My first To Entertain a Thought Blog

This is a blog I just posted on the new group blog http://toentertainathought.com/. To Entertain a Thought is all about discussion, interaction, and making positive contributions to a thought process. Check it out, get a Wordpress account, and join us for fun and interesting everything! This is my first post over there, mostly an intro to who I am and my perspective on doing things social and researchy. Enjoy.

Greetings Wordpressers! Nick Gibson here, to say hello and whatnot. The topic of this introductory entry is basically what makes me tick...like a clock with a nice clear set of directions, here we go.

My love affair with sociology began in my undergrad program at Cal State San Bernardino, and was buffered by my master's work at Cal State Fullerton and three years of Ph.D.-level work at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. That sociology applies to all facets of life is intrinsic to an explanation of what sociology is; yet without a concrete example of how the application of sociology works, the waters of thought can be murky. My first, and most direct example of 'anything is fair game in sociology' came when my undergrad mentor introduced me to the study of conspiracy theories. It wasn't just about what the theory was; we dug into how theories are transmitted, what people did about belief in conspiracy theories, and the effects conspiracy theories have on micro and macro-level relationships. A professor of mine from UH Manoa said once (Nandita Sharma who kicks ass professionally): at its most simple, sociology is the study of relationships in all forms, places, and spaces. Relationships between people, relationships between people and institutions, relationships between institutions themselves, and how people socially exist and create the social experience within institutions, and about narratives and definitions. So, with an eye toward an analysis of relationships, I have managed to explore a whole lot of social phenomena, including 9/11 conspiracy theories. And boy, is it fun.

Sociology can also be exhausting. By exhausting, I mean that it is very difficult to turn the sociology off. Or, as a friend of mine now holding an assistant prof position at Pacific U in Oregon puts it, it is practically impossible to 'put the sociology back in the bag'. Even while watching comedy, I see and hear things that trigger a sociological cringe and discussion in my head. But it's much more wonderful than not, and I'm grateful. Here's why: there is an important message that I learned, and it is that as a relatively very socially privileged straight, white, cis-gendered male, I have always been able to, and still can, ignore the effects of a privileged social position without much thought. To be perpetually tuned in, is to attempt to mirror the social locations of people without the same kinds of identifiable social indicators. To be always aware, is to attempt to pay attention to the presumptions and assumptions that most of us, at least those of us who grew up in the United States, share. I have been taught, indoctrinated, trained, pick-your-forcible-learning verb, to believe and act upon narratives about other people at a basic, fundamental, and usually unconscious level. Those unconscious lessons become real-world experiences, typically to the detriment of people without social privilege. And that, dear readers, pisses me off.

Yeah, I get angry about social privilege. Mostly because I didn't earn it, yet benefit from it almost all the time. As an undergrad instructor at UH Manoa and Hawaii Pacific University, I explained this to my students in every course I led. We are taught through media programming (movies, TV shows, music, news shows), political discourse, our social networks, and our legal system, to believe things about our fellow human beings that simply are not true. To me, this is scary. Most folks react in defense, yet given enough time, most folks also seem to eventually get 'it'. That 'it' is what is most important here. That 'it' is the thing that makes all the socialization and social training we experience understandable. That 'it', is the realization that we learn everything we know, and if everything we know about the world isn't always true, the fault doesn't necessarily lie with one person and their belief system. The term 'fault' isn't necessarily the most accurate term to describe what this means. Tim Wise discusses this interplay of blame, fault, guilt, and responsibility quite nicely. Guilt is something we should feel, as people aiming to treat others well, when we do something that harms another. Responsibility is something we decide to take because of the kind of people we try to be. What does this mean? This means that if we are attempting to add goodness to the world, we must explore the experience of becoming comfortable with being uncomfortable. We must willingly engage in discussion about those things that involve feeling vulnerable, allowing for growth and self-reflection. We must take some risks, to feel positive change and shift our world toward a more just future.

I self-reflect on a constant basis, as many folks do without putting the same term to the behavior. I teach my students to self-reflect. I catch myself thinking things that piss me off, and work to shift what that means about what I have been taught against my will. My gender, assigned to me and taught to me without my active knowledge, provides me with social comfort. I must pay attention to that if I am to live what I believe. My race, assigned to and placed upon me without my active knowledge, affords me generous comfort. I must recognize the experiences shaded by race (all of my experiences, as far as I can tell), and talk about what that means. My sexuality, taught to me as the standard and 'normal', provides me a very comfortable social existence. If I do not work to build a more just and equitable world in my relatively tiny existence, I am not taking responsibility, and I am not living my beliefs. It is these three huge concepts that I work to make obvious to others. They inform why I do what I do, and why I aim to accomplish more as time passes.

Let's entertain some thoughts, and make our world what we wish it to be. I wish for an equitable, just, thoughtful, and welcoming society. Even though I experience mostly the best that people have to offer, I want better for everyone. Myself included.

That's it for now. Go like our Facebook page, and follow the To Entertain a Thought blog on Wordpress, and join us in entertaining some thoughts.

Zimmerman, Martin, and the Case for a Dose of Sanity

Over at the Book of Face, I've been adding to a small discussion prompted by Andrew Pegoda, a fellow academic and speaker on social junk and stuff. Check out his blog here. The original question was:

Should "double jeopardy" be OK in cases where it is quickly discovered the lawyers and/or judge put together a set of evidence and jurors that GUARANTEED the defendant would walk away. Consider the composition of the jury, statements by the jurors as they were selected (esp racist statements by B37 then, and now). Consider the directions they received [from the judge] (see first comment). I still wonder why we don't have a better system to decide supposedly clear cut issues [such as innocence or guilt]... [do typical juries] allow too much for prejudice, see second comment. Read, set, discuss! :)

I added the things in brackets. 

Interesting discussion. At the latest point, one person asked, "...it sounds like you went into this case knowing the outcome you wanted." A little later, "Of course, you had no opinion before this?"

I think this is disingenuous, to assume anyone is objective, without opinion. Further, to think race played no part in all of this is purely bullshit, whether intentionally bullshit or not. Here's what I said:

 We all have opinions. This discussion seems similar to the argument for 'objective analysis' or 'objective science'. No one is completely objective, or devoid of opinions, in any situation, ever. No one lives in a vacuum. This point is completely unnecessary. What makes most science, or social science or law 'good', is the attempt to be willing to change one's mind based on the observed stuff that happens. 

I figure it's not a real thing that Bigfoot exists. Haven't seen much solid evidence for that claim. But if there was a whole lot of solid evidence that bigfoot existed, as a social scientist I then change my perspective and assumptions to meet the reality of the observed stuff. This whole 'racism isn't a thing anymore in America' is contrary to the decades of social science evidence both in legal and social aspects. To say a grown man can chase an unarmed teenager, only doing so because of institutionalized presumptions about racial tendencies (and a keen fear of 'others' as we like to use in sociology), kill him, and then not at least be held a little legally accountable, is sheer madness. 

Yeah, they'd had break-ins. I get it. It sucks, I've had my stuff stolen, been jacked at knifepoint, it ain't fun. But I don't see anyone demonizing white men for being perpetual white collar criminals, who by far and away are almost the only white collar criminals in the U.S., with far greater reaching impacts on human beings than your typical street-level criminal. The real clothing I fear? White shirts and ties. Hoodies don't scare me. So yeah. Race had nothing to do with it.

What say ye? 

Generally Speaking...

I have students in a number of my courses submit reading responses as part of their overall course experience. With permission, I'm posting the text of one assignment from my Social Problems course at UH Manoa this semester. If you read through it, I'm sure you'll see why I'm putting it up for all to see; this kind of work should be shared, not hidden away in the deep recesses of my downloads file.

The topic covered by the text was poverty and homelessness. Check it:

"The problem with welfare as we know it, is we’re so full of shit. Not only do we have rich people who fucking complain about being taxed for having millions of dollars, they also have the damn nerve to say that the government is spending too much “their” money on welfare programs. How fucking greedy and envious do you have to be to think of treating people this way. These clowns never had to spend a day in the damn streets working for a piece of bread. They are in their nice warm luxurious offices complaining about how they don‘t have enough. In fact, we barely spend any money on welfare compared on how much of an income the government receives. The poor that do pay their taxes are returned just a bit of what they are asked to give. And of course the media is covering their fuckery up. And even the people that aren’t piss rich are so confused with all the crap that the media shows them that they believe all these lies that makes them think that the poor are a bunch of lazy, sorry, good for nothing people that try to cheat their way to a “perfect” American dream. Oh and to add a bit of truth to these big fucking lies lets blame it on the minorities as well. They are already known for being a bunch of savage people who like violence and drugs, let’s tell everyone that they are also the ones that use up all the welfare money and don’t pay any back. Matter of fact lets go deeper into this lie and point out the single black teen mothers and call their children “mistakes” that everyone has to pay for. Oh and by the way, Diane Sawyer can eat a bag of rusty nails. Who the fuck gives her the right to judge all mothers? No one knows what these girls have gone through in their lives. Show all the blacks in magazines and TV shows all you want. The truth will always be the truth. Media is a bunch of shit put on the television and paper to fuck with people’s minds. Call them myths all you want, they are all lies. And I don’t give a fuck about what the technical difference is between poverty and homelessness. I could honestly give a rat’s ass. They both mean the same thing: human beings that are struggling in life who need help. Ever seen the homeless here in Honolulu? The other day I bought a man a sandwich and a Gatorade. When I went to give it to him, he threw it back at me. Did I get angry and take it from the ungrateful piece of shit? Of course not, this person is a human being. Their prides aren’t asking for anything, especially not a welfare check. I walked away and returned after about an hour. He had the sandwich in his lap and Gatorade next to him. He could barely accept a free sandwich and people honestly give a fuck about the definitional differences between poverty and homelessness. Something is clearly wrong.  God, how many people are there out there that are like Murray Barr. Decent, loving people whose lives are in a black hole. And this can happen to anyone, in any city, town, state, country. No one ever wishes to live that life. It’s a disease for them. And boy does it cost millions of dollars on housing and medical bills. And surprisingly there aren’t that many of them when you really look at it. Life is not perfect by all means but if we all just chipped in a bit then something could really happen. We all own what we came into this world with and will leave with, our human bodies. Everything else is temporary possession and if you think you’re entitled to everything then you are in for a big surprise the day of your funeral."

See? Brilliant. In my courses, while I do want good scholarship more often than not, these assignments ask for students to reflect on the topics and concepts, and explore their own perceptions and beliefs. One assignment like this is appropriate for this course, given what i ask of them. Seems pretty blogworthy, yeah? And worth all the possible points. Good work, anonymous Social Problems student.

The Mascot War

A very interesting exchange between Simon Montoya-Smith at I Am Not a Mascot, and Brad Schaeffer from biggovernment.com from back in December. First, Montoya-Smith's original post here, a response to that post and then a final chapter here. I posted my response below, but anyone else care to chime in?

I think Schaeffer is ignoring a number of remarkably important points, and easily so; most of us white folk don't have to deal with the true nature of inequality embedded in our social world. We do not have to constantly be on guard in order to avoid feeling "overly sensitive" because every day is white people day. Every day, we do not have to be concerned with whether someone will make an off-handed racist comment, and think that we can't feel pissed about it because then we're just too sensitive, or too politically correct.

And here's something that really bothers me: us white folks have never had to protect ourselves physically from racially motivated denigration of our singular 'selves' and our collective 'selves'. I'm not saying racism doesn't come in all forms, but institutional racism is not punishing white folks for being born. We've had to deal with almost no racially motivated social sanitation of who we are, or had to be legitimately concerned about becoming one of millions wiped off the planet through a holocaust, which is what happened when the white folks with a severe superiority complex and a capitalistic bloodlust arrived here.

So, while it is fair to say that Mr. Schaeffer did make a somewhat strong case for Mr. Moya-Smith's contradictory argumentation, the reality stands on its own. People fighting against the change of a mascot, doesn't stand up to scrutiny in light of the true nature of our nation-state's history. So, my advice: get over it, and rename them the murderers, with a suit carrying a briefcase in one hand and a coffin in the other. Then we can see how many wall-streeters come crying foul.

Aime Cesaire's Discourse on Colonialism

Sorry it's been a little while, if anyone was thinking, "ya know, that Street Philosopher dude hasn't posted anything in a while. Wonder if he's alive?" The answer would be alive-ish. Loving the life here in Hawaii, although I'm still workin' out some of my time management. I did get to do dinner last night with my dad, cousin, her hubbs and their friends which was a great relief from the everyday.

Here's a shorty I wrote on the above titled work for Social Stratification. Hope it actually makes some sense...I wasn't sleeping and was hopped up on caffeine. Enjoy if you will.

SOC 754, Social Stratification

Due: 11/4/10

Critical Evaluation for: Discourse on Colonialism

            Cesaire pulls no symbolic punches in Discourse, and weaves a compelling narrative of what it means to colonize. Not necessarily a narrative in the simple sense of a story from beginning to end, but in a context-heavy and consequence focused description. The main concepts derive from an anti-colonial viewpoint, and seem simple enough:

• The act of colonizing[1] dehumanizes the colonizers just as much if not more so than the colonized, and;
• Colonialism holds within itself the destruction of the colonized world at both the point of colonization and the origination.

            Here we have a wonderful opportunity to examine the effects of colonialism on the institution of governance and social control. To visit the first concept, as colonial powers institute rule over peoples that were previously free of colonial rule, there is always a backlash against the colonialism in some way. More often than not, this backlash is necessarily violent and easily understood by the colonizing power as the actions of uncivilized lunacy. This easy categorization of non-European peoples[2] as uncivilized, which includes undeveloped both technologically and politically from the colonizing point of view, allows for a forceful ‘civilizing’ to be undertaken. Languages are un-taught and the colonizing language is substituted in the example of the Native Americans’ ‘re-education’ otherwise known as the ‘save the native’ campaign in early United States history. Familial organization is reorganized to resemble the colonizing ideology of family and community as we can see within the Christianized Samoa and familial values undergoing a massive shift to unquestionable male domination. Land and the means of personal and cultural subsistence are appropriated to assume the appearance, or more subtly the feel, of the original socio-physical place of the colonizing force as we might observe in the constructed forts and surrounding townships in Africa and the Europeanization of the social and political landscape there.[3] Because such serious steps to ‘civilize’ the peoples of colonized places were deemed necessary, it is not a far logical jump to then assume that the resistance whether violent or otherwise is obviously lacking in foresight and proper temperament. Ethnocentricity and blatant racism aside, to forcibly adapt someone to another culture would seem unconscionable if perpetrated against the colonizing force; however, the colonizers excuse their lack of compassion and self-respect, and overabundance of violent oppression as necessary steps in what they might describe as the objectively right direction. An inference to our current militaristic occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is easily bridged.[4] The colonized will fight, and simple answers to the deep philosophical questions of what liberation and progress mean are inadequate when accounting for the social realities of other peoples.

            So, we can see that relatively contemporary documentation to support the theory of the brutality and dehumanization of colonialism is well within reach, as are historical parallels. Cesaire draws upon the history of the Roman Empire and its downfall from both external forces of attack and rebellion from within. The symbiotic relationships of neighboring peoples is described deftly, as are the repercussions of enveloping others in order to assume control of a people different from the crusading colonizing force. As the colonial empire grows; as the people who are colonized are forcibly removed from their own culture and communal spirit; as biting hunger for further expansion escalates within the colonial force; so too does the danger of revolt from within the colony and without. Protecting interests not yet appropriated for the use of the colonizers would hold as much validity as reclaiming a colonized home. If there are only those within and without, instead of a cacophony of cultures, civilizations and peoples, we are left with the idea of ‘us’ and ‘them’ instantly creating the divisive and fear-inspiring totality within the binary language of colonial rights and responsibilities.[5] Cesaire is also adept at pointing out the inherent dangers of nationalism substituting for collective organization and identity as a colonized population. While the colonized peoples may break free of the direct control of colonial rule, he argues that care must be taken to avoid settling in within the institutional structures left behind by a defeated colonial occupation. This is not only an interesting philosophical point, it is also practical if we think of the effects of living within a rigid system of right and wrong, or proper and improper for an indefinite amount of time and awakening to find that some form of social cohesion and direction must be found.

            Cesaire’s only weakness that I perceived was his dual recognition of the bourgeoisie as both negligent controlling class and potential saving grace of the proletariat. I would agree that if a shift in bourgeois consciousness regarding the malformation of colonial intent were to occur, the bourgeois could in fact play a vital role in the art of reorganizing a more equitable societal foundation and structure. Conversely, I would argue that it might seem impractical for a class of people, who benefit both directly and indirectly from the social and cultural enslavement of a perceived lower class of people, to do anything to change the fundamental nature of the system supporting their comfort. To say that it might or should be the underlying foundation of a truly civilized society to never accept such audacious colonial abuses I think would be appropriate. Thinking that it might one day be more than likely I would posit is a stretch. This would require an awakening from comfort such that has not really been seen in contemporary history, and I think it is safe to say neither is there evidence of such an awakening occurring in a significant historical context. That said, there is no reason not to fight for such a monumental call for equity, sustainability, and from what I can see, global survival.

---

[1] And the subsequent acts of barbarism as described by Cesaire.

[2] In this case, European colonialism is the current colonizing power under literary scrutiny, and in contemporary effect.

[3] Including masterfully organized and socially reinforced apartheid and racially motivated brutality.

[4] Invade country, enable corporate development projects and force a specific style of governmental rule on the people of the country, continue to eradicate dissenting voices; this sounds like colonization to me. Couldn’t we have done with a black-book operation to remove an oppressive regime instead of resorting to poorly excused slaughter?

[5] I recognize that I wrote this in a style similar to Cesaire, however I must say that it seems quite effective. I promise my work is still my own.

I don't know how this could be any more infuriating...

If you ramanticize Nazis, then there's something wrong going on in your brain: 

http://gawker.com/5659792/meet-the-tea-party-candidate-who-plays-nazi-on-weekends?skyline=true&s=i

Please don't vote him in. Please.

Why Won't the President Help Me?

I think the title says it all. Building off of a good post from The Urban Politico, the idea that President Obama should be doing everything for everyone is absurd. We can talk about how he promised to do this and that, but his promises always came with a caveat: we all have to work together.

It has become commonplace for those in certain portions of our population to say that President Obama didn't keep his word. I find that hard to swallow. Back when Obama's Presidency was about 6 months old, Robert P. Watson, American Studies Coordinator at Lynn University put together this list of accomplishments. It's not a small list, and it certainly can be challenged at points as Betty Dubose Hamilton discusses on The Rag Blog here. That a president hasn't done everything for everyone, I have to admit doesn't bother me. That he might not be fighting to get his way or the highway all the time, should come as a comfort to many, although from what we can hear now, apparently our presidents are supposed to be not only infallible, but able to work magic.

Here's what I've always said: this man not only has a huge mess to clean up, but he's gotta fight against racism in a constant battle that almost all people of color have to fight every day. Now, we're expecting him to get everything done, fight or dismiss racism, bigotry and hatred, and coordinate the running of one of the most significant countries on the planet? That's insane. I'll repeat: that idea, if you agree with it, makes you literally insane. If you think Obama is just the same ol' same ol', you're dead wrong. He's made concessions in order to get things done. The right has fought his efforts even when he's tried to enact change based on THEIR IDEAS! If you think this isn't racism at work, (as well as a number of other things) I think you're missing the point. Not to mention, we've been arguing for the government to leave us alone a little bit, yet we're asking this guy to solve every issue we can come up with.

That he might take a more proactive approach to racial relations, cheers. I think that would be a positive thing. However, if he were to tell the truth about race in America all the time, he'd never get anything passed through the government. He doesn't even have to be doing anything that directly addresses racial disparities, and he's attacked for being a "white hater." (See Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, two people you cannot dismiss because of their far-reaching attempts to demonize him, as mainstream culture has always demonized not only leaders of color, but also people of color in general.) I've gotta say this though: he's working his ass off! It's not like he's lounging on golf courses for a majority of his presidency. He's actually in office, getting things done. This is in contrast to our previous president, who took more vacation days than a teacher. A look at first year presidential vacation records is available from fact-check.org.

I think my main point here is this: Obama fought racism in order to get elected. The miracle of an elected president of color in our country is staggering. It's only a step, and in terms of the steps we must take to dismantle our racist social and political institutions in the United States, I would argue it's a relatively mid-sized step. That said, he "miracled" himself into the White House: true. Should that allow us to assume that he can work every other miracle we want him to? I would argue no. It shouldn't mean that because of that miracle, we can expect many others. So, we've got this elected president of color, who is definitely brilliant, but we cannot expect him to do everything for every one of us. What is it that we like to say to people who are struggling? Oh, right: if you work hard enough, you can accomplish anything. While I think this is bullshit, I agree that we should be telling these "outraged voters" this same thing, instead of shooting idealistic hatred at a guy who's trying to hold a country together. Where was this outrage over the last two presidential terms? Ah, right, it was buried in our social subconscious. Just waiting for someone we hoped would Superman our way out of trouble.

Get a grip people. We should expect a lot from our elected officials. But not at the expense of our collective sanity.

The Larger Implications of Terry Jones

The Terry Jones Quran-burning fiasco is troubling to say the least. Not in just the immediate sense of, "how could this jackass use this time of remembering a tragedy to further racial and religious bigotry and hatred," but also in giving the news media and our politic a way to pass over the discussion of everyday racism in the United States.

Terry Jones is the pastor of a very small congregation. He does not have hundreds or thousands of followers (read: minions) with which to move a lot of hatred capital. He now has international attention, which is of course absurd and sickening in the same moment. He also has fostered the hateful shift toward insanity in the name of righteousness and "Godly" belief that many people, and I couldn't say exactly how many, believe to be their god-given right. That national and subsequently international media has jumped all over this scumbag says a lot, however the fickle ways of our current media institution is for another post. It's sad, and mostly for the reason I will now discuss.

That Terry Jones could be categorized as a backwoods nut makes the case for racial and religious bigotry in our nation to be attributed to crazies and whackjobs. He's obviously too wrapped up in his attention-getting enterprise to realize what he has done. Although, if he did realize it, he'd probably be okay with it. My point here is this: we're just starting to see major players in the media and politics begin talking about racial and religious bigotry, hatred and mistaken fear in a way that really addresses the issue. The truth that most Americans don't want to face is that our entire society is built upon racism, and the many facets of our political realities, educational institutions and social organization are guided by this reality on a very basic level. We have been climbing up this very big hill upon which our future as a loving and self-realized nation rests. And now, we have a nutcase to blame for fear, anger and societal unrest.

This could end up a serious blow to our national discussion of where we are and why we think what we think. The damage that the media frenzy around this asshole may have caused, could be the case that people were hoping for. It's not the everyday person that thinks these wacky thoughts, it's just the weirdos. This is not true, and could undermine the very important work of those looking to lift up the rug covering our cultural inadequacies regarding equality and collective understanding. But we now have a way to compare the everyday epistemic leaps that an average person may make about people who observe the Islamic faith, to this nutjob and those who sound and think the way he does. Many people can quickly and easily equate Islam to violence, thanks in part to media as well as public institutions. (Both Christianity and Islam share a belief that non-believers are lesser folk, and violence is kind of implied in both in a number of ways. I do think that decisions about whether or not someone ascribes to the faith is handled with much more decency in Islam, but that is beside this larger point.) That we could write that off in the wake of this emotional and psychological terrorist is disconcerting, and unfortunate. We must continue our efforts to evolve and understand ourselves, no matter how much we don't want to.

This whole thing seems mighty convenient. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders: did someone pay him to put on this show? I don't actually believe that, however it is a possibility. I will say, that given the state of affairs here in this nation, his public display of intolerance and systematic degradation of an entire nation of people took a sharp turn in recent hours. If he is so convinced that the Muslim faith itself is evil and of the devil, why the change? The minuscule possibility that the Islamic community center a few blocks away from the site of the Twin Tower attacks might be moved farther away from the site of the attacks presented itself, sort of. However, his entire basis of burning the Quran, a book that many believe is the word of God, was that it supported evil. He actually said that moderate Muslims should support his plans, which is ethnocentric as well as nuts. Not to mention that thinking 9/11 is a Christianity against Islam fight is missing the greater point altogether anyway. So, was he really that scared off by the outrage he might have felt in the spotlight? I doubt it. What's the real deal, Ter?

I'll never make light of what happened on 9/11. I've never been convinced of any storyline, whether sanctioned or marginalized. That being said, what happened was tragic, and this fucker not only took advantage of it, he did his best to spit on the collective soul of the United States. He not only should be ashamed, but he should feel enormous guilt at having provided our leadership (both media-based as well as political) cause to back away from the very real and consistent ways that inequality, bigotry and racial and religious prejudice is an undercurrent in our society. If you believe that God punishes the wicked, you're in for a real treat big guy.

What if the Tea Partiers Were Black...

Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S. Wise has spoken in 48 states, on over 400 college campuses, and to community groups around the nation. Wise has provided anti-racism training to teachers nationwide, and has trained physicians and medical industry professionals on how to combat racial inequities in health care. His latest book is called Between Barack and a Hard Place.

"Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise

Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.

So let’s begin.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.

Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.

Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.

Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.

Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

Game Over.