White Supremacy

These two words are too controversial to utter - the 'name that cannot be mentioned'.
Everyone is likely to have a different view...this is both a strength and weakness in this area.  It makes it explosive.  Like Alfred Noble (inventor of dynamite), we discover it is useful both for good and destruction.

My thoughts are the factors below should first be considered.
1) My position with regard to the subject based on - RANK
This is given to me by society and is largely non-negotiable, (both at a local and international level).  This relates to the power and influence I am given based on age, experience, gender, disability sexuality, ethnicity, education etc (What Burnham has called the Social GGRRAAACCEEESSS).
2) What I have to gain and loose, and my motivation.  My motivation often relates to deep seated fears and insecurities.  If I were on the other side of the power line, what would 'they' do to me?
3)  We must start by trying to understand the 'others' perspective', and move from their position, not our own. (Not that our experience is wrong, it is just impossible to move any other way.  It is like me trying to move myself by pulling hard on my boot straps.)

My illustration is from the famous American economics study I heard quoted by Trevor Philips (past CEO of the Racial Equality Commission).   At the conference Philips spoke about a study from the USA that clearly revealed the nature of Institutional Racism publish by Ayres and Sielegman (1995).  The main conclusion of this study is to note that the racial and gender inequality in car buying in the USA has no clear over all factor.  Computer programmes were felt to have the inequalities embedded in them that over tens of years (very difficult to unpick).  The question I came away with was who is the most motivated to correct unjust systems?  Surely all of us, but in reality it was the black men who were out of pocket by up to $200.  Surely they will be the most motivated to see justice?  When I myself am linked to the effect of the inequality, then I am most likely to be motivated.

The next is the message given by Frederick Douglas as described on In Our Time with Melvin Bragg.
Messages from people like Harriet Tubman and other black women are likely to have been better know but for massive gender inequality.

Douglass was able to point out to 'white Americans' the duplicity of 'fair and just' legal systems.  After emancipation the black community was left with very little (pushed to the back of the que) with a concerted effort in place to keep them there.  Just as a builder seems to slow down efforts to complete a project as the project comes to it's conclusion (I think of Zeno' paradox), true justice appears to be unobtainable.  As progress moves towards a conclusion, the speed of movement slows to zero, with the target never reached.

The third is discussion on Radio 4 (Sunday Programme 7:45).  The discussion focused on
- The British legacy and influence of racism on the rest of the world
- White supremacy within the British church.
- The complexity of labeling within communities.

My own parable is of a savage burglar.  We are relieved that the burglar has mercifully been arrested and tried.  Many say the sentence given however was too soft.
The charge is pillage, rape, deceit, emotional abuse, murder, torture and exploitation (the list goes on.)
The charges are numerous over hundreds of years.  This case puts 'the crimes of the holocaust' into the shade.
In the defendant's defence the burglar notes that if they had not taken advantage of the 'open door' offered, another burglars would have.  They feel in mitigation it must be noted that they were not as bad as these other burglars.  The burglar provided food and some comfort to their hostages.  They have also been prepared to apologies, and remain very sorry.  They would like to remain on friendly terms.  The burglar says they are open to listening about how relationships can be restored, and feel hurt that issues from the (distant) past continue to cause distress.

In reparation the burglar has been made to return a few cultural items.  The burglar still lives free, and actually flourishes on the fat of the past pillaging.  Again, surely by now, "this appropriation has becomes mine?  Possession is nine tenths of the law."

For the Spanish this literally was silver and gold from Bolivia etc.  For the British this was the good fortune in being about to attack and possess weighed down Spanish galleons.

Douglass came to the UK for two years.  He was able to point out the hypocrisy of a christian monarchical nation who continues to oppress the poor, women, and the Irish nation.  I hear that when he returned to the USA he chose to be blind to to this inconsistency, perhaps to aide the effort to apply pressure to the American political establishment.  Douglass was one of the first to clearly state the links between one oppression and the the next- the Gordian's knot.

Finally of our churches.  The challenge is the idea that within our church power and decision-making is to be shared.  This includes churches that are white majority.  Racial discrimination does not only take place in multi-cultural areas.  When our eyes and heart are open, we begin to see the power of 'rank', and smell the abuses that often accompany it.  Difference becomes more significant, and less troubling at the same time.

Am I able to return stolen power to others?  What might this entail (sometimes it's simple, but not always.)

What are the taboo's.  These days in the UK we have created a sensitivity which is both healthy, and creates barriers.  I am afraid to expose my ignorance.  I feel insecure because of 'the fog', but am concerned that you might realise this.

If I am genuinely interested in my neighbour, I do not need to worry.  I just need to ask.

Am I willing to put my neighbours preferences and priorities over my own?  Am I able to contain my personal fear of violence and retribution?  That's the challenge.