Inoculating Our Students Against White Nationalism — Teaching While White.”

Finally, the Associated Press published this article, “Explainer: Theory of White Replacement Fuels Racist Attacks” which provides a background to the ideas that are motivating terrorist attacks by white nationalists. 

I am currently reading Station Eleven by Emily St. John Mandel.

Reading for Treasure: Helping Ukraine

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction

The war in Ukraine is disturbing and frightening. We might feel powerless and angry at events over which we have no control. 

However, there are ways that we can help those affected by Russia’s violence. Here are some resources that will allow us to reach out, show our support for the Ukrainians, and give tangible assistance: 

First, here is an NPR article aptly titled, “Want to support the people in Ukraine? Here's how you can help.” 

LitHub has another list offering, “How you can help Ukraine.” 

A friend posted this Instagram story that tells us, “How to Help Marginalized People in the Ukraine.” 

Charity Navigator also has a list of groups. 

Feel free to list other ways to help in the comments. 

If you want to cut to the chase, here are links to the sources these articles provide: 

NPR: 

UNICEF

Médecins Sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders

Voices of Children

Sunflowers of Peace

International Committee of the Red Cross

Save the Children

UN Refugee Agency

CARE

International Medical Corps

Lit Hub List:

Return Alive

Hospitalers 

Ukrainian Women Veterans Movement

United Help Ukraine

Peace Insight

Voices of Children (also above) 

Serhiy Zhadan Charitable Foundation X Razom

Polish Medical Mission

Instagram: 

Donations to @ukraine.Pride:⁠

PAYPAL +14152799995 ⁠

⁠

MONOBANK⁠

4441 1144 5311 1369⁠

IBAN⁠

UA123220010000026205315732562⁠

SOFIIA LAPINA⁠

⁠

Donations to Ukrainian Women's Guard:⁠

@ukrainianwomens_guard⁠

IBAN: ⁠ UA 29 300528 0000026002000008262⁠

Beneficiary: ⁠ UWG⁠

Fight for Right⁠

Everybody Can

Resources for African/Caribbean students in Ukraine

Africans Leaving Ukraine:⁠ @nigeriansleavingukraine

United Help Ukraine:⁠ (also above⁠)

Voices of Children:⁠ (also on the other lists) 

Sunflower of Peace:⁠ (also above) ⁠

Fundraiser to Support Hospitals in Ukraine⁠

I am currently reading Victories Greater Than Death by Charlie Jane Anders.

The Other Side

I’ve been thinking a great deal about “the other side.” We ask ourselves, “How can people support them? What could they be thinking? What horrible people!” This line of thinking is not helpful or healthy. It just creates distance and distaste. 

No, I am not going to follow that up with an “of course.” Discounting people’s skepticism or distrust of authority does not move any conversation forward. I always want my students to think critically and to analyze information through multiple lenses. Use of those lenses often makes discussion and argument more complex. But our time is one of complexity; simplifying these issues and attitudes got us into this trouble in the first place. 

I keep having an imaginary conversation with someone who sees politics and our country’s current situation very differently than I do. How would such a conversation go? The models online are not helpful. They are entrenchments and trolling. Changing someone’s mind online has become a sour joke. 

So one approach might be: how can we better understand each other? Can we discover places where we are in agreement? Where do we share concerns? 

What if the goal, instead of trying to convince, trap, or trump was to discover, learn, and understand. What if the whole “I am going to get you to join my party and vote differently in the next election” thing was dismissed and, instead, the goal was: can I leave with a more clear understanding of where we agree, where we disagree, and why? 

Would that help make the conversation less shrill? That is another aspect of this division. Defenses and dukes are up, ears are closed, and civility is at a premium. The entire situation reminds me of fights on the middle school playfield. 

How would such a conversation take place? We have divided ourselves into siloed echo chambers, online and off. We “unfriend” people who disagree with us or post things that make us uncomfortable. We socialize with people who either share our views or, if they do not, don’t bring up sensitive topics. We’ll talk sex, money, and religion before we talk politics. 

If such conversations were to happen, how would we keep it polite and focused on understanding? It would have to be small. You don’t have to yell if there is no crowd to yell over. The us vs. them mentality of the sports arena is less likely to develop at a table of four. We do have to keep it from developing. 

There would have to be some simple ground rules that would probably parallel the structure of negotiations or business meetings: no interrupting, use of reflective listening, focus on subjects instead of personal attacks, making sure that each contribution clearly connects to the ones before it, and so on. 

So if we got one or two Democrats and Republicans, supporters of different candidates, and sat down, would we be able to do this with some practice and assistance? 

Yeah, I am thinking that, too: so what? So we sit down and learn more about each other. Might that drive us further apart? Might that horrify us? Might that turn our neighbors into monsters? 

Perhaps. 

But perhaps it might humanize them. Perhaps it might let us understand what others value and how those values translate into political ideas and action. Perhaps it would help us relearn how to civilly disagree and encourage us to build bridges instead of moats. 

We desperately need this right now. I don’t think any political leaders have the ability or foresight to make something like this happen. Their thinking is too polar and partisan. 

So it is up to us. Can we learn about each other? Can we reach across the divide, the aisle, the difference? If we insist on playing winner take all, we lose all. If we take another approach, we could increase the odds of all of us winning. 

Do we really want more of this? Are we willing to stop yelling at our televisions and start talking to each other? 

It turns out that there are organizations working to do this! Recently, a friend emailed me about the American Exchange Program, which puts students from different backgrounds, areas of the country, and points of view in touch with each other. This story from the PBS News Hour provides several other groups who connect adults. 

I encourage you to view the news story (it is also embedded on this page). I have read about some of these organizations. It is time to do more than bemoan the divided nature of our country. It is time to reach across the divide, aisle, and mile – and begin to really unify our country again. 

The News Is Not Netflix

“Remind me to write a popular article on the compulsive reading of news. The theme will be that most neuroses and some psychoses can be traced to the unnecessary and unhealthy habit of daily wallowing in the troubles and sins of five billion strangers.” 

- Robert Heinlein, Stranger In A Strange Land

There was no cable news, CNN, FOX, MSNBC when Heinlein wrote this. You couldn’t consume news twenty-four hours a day. Now, news is one of the most popular shows on television. 

And therein lies the issue. The pandemic has trapped us in our homes and we turned to our screens: Zooming, gaming, and online communications took center focus, but so did watching more and more and more TV. Really, this was not startling. The trends were going this way since Netflix decided not to send people DVDs. 

It is not surprising that people would immerse themselves in distractions on several screens. People become very connected to the stories and characters in the shows they watch, regardless of the quality of the entertainment. Whether this is enjoying people screaming at each other during daytime talk shows, the exaggerated highs and lows of soap operas or the rush of a good adventure series, the power of the video story can be nearly addicting. 

So why shouldn’t we see the news as just another kind of story? There are fascinating characters, great conflict, high stakes, and engaging visuals. No wonder we like to elect television and movie personalities to public office! Perhaps we don’t see the difference – or we don’t want to see the difference. 

In his 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman argues that, by presenting news through a medium that is best suited to entertainment, the gravity and complexity of the issues are diluted to such a degree that he refers to television news as “disinformation.” 

Similarly, in the 1976 Oscar award-winning movie, Network, the same idea is frighteningly dramatized as we see the conflict between journalistic television news, which is not entertaining enough to get good ratings, with an entertainment-focused news show that will do anything, including televising a suicide, to get people to watch. 

We are amusing ourselves to our democracy’s detriment. Today, our narrowcast news sources have gone far beyond what was satire in 1976! We watch the news with the same motives and engagement that we watch Tiger King, Squid Game, or Succession. The news is nothing more than another riveting television show. 

And we are the biggest fans! We look at our world through the perspectives, products, and spin of our news channels. There is no substantive difference in the way we consume the news than the way we interact with other television programming. 

Just as people name their children for media characters and personalities, we shape our choices around the feelings and fluff we get from the screen. We start to believe that the world really isn’t that complex. It can be reduced to a few quick sound bites from the anchorperson, legislator, or commentator. We trust these on-screen authorities for the same reasons we like watching actors in a fictional world: they look good, they sound good, they stroke parts of our self-image and make our drab lives more fun. 

Is that it? Could that be it? It used to be that watching Maury Povitch, Montell Williams, or Jerry Springer was a kind of schadenfreude. We got a perverse pleasure from watching others in pain. Now, our news has taken this a step further. We get that pleasure from seeing our political opponents in pain and our protagonist win every conflict –even if he didn’t really win. It’s all fiction anyway, so what’s the difference?  

It is not that different from following sports teams and, I fear, has about as much weight. Except that this team has far more influence over the fates of millions of people. We see ourselves as Team Republican or Team Democrat in the same way that we root for the Cubs or Cardinals, the Bears or the Packers. 

Political issues are hard to understand, so it is convenient that TV simplifies them for us. Politicians are masterful at manipulating facts and issues, so it is good to use the same tools to judge them that we use with fictional characters played by actors. 

Worst of all, we respond in similar ways: no one is asking you to save the character in danger during the series you are binging. Your vote doesn’t count for or against the fictional detective making an arrest or the lawyer in court on TV. 

But it does in the real world. When we are moved to action by our entertainment news, it is to play our roles in the drama we see unfolding. We get delusions of stardom and see ourselves as a piece of the story; we are characters in the tale, supporting our heroes and helping them vanquish our foes – if we are moved to action at all. 

Except the real world isn’t a story, and our heroes are fallible humans who are far more complex than comic book superheroes. Ultimately, all of the things we see on TV are trying to sell us something. They are not acting in our best interest – ever. By seeing the complicated and ever-changing world as a simple fable, perhaps one with a simple platitude at its heart, we become children again. 

The news is not Netflix. Politics are complicated. It is critically important to be aware of what is going on in the real world – but we have to be able to know what is real and what is just another made-up story. And taking political action is not as simple as posting on social media. 

How about a Consumer Reports for Candidates?

Beyond their party affiliation, how much do you know about the candidates for whom you vote? Who is funding their campaigns? Have they been in trouble in the past? How do you assess candidates’ integrity and trustworthiness? 

For most of us, we have relied on various forms of media to help us make informed voting decisions. Groups like the League of Women Voters will sometimes provide candidate’s answers to basic questions and stands on issues. We see lawn signs and read newspaper articles and endorsements. Yet, we are swayed by commercials, social media, and simplistic sound bites. 

What if there was another way to assess candidates? What if an independent organization, unaffiliated with any political party (and not taking money from them), could provide us with a report card on a candidate that would let us know what the candidate has done in the past, things about the candidate’s character and background, thus serving as a neutral credentialing source? 

There are several models for this; The Better Business Bureau serves as a vehicle for consumers to assess the trustworthiness of local businesses. They state their mission and vision on their website: 

Similarly, Underwriters Laboratories, which I think now only goes by UL, tests products to ensure their safety. Companies pay UL to put their products through rigorous testing both to improve their design and assure customers of the safety and integrity of what they are purchasing. UL states its mission on its website: 

While one of these is non-for-profit and the other commercial, they have significant similarities. They are both credentialing entities. Their purpose is to give a seal of integrity to products and businesses. They do not compete against these organizations or advertise for them. Rather, they are an independent impartial entity whose sole job is to help consumers make good choices.

Another example: Consumer Reports magazine tests products and services to help consumers make educated buying decisions. Their magazine is entirely funded by subscriptions and takes no advertising. They are a trusted source of impartial information about almost everything on the market. 

One more: Charity Navigator uses a straightforward rating system based on a charity’s financial health and its accountability and transparency. From that, they determine an easy-to-understand star rating. When looking up a charity, they provide a clear explanation about why the charity received the rating it did. 

While there is no news source that everyone can agree upon, could a group of people whose political backgrounds span the range of our current landscape come together and find a way to evaluate all candidates? Could they create a rubric upon which candidates would be evaluated that might include: 

Where and how they have received money with which to run their campaigns and how they are spending it. 

Their educational, political, and job histories; their resumes. 

Prior scandals or other issues and their resolutions

If this new organization listed its mission, it might sound a little like the missions of the Better Business Bureau or UL: 

• Help create an ethical election where voters and candidates trust each other
• Set standards for election trust
• Encourage and support best practices by engaging with and educating voters and candidates
• Celebrate election role models
• Calling out and addressing substandard election behavior
• Creating a community of trustworthy candidates
• Promote safe, secure, and sustainable election process
• Support candidates who demonstrate integrity by demonstrating respect and ethical behavior, intent, and working toward a fair, inclusive, and equitable election process.
• Improve elections through research and investigation
• Make voting safer, easier, and more trustworthy
• Work with integrity and focus to enhance the trust conveyed by this certification 
• Be a good example of election ethics and evaluation. 

Our democratic process could benefit from this kind of organization. Yes, building trust would be challenging. Yes, getting buy-in from both candidates and voters would take time and persistence. But the payoff would be massive. 

Anyone up for the challenge? 

Reading For Treasure: We Still Need to Talk – and Read – About Race

 Reading for Treasure is my list of articles (and other readings) that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

We need to keep race foremost on our minds as we confront the variety of issues facing us right now. While COVID, the economy, education, voting rights, and many other issues are critical; race is intertwined with all of them. So let’s keep reading, talking, and taking action. Here are a few articles to help you do that.  

The Bitter Southerner published a powerful piece that directly addresses tourists at southern plantations who don’t want to hear the history of slavery. “Dear Disgruntled White Plantation Visitors” by author, culinary historian, and historical interpreter, Michael Twitty tears down the stereotypes and asks readers (and visitors) to directly face the horrible truth about the past.   

The New York Times opinion piece,  “I Don’t Need ‘Love’ Texts from My White Friends”  asks white people to do far more than just send emails and texts, hold memorials, and reflect. Instead, writer Chad Sanders provides three specific actions that have more positive impact. 

LifeHacker describes the National Museum of African American History and Culture’s online portal that, “contains tools, online exercises, video instructions, articles, and more than 100 multimedia resources tailored for educators and parents…”  in the quick article, “Get Help Talking About Race With This Tool From The Smithsonian.” It links directly to parts of this resource that might be useful for opening a conversation with your family, colleagues, or neighbors.

Leonard Pitts, Jr. writes in the Chicago Tribune  that “The Right To Bear Arms Does Not Extend to Black People.” He explains that the second amendment was really intended to make sure that the south could put down slave rebellions and goes on to question the NRA’s silence at the deaths of John Crawford III and Tamir Rice. 

Beyond articles, NewsOne provides a list of “5 Books Addressing Race That Every Teen Should Read” that includes titles like Angel of Greenwood, A Song Below Water, and Dragon Hoops. All of the books were written in either 2020 or 2021. 

Finally, three articles dealing with Critical Race Theory. The first is from Blavity, “Everybody’s Talking About It: What is Critical Race Theory?” In it, writer David E. Kirkland lays out the tenets of Critical Race Theory. Professor Ibram X. Kendi, writing in The Atlantic argues that “There Is No Debate Over Critical Race Theory.” Instead, using specific evidence, he makes the case that the critics of CRT, “are arguing against themselves.” Finally, and sadly, Colorlines reports that, “ Critical Race Theory Battles are Driving Black Educators Out of Their Jobs.” Not a shock there, but another part of this very disturbing issue. 

I am currently reading, The Wizard’s Guide to Defensive Baking by T. Kingfisher. 

Reading for Treasure: Eat Less Meat

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles (and other readings) that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

I have been a vegetarian for almost twenty-five years. There are many reasons to eat less meat: health, environment, economics, ethics. Here are some articles that may help you understand the issues about reducing how much meat, chicken, pork, or fish you consume and how that choice might benefit all of us. 

From Inverse: “U.S. Meat Eaters Should Consider This Study Before Their Next Grocery Run” “Research shows nutrition is a major component of reducing our risks of chronic disease and premature death. Sulfur amino acids are naturally more prevalent in meat than vegetables, so switching to plant-based protein sources like whole grains, beans, lentils, nuts and seeds, and eating recommended daily intakes of sulfur amino acids, could make it less likely that you will develop heart disease or diabetes in future.”

From Lifehacker: “How to Become a Vegetarian (or Eat Less Meat)”  “You don’t need me to tell you that industrial meat production is an enormous contributor to global warming (and climate denialism) or that meat processing corporations are almost cartoonishly evil in their exploitation of an underpaid, often undocumented workforce. The facts are out there for the whole world to see, which is probably why more people are choosing to eat less meat.”

From CNN: “One of the world's top restaurants is ditching meat. Here's what could go wrong” “It might seem like the perfect time to get people on board with an all-vegan menu. Plant-based proteins are as popular as ever. Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat (BYND), which sell alternatives to meat designed to look, taste, and cook like the real thing, have expanded massively in grocery stores and struck major deals with big food companies and restaurant chains. Last month, the food site Epicurious said it would stop publishing beef recipes, noting that production of the meat emits harmful greenhouse gases.”

From Inverse: “A Controversial Diet Change Could Reduce Air Pollution and Save Lives” “New research implicates air pollution caused by agriculture production in the premature deaths of 17,900 Americans. This air pollution is linked to both ammonia and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). These findings were published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.There are solutions that could curb air pollution deaths significantly, the study team says. These include eating a more plant-based diet.”

From The Atlantic: “The Economic Case for Worldwide Vegetarianism” “In a study published last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Marco Springmann and his colleagues at the University of Oxford conservatively estimate that if people continue to follow current trends of meat consumption, rather than shifting to a more balanced or plant-based diet, it could cost the U.S. between $197 billion and $289 billion each year—and the global economy up to $1.6 trillion—by 2050.”

I am currently reading Artificial Condition by Martha Wells.

Passover is not Passive

The Passover story is powerful. It is about freedom from slavery, plagues, and persecution. It asks us to do more than retell the story but to imagine that we lived it. It is a story of people who took action and transformed their world. Our world is in need of such people and transformation. 

If we are to keep Passover, we must go beyond our diet. I have written about this before. 

At a time when our world, our country, our families are facing so many challenges, keeping Passover means putting its lessons to use. Perhaps, at our seders, we can ask each other, what can we do to help those who are bound become free?  How can we help cure the world of the many plagues that ail it?  How can we help strangers who have left their homes, since we were once strangers? 

A simple way for those of us still sheltering in our homes is to donate to organizations that do this good work. Here are a few Passover causes that need your keeping: 

Support groups working to rid the world of human trafficking, like A21.

Help those who are struggling to feed their families during this time by donating to Feed America. 

Work against the plague of racism and hate by giving to groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. 

There are many suffering from COVID and other illnesses. While there are many charities that provide care, fund research or assist patients, Partners in Health is an outstanding organization that works to bring healthcare to some of the world's neediest populations. And if you haven’t read about its founder, Paul Farmer, I highly recommend the highly inspiring and challenging book Mountains Beyond Mountains by Tracey Kidder. 

Give to those who are helping the strangers at our borders and in our land by contributing to National Immigration Law Center or RAICES. 

There are many more; these are just examples. Passover can be more than a personal holiday, more than meals and special foods. It can be a time when we take its lessons and help change lives.

Passover is about confronting injustice, living our values, following our laws, realizing freedom, becoming a nation, and more. These are our challenges today, too. Let Passover inspire us to do more than give up bread, but to take the steps needed to create miracles that transform our world.  

Reading for Treasure: Confronting Anti-Asian Hate

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles (and other readings) that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

We must forcefully denounce the horrible hateful acts against people of Asian descent. Just as we deplore racist acts against Black and brown people, the LGBTQ+ community, and other racial, ethnic, and religious groups. American’s strength is its diversity. Here are a group of articles to help people, primarily people who are not affected by this kind of bigotry, both understand, speak out, and act. 

“#StopAsianHate: United against racism, misogyny + white supremacy”: Marc H. Morial is the President and CEO of the National Urban League. In this piece from Afro, he responds to the murders in Atlanta and the wave of Anti-Asian hate crimes. He lists six specific actions to combat this kind of racist violence, “After four years of policy, rhetoric and messaging at the highest levels of government that fanned the flames of bigotry and inspired acts of violence against communities of color, the pandemic has brought us to a crossroads. It exposed America’s racial fault lines in nearly every indicator – health care, economic stability, justice, and democracy -and forced the nation to confront its legacy of white supremacy. We must seize the opportunity to create lasting change by emerging from this crisis a stronger nation determined to achieve a more perfect union for all its people.”

“We Must Confront Anti–Asian American Hate Crimes”: Far too few of our leaders have spoken up.” Larry Hogan is the governor of Maryland. His brief piece in The Atlantic urges all of our elected officials, “in both the public and private sectors and across the political spectrum, to clearly and forcefully denounce the hate. Far too few have spoken up directly to condemn these acts. Words—or the lack thereof—matter.” He also points out, “But words should be accompanied by action.” 

“A Letter to the Jewish Community from an Asian American Jew”: Lest we think that the racism is simply “out there,” Mira Baum writes in JMore about her experience as a Jewish woman of color experiencing racism in the Jewish community. She makes a powerful call to accountability, not only Jews but especially Jews: “I’m holding you accountable. There are Jews of different races and they face racism. They, too, require the same protection and validation that White Jews receive against anti-Semitic attacks. While anti-Semitism and racism are different, they share a commonality: they are both founded upon and reinforced by baseless hatred. You need to legitimize experiences of racism, even when the racism is found within our places of worship. We must remain accountable for our actions and actively work against the many forms of baseless hatred that persist in our culture.” 

“What to Do Instead of Saying 'I Don't See Race'”: Aisha Jordan writing for Lifehacker addresses the problem with the concept of race blindness, “ The truth is, racial colorblindness only benefits those who have the privilege of not needing to think about race in their daily lives. Those who are unlikely to be discriminated against have the luxury of buying or renting homes, going into stores, or interacting with law enforcement without being reminded of the color of their skin.” She puts this concept in clear perspective and provides both the rationale and alternatives to the cop-out of denying race. 

“Donating, Volunteering, Reporting Hate Incidents: Here's How to Help Combat Anti-Asian Violence”: Time Magazine presents a good list of actions and resources to fight against this plague of hate. 

I am currently reading A Trail of Lightning by Rebecca Roanhorse

Prayer to the People

Fellow citizens of this great country

Built on hope and horror

Liberty and inequality

Invention and detention 

Arise now in these difficult days 

And illuminate the world with the depth of your decency  

Fellow citizens of this tortured land

Who struggle daily 

With illness, violence, and questions of truth

Lean into the wisdom of good books and good people 

Love your neighbor and

Bring the fairness that can only come 

From just us 

Oh, beautiful Americans, 

Obey your better natures 

Not despots or desperation

Care for the desperate and dispirited

Choose goodness and generosity

Open your arms wide 

Embrace each other 

And the future 

When You Vote...

When you vote, don’t be a single-issue voter. The selection of a president of the United States is far too important and complex to be made by a single measure. Instead, please consider the following. 

When you vote: 

Think of this as a hiring decision. Which candidate would you want in your organization? Which one would you trust to run your business? How do you choose a person to join your department or company? If these were the final choices, which one would you offer the job? 

Imagine your child was marrying into this person’s family. Which one would you want as a possible new in-law? Which one would best treat your child well, as they enter the new family? 

Think about those who are unfortunate and in difficult circumstances. Think about those whose lives are on the edge and in jeopardy. Which of these people will do the most to help these people? Which of these people can you trust to protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us? 

Imagine you will be this person’s boss and you will be held to account for their actions. Which candidate is likely to make you proud? Which one is more likely to embarrass or disappoint you? If you were to be blamed for this person’s actions, which one would be more likely to cause you grief, pain, or problems? 

Think about your parents as they age and the needs of our increasing older population. Which of these candidates understands the struggles and challenges of aging in America. Which one understands what it means to care for older adults? 

Think about our children and their wellbeing. There is nothing more important than the investment we make in our kids – all of our kids. Which person will set the standard and be the example we want our children to follow? Which will protect and educate them?

Think about our environment. Last year was the second warmest year on record. We had floods, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and an increasing number of natural disasters. Which of these people will work toward healing our planet? 

Consider the candidate’s morals and ethics? Which of these people do you trust more? Who behaves in a way that is more honest, forthright, and just? Who demonstrates integrity? 

Consider the idea that this person must serve everyone, even those who didn’t vote for him. Can this person do this? Could this person be everyone’s president? Can this person bring us together? 

When you vote, you are all alone and no one will know for whom you voted. You could say, &*#$ it all, I am going to vote out of anger. Or you can think about what is most critical and important to you and to all of us, and vote your heart and your head. 

Your vote is a reflection of you. What are you voting for?  

Our Communities Need Us: Fulfilling Our Duty To Each Other

Dear Neighbors and Friends (near and far), 

To call this a difficult time feels like gross understatement. We are confused. We are angry. We are scared. Given the crises we are experiencing, these are normal and natural responses. What do we do with them? How do we cope? How do we help each other, and what do we do to bring our communities back to equilibrium? 

People are in pain. They are suffering physically, emotionally, and economically. Many have lost people dear to them. We cannot and should not wave away their grief. We must do what good friends, family, and neighbors have always done:  bring comfort, assistance, and the balm of companionship – even at a distance. 

No one is immune to the complex crises facing our communities. The multiple pieces of this storm have affected everyone, regardless of age, race, wealth, location, or other factors. None of us have superpowers, though we may wish we did. 

So what do we do? How can we work together to help each other and ourselves? That is the goal, right? That is the point of community. If we needed no one else, we could live by ourselves on an island. We are part of a greater interdependent whole: our communities. They give to us and we contribute to them. It is a mutually beneficial relationship  - at least most of the time. 

Sometimes, however, we are at odds with members of our communities. We disagree. We see the balance between giving and taking differently. We advocate for diverse priorities. If these differences are large enough, they may be transformative: they alter the fabric of our shared relationship. 

When in conflict, it can be tempting to simplify the disagreement: It is us or them, our way or their way, one or two, up or down. When we are highly invested in our communities and our positions, it can be very difficult to listen, arrive at compromise, and separate our feelings of ego and ownership from our thoughts about what is best for our community. Our strong feelings cloud our better judgment. Our communities are very important, as they should be, but we fear losing face, being wrong, seeming weak, or letting people down. Sometimes, we are angry and hurt. 

We must remind ourselves of what is most important about our communities and why they exist. When we demonize others because they take different positions, we need to remember our common objectives. 

What are they? Let’s take some of them out and use them to put our disagreements in perspective: 

Some of the reasons we sustain our communities are to: 

• Ensure the safety and well being of all, but especially those who cannot ensure their own. 
• Create resources that are valuable to most if not all of us, but so complex that we could not create them by ourselves (i.e. fire protection, hospitals, electrical grids, etc.). 
• Deal with traumatic or catastrophic threats that would overwhelm us individually. 
• Collaborate creatively to make our world a more pleasing and joyful place.   
• Collaborate economically and build shared resources that enhance the stability and comfort of our community. 
• Hold people to account and ensure that, if people’s behavior is detrimental to the community, there are ways to address and rectify it. 
• Protect and nurture our children and help them grow, learn, and mature. 
• Care for and honor our elders and ensure that they are protected and healthy. 
• Explore our community relationships and learn more about what communities mean to us. 

There are, of course, others as well. This list is not exhaustive. Feel free to leave comments with other reasons to maintain community. 

Being in a community means that we must let go of some of our individuality and individual control. We strike a balance between doing what is good for our families, communities, and what we would like to do just for ourselves. 

Small children are selfish. They cannot see this important difference. They won’t share toys, leave some of the cake for later, or give their parents quiet time to work at home. They are demanding and focused only on their own needs. Even if they have simple chores, they may chaff against doing them. They don’t recognize that they receive benefits from the family and also must learn to be an active contributor to it. 

We know people who are like this; they see only what the community gives them, should do for them, or should NOT do to them. The street only goes one way. Beyond these benefits, they want the community to allow them to eat all the dessert, stay up late, scream and yell whenever they want, and live by their own rules  - only. Toddlers can be tyrants, but so can taxpayers. 

In times of crisis, like now, it is easy to pull in our household borders and see only our immediate needs. We need toilet paper or cleanser, who cares if other people don’t have any. Who cares that our neighbors are being treated in ways that are demeaning, unjust, or dangerous if we are safe? 

More than ever, during a time when any of us can infect any of us unknowingly, we must prioritize the needs of the community.  We must listen and believe our neighbors of color and actively make our communities more equitable and just. We must unite as a community and a country to protect all of us. We must foster our connections to each other as much as we keep our households safe and healthy. 

Members of the military often talk about duty. We refer to serving on juries and voting as civic duties. If parents fail to properly take care of their children, it is criminal negligence. Our community needs us. It is our duty to care for it with the diligence that would devote to loved ones. We must balance our individual obligations with our obligations to our community and country. 

This cannot be accidental or incidental. This must be a conscious decision to do whatever we can do to make our communities safe, just, healthy, and peaceful:  

• Protect those who are struggling to keep themselves safe
• Strengthen our shared structures like hospitals and schools  (and the people who work at them)
• Comfort and assist those ailing, like the elderly and medically challenged. 
• Hold those whose behavior is racist, sexist, or prejudicial to account.
• Change structures in our community that benefit some at the expense of others.   
• Assist each other in realizing and living up to our communal duties.
• Protect and nurture all of our children.
• Help the community (both as a whole and as individuals) find joy and hope.

These are difficult goals during the best of times. They are never easy- and they have never been more important than right now. 

We must unite around fulfilling our duties to our community. We must find new balances between our own needs and what will benefit all of us. 

If we do not do this, our communities will become sick and die – and take us with them. 

Reading for Treasure: Racist!?

 Reading for Treasure is my list of articles (and other readings) that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

 

I don’t want our focus on racial justice to vanish as the protests leave the front pages and our television screens become filled with other topics. What makes something (or someone) racist? How should we have conversations regarding race and racism? Here are some articles that ask and answer some important questions about race.

 

“When Using Racist, Define Your Terms”: This article from The Atlantic explores the different definitions of racism and then argues that people, but especially journalists, must make it very clear what they mean by that term when they use it.

“When to Call Someone Out or Call Them In Over Racist Behavior”: This excerpt from a book by Tiffany Jewel starts by differentiating between calling someone in (addressing racist behavior privately) or calling someone out (addressing it in front of others). She then presents a series of questions about the nature of the behavior and situation that can guide your choice of whether to call someone in or out.

 

“The ‘I’m not a racist’ defense”: After you point out to someone that what they said or did was racist, almost always they turn that into an accusation that they are racist. In this opinion piece from CNN, Elliot Williams urges us to look beyond the label and see that it is not the intent of actions, but their impact that really makes something racist and that apologies and denials hide that sometimes White people do things that are racist and need to both acknowledge them and then do something about them.

 

“The Difference Between Being ‘Not Racist’ and ‘Anti-Racist’”: This article from Lifehacker clearly defines the terms “racist” and “anti-racist” and provides clear examples of behavior for each. It is a quick, easy, and important read.

 

 “What Drives Support for the Alt-Right”: This article from Psychology Today reports on a study that looked at the psychological profiles of people who identified with the Alt-right movement. It describes three clear takeaways from this report and looks at what is the motivation of Alt-right, their bias, and their comparison to supports of Antifa.

 

“What We Get Wrong About ‘People of Color’”: This article from Wired was written before people began using BIPOC or (Black, Indigenous, People of Color), but I wonder if the point would be the same. The author asks if we are using POC as a euphemism to avoid naming more specific groups.

 

“Open Letter to White People”: This piece suggests that the “what can I do” response to racist events is an empty question and White people become paralyzed by it. This article, written by a White person, works to get us past that paralysis by tapping into our empathy and taking action!

 

Seeing White Podcast: While many of us are considered White, our skin color is not really White. How did the idea of White (and Black) come about? Who were the people who made this distinction and why? I am willing to bet that many of the historical events this podcast describes will be new to you (especially if you are White).  It is outstanding and I cannot recommend it highly enough. Seeing White is part of a podcast called Scene on Radio.

 

“This Presidency Has Exposed My White Christian Friends”: The title makes the focus of this blog post very clear. Written by a pastor of a large church who is shocked by the beliefs of people he thought claimed to “love Jesus.” He says that the election of the current president has given people permission to stop pretending and take off their masks (metaphorically, of course – this article was written before the pandemic).  

 

 

I am currently reading Lovecraft Country by Matt Ruff

Reading for Treasure: Fighting Racism

This is a longer than usual Reading for Treasure entry due to recent events. I have been reading, researching, and reflecting on how White people like me can fight racism beyond posting on social media. I am listening, learning, and taking action – and I want to do so in a way that really helps. Here are links to articles, resources, and lists that may help anyone, but especially White people, find productive ways to join the fight.

 

 

A great place to start might be with “Dear White People This is What We Want You to Do.” This blog post is a clear do and don’t list along with some great links including this link to a much more complete resource and reading list than this one.

 

If you want many options, this list article from Medium may help. Don’t be overwhelmed.  The title is clear: “75 Things White People Can Do For Racial Justice.” I first encountered it when it was far fewer items. The suggestions are excellent. Take it in bite-size pieces and use it as a springboard for action.

 

Similarly, “26 Ways to be in the Struggle Beyond the Streets” gives some clear suggestions that are different but complementary to the Medium list above.

 

“Dear White People: Do Something” is a blog post on #Morethan:a movement. It is a short and very clear discussion about why you should go beyond an empathetic response and do something, even if it is a small step forward.

 

This column from the Chicago Tribune called “White America, if you want to know who’s responsible for racism, look in the mirror,” lays this squarely at the feet of White people. It is a powerful indictment and one that you must read before you react defensively.

 

Although it is aimed at White women, this blog post talks about the language we use to respond to issues of race. “5 Racist Anti-Racist Responses “Good” White Women Give to Viral Posts” looks at statements people make online, why people might make them, why they are problematic, and provides some alternatives.

 

Kareen Abdul-Jabbar’s OpEd piece in the Los Angeles Times is a highly articulate framing of the protests, the violence, and the background. Please read it.

 

Lifehacker has a few short pieces that deal specifically with protesting: First, “How To Support the Protests if You Can’t Attend.” They have advice about “What to Do If You’ve Been Pepper Sprayed” and “The Phone Settings You Need to Know Before Protesting.”   They also published a succinct article entitled, “How to Fight for Justice for George Floyd.” It lists four clear ways you can do more than just watch the news. Finally, they have a great list of “Where to Donate to Help People Fighting for Racial Justice.”

 

Although my children are older, it is critical that White people have conversations about race with their children. Here is a list of “27 Books to Help You Talk to Your Kids About Racism” that was posted on social media by a librarian. Most of the books fall into the elementary or early middle school age range, but these books can be fantastic conversation starters with anyone.

 

Commonsense Media has a broader piece about “How White Parents Can Use Media to Raise Anti-Racist Kids” that would complement the list of books above.  

 

Finally, if you are buying books, why not support a Black-owned bookstore. Here is a list of the “Black Owned Bookstores in the United States” with links, addresses, and contact information.

 

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles (and other readings) that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction.  

 

I am currently reading The Deep by River Solomon with Daveed Diggs, William Huston, and Jonathan Snipes.