Recently, I have come upon an argument that seems to justify the occupation of this land because “all lands were conquered by someone.” I first heard it during the DC fiasco involving students from an all-boys Catholic school after an abortion march when they encountered indigenous peoples and a group of Black Hebrew Israelites. That incident could be used to highlight so many societal ills, but today I am going to focus just on this notion of “all lands were conquered by someone.” I watched several of the videos in full and a large white male yelled this to one of the Native American people who was on the mall that afternoon. When I heard it, I was like WTF?! 

Why is this argument racist? Well, first it is one of those silent insidious lies that permeates the halls of education. It is slipped quietly into a lesson here or there and it seems to make sense upon hearing it. It just sounds right, so people believe it. Secondly, it comes from a colonizer’s worldview. What I mean by that is because white people in America are either the descendants of colonizers or the descendants of immigrants who came to this country due to whatever ills they were facing at home, whether it was religious suppression or economic hardship, they believe this is how it’s done and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Therefore, it makes sense to think this is how things have always been done throughout human history. However, whether you believe in evolution or you are a strict creationist, there was a time when people resided in one, perhaps more, part(s) of the world, then moved. 

If you are a creationist, you believe God created the Garden

of Eden, Eve ate an apple, offered it to Adam, they noticed they were naked, God got mad and gave them an abrupt eviction notice without a 30 or 60 day moving window. If I recall my Old Testament Bible class correctly, the Bible and/or Biblical scholars place the Garden of Eden squarely between the Nile, the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers. Read:smack dab in the middle of Africa. Adam and Eve got their walking papers and migrated North and East. 

If you believe in evolution, evolutionary scientists still place the cradle of civilization or the beginning of Homo sapiens (us) smack dab in the middle of Africa between the aforementioned rivers. There are more than one schools of thought regarding this. Some evolutionary biologists believe this is the only place Homo sapiens developed while there are others (with DNA evidence to seemingly back up their theory) that suggest current humans developed at the same time in several places near rivers/oceans that provided a warm, moist environment to encourage the growth of life as we know it; as well as, a food supply. I don’t know what I think about the second theory and may address it in a future post. 

Given that said, regardless of what you believe about the origins, you have to agree that current humans left wherever they originated from and migrated to other parts of the world and settled land. Therefore, also the underlying assumption has to be either some people evolved and never left where they evolved because there are currently people living in the Nile River Basin and therefore didn’t have to do any conquering. They just stayed where they were and created societies. Or, you believe they were kicked out, disobeyed and returned to the Nile River Basin when they thought they could get away with it. Still unoccupied and still no conquering. 

Moving on to the Americas. The current prevailing theory is that indigenous people moved to these continents because they were following food over the Siberian land bridge when it wasn’t frozen over. Wooly mammoths, saber tooth tigers, etc. They came over in one of two waves. There is no current evidence that suggests there were any people here before they arrived. If there were Neanderthals or Denisovans here as there were in Europe when Homo sapien migrated out of Africa and/or the Russian Steppe, it is possible that they, too, mated with them, not conquered them. Current, DNA evidence suggests that almost invariably all people of European descent share at least 2% DNA with Neanderthals. I don’t know of any current DNA evidence that is similar for indigenous peoples, but I could be wrong. Given that said, they didn’t stop to mate or conquer in Europe, they just kept it pushing to the Americas. 

Of course, I imagine the conversations going something like this, if they migrated out of Africa and made a pit stop in either the Russian Steppe or Europe before nation states: 

They get to colder regions in Alaska and similar places, and drop some folks off: “This sounds like a great place to stop Yuri, let’s make a home!” Yuri was like, “F#%k yeah! I’ll build a house out of ice and go fishing on a frozen lake!” Thus, the igloo and ice fishing holes were brought here. 

Then, the next wave gets a little further south and because they were used to changing seasons, someone said, “Catalina, this is a great place to stop! There’s plenty of food and the seasons aren’t too harsh, I can hunt, you can gather…” Catalina was like, “F#%k yeah! This seems like a great place to make a home and raise children! I can put a garden right there and grow some Got Damn corn!” (Forgive my lack of feminist thought in my example.) 

After dropping that wave off, the next conversation occurred. “Tayo, I have followed you because I love you and would do anything for you and our family, but Got Dammit it’s cold! It’s effing COLD! I’m not staying here!” Tayo said, “Okay baby! I got you! You know I do, so we gonna keep moving until we find some place with mild temperatures.” They kept it moving to places south. 

At least that’s how it happened in my head. 

Bottom Line: So who was here before the Indigenous People who call America home? NO ONE . No one here, no need to conquer, just settle.

The reason I started this post was to hopefully illustrate that racism isn’t what most people think it is. When people think about racism they think in terms of BIG incidents that are clearly and easily delineated as racist, such as burning a cross in a yard, posing with guns in front of the marker (riddled with bullet holes) of the place Emmett Till was pulled out of The Tallahatchie River or gunning down members of an all-black church that accepted a young white man with open arms. Nobody has a problem identifying those incidences of racism as racism and calling a thing a thing. However, racism in American society is mostly insidious and silent. You breathe it in and out everyday because it’s in the air, the soil, the water. It takes up space in every corner of this country because the country itself was built on the backs of black people after it was stolen from a myriad of brown people. So, today my post is about people of color being used against people of color.

The night before I wrote this post I watched a video on Twitter of a black woman who said, “this land wasn’t stolen it was bought.” She used as her first example, The Louisiana Purchase. Her theory, though ill-informed at best, wasn’t the issue, so much as her video being used by white people to say, “See! Not racist! Not stolen!” The silent nod being, “See! Your own people are saying it, so it must be right and it must be true! Now get with the program!” Now, mind you, this woman said, “I Wikiped-eed it” to start her video. I don’t give a good Got Damn who she was, that should have been a clue that her reasoning may not have been sound and anyone listening should go duly check primary resources. I don’t think it is liberal elitism to expect people to remember 5th grade Social Studies. At very least, it should have piqued something in people’s memories to go, “That doesn’t sound right.” But, it didn’t. Not even a little. 

This woman reminded me of the character Uncle Ruckus on the Adult Swim show The Boondocks. Uncle Ruckus is an old black man who hates black people and loves white people. He extols the virtues of white Jesus and hopes to get into white heaven. He often gives cover to white racism in ways similar to the above. His character is obviously ignorant, but he is listened to by white people because he believes their racism is necessary for the betterment of black people. 

Why does this phenomenon happen and why is it racist to take the ONE BLACK PERSON who agrees with your position or provides ill-informed historical cover? It goes back to everyday media images of black people. I will discuss this more in future posts, but for now, I am just going to talk about news coverage. 

Admittedly, I know longer watch the news, I prefer to read it. However, when I used to watch the news, especially growing up, if something, good or bad, happened in a black neighborhood, the news crew would do their damndest to find the one black person with no teeth who couldn’t speak a lick of standard mainstream English to describe the events in question knowing damned good for well that person didn’t see 💩 . Now, there could be a Harvard educated black person with a Ph.D. living in the same neighborhood who actually saw the events and they would SKIP right over them to find Uncle Damn Ruckus when an adult Huey was sitting right there! In my opinion, it’s done purposely because when we are seen, Uncle Ruckus is considered a REAL black person (read: because he checks all the stereotypes in one neat little package) while a Harvard Ph.D. is not. Being educated doesn’t make you less black, it makes you educated. Remember some of the oldest universities still in operation are in Africa. 

So, finding that ill-informed minority of black people who will tell you you’re not racist is par for the course. It’s what is breathed into the air by media images. Not only does it make you feel better, you now have proof from Uncle Ruckus.

Bet you thought I ran out of things to post about, huh? I’m not that lucky and neither are you. Today, we will discuss the rubber/glue argument. 

Remember when you were a child, if someone made fun of you, your pat response was, “I’m rubber! You’re glue! Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!” Usually this was accompanied by an emphatic sticking out of the tongue at the end of the chant! 👅 

This is how white people discuss racism these days. Just take for instance Trump’s latest Twitter rant calling “The Squad” racist. I’m not racist! You are!  👅 As juvenile as he is, I’m surprised more tongue emojis don’t make it into his tweets. 

An honest discussion about race and racism can’t occur because as soon as racism comes up and a person of color describes their truth, they are immediately called racist for bringing it up. “Racism is so American when you protest it, people think you’re protesting America.” 

Yesterday and today I was on my son’s page describing the concept of tipping and white flight to a young man who took issue with my son’s post about gentrification. Tipping is the concept that when a neighborhood “tips” to just 8% black, white people start moving out. After explaining my point, I was hit with “you’re the one prejudiced about this issue. Not me. Truth hurts, huh?” Poor boy didn’t know or didn’t believe I studied this for part of my dissertation and that I had no anger or malice in my points. I chuckled at his response. 

However, his response is my point for today’s #smallactofracism. Beside the point that it checks the “angry black woman” trope from yesterday, but also the “infantile black person” trope, it also completely misses the point of discussions of racism. Calling a thing a thing, isn’t inherently bad. It’s simply the truth. The question becomes if you are truly an ally, as this young man insisted he was with comments such as “ bro, you know me!” (read: I don’t have a racist bone in my body), then why can’t we discuss my experience under no uncertain terms? Then, once we discuss it, if you’re an ally, ask “what can I do and how can we make a plan about how to combat it?” (A good friend from high school deserves a shout out because she’s that one who not only says, “that makes me sad,” but “tell me what I can do.”) 

So, first suggestion for being an ally? Call a thing a thing and don’t run from it. 

#smallactsofracism

Small Acts of Racism

#smallactsofracism

Act 5: My son has been having several moments on his own FB page of late. Just when I was convinced he wasn’t listening, here he goes proving me wrong. So, todays’s post is a share from his page. Now, understand that if you have never worried about your son being harassed by police for the color of his skin EVERY SINGLE DAY OF HIS LIFE or if you have the luxury of EXPECTING your child to walk back through the door, not just HOPING and PRAYING, if you automatically think cops are the good guys, then you have WHITE PRIVILEGE. Now, mind you, I joke a lot and tell my son, “well, stop driving while black.” The fact of the matter is, he can’t, so he will continue to get stopped and I will continue to HOPE and PRAY that he gets home safely EVERY SINGLE DAY. 

To my friends who are not people of color let me ask you something which may give you an idea of what people mean by systematic oppression and racism . How many times have you been falsely arrested? Put in handcuffs because they thought you were someone else? How many times have you been stopped by an officer 3 minutes from your house as you’re walking your dog to find out where you lived and your address? Been asked for identification when you have in fact done nothing to inspire questioning. I don’t mean how many times have you been arrested that you probably deserved. I mean how many times living your day to day life has an officer walked up to you and said something about you being here at this time, doing this thing wrong with no clear definition of your assumed crime? If the answer to all of those questions is 0 times or even part of them. I envy you. I’m not saying you can’t experience hard times. What I’m saying is, the things people whose skin is darker than yours face is something you will never fully understand even though you think you do or you’ve had a rough life . Because when they look at you, they ask and care about who you are and what you’ve done. When they look at me, “I just fit the description.”

Small Acts of Racism

#smallactsofracism

Act 4: Dear Fellow School Psychologists, This one is for you!

I have actually posted about this before. As many of you know, my daughter has Autism. One of the characteristics of Autism for many people is repetitive motion. My daughter rocks back and forth almost all the time. For those of you who don’t know, every three years, as required by law, the school district is responsible for reevaluating a child’s eligibility for special education services. This year she started a new school as part of her transition to adulthood program. 

To set the background: It took the school district 13 years since it was first mentioned as a possibility that she could have Autism. The length of  time it took to properly identify her, in and of itself, reeks with racism. Please remember that I identify kids with education related disabilities for a living. Now, I was facing having an evaluation completed by people who were new to Bo.  And, this is what appeared in her new Evaluation Team Report: Bolade “aggressively and violently” rocks back and forth. It was written by her new female, young white teacher. 

Let’s examine the old tired trope behind this stereotype: Black women were presented on “Amos and Andy” as “aggressive, loud and angry” through the Sapphire Stevens caricature. The sense that black women lack “home training” (aggressive, loud and angry) and are violent by nature has become the current stereotype of black women. 

Given that said, let’s go back to describing my daughter’s rocking as “violent and aggressive.” How is rocking back and forth either aggressive or violent? She doesn’t rock towards anyone with the intent of hurting someone. She is not self-harming while she’s rocking. Why is a behavior that is rather neutral in nature identified in that manner? How many times has her teacher described the intensity of rocking as aggressive and violent for my daughter’s white counterparts? I have no way of knowing, but again, I do this for a living, and in 25 years I have never heard of any child’s Autistic behaviors described in that way. 

Now, educators, how do you think describing my daughter’s behavior as aggressive and violent affects her ability to get into future transition programs and jobs?

Act 2: So, I’m Just Making This Up?

Small Acts of Racism

#smallactsofracism

Act 2: I had a hard time deciding which incident to share today, but have decided to talk about the responses that I received that ranged from concern (thank you) to dismissive regarding Act 1: I Know You See Me!

Why would one consider responses of concern or someone being dismissive, racist? First, I don’t consider concern a necessarily racist response, so let’s get that out of the way. Let’s start with the stereotype that underlies the responses of being dismissive when trying to explain the actions of the people who ignored me while I was being helped.

The Stereotype: Black people held in slavery were considered “infantile” and could not be trusted to accurately relay their own experiences as slaves. They needed white people to translate their experiences for them, thus was born the image of the benevolent slave owner and the happy slave. As you can imagine, this helped maintain The American Institution of Slavery and continues to uphold The American Institution of Racism. Why would anyone want to end slavery if slaves are happy and well taken care of? (Slave narratives helped change this perception.) After slavery, this morphed into what I talked about the other day: when white people define racism, it absolves them of all guilt. Why? Because instead of trusting people of color to accurately describe their experiences with racism, there are all kinds of white folk, some well-meaning, to come behind you and whitesplain “what really happened” as though the person whom it happened to needs help in understanding their own life-experiences. (BTW, who does that?)

Why is this a problem? Whitesplainig maintains a power structure that lends itself to systematic racism. Now, I know a good portion white people who will read this know come from families who couldn’t afford a slave prior to the Civil War, but have you ever considered how poor and working class white people helped maintain The American Institution of Slavery? Have you ever considered how poor and working class white people help maintain a fundamentally racist society? I would actually like to hear your responses to these questions.

“Given the choice between modernity and barbarism, prosperity and poverty, lawfulness and cruelty, democracy and totalitarianism, America chose all of the above.” ~Mark Desmond

The New York Times released The 1619 Project soon after I began writing my posts. The 1619 Project is an examination of the impact of slavery on the current state of America. One article entitled, “In Order to Understand the Brutality of American Capitalism, You Have to Start on the Plantation.” The article draws a direct link between the Institution of Slavery and the unfair practices of the American economy today. My father was an Economist and one thing he used to state often is “there is always an underclass.” My understanding of the underclass in American capitalism, derived from the context he often made the statement, was that there was always one group of people being taken advantage of in the US economic system. They did not count as the impoverished living with the aid of welfare, the poor or the working class. They were the silent foundation of the American system that often went unpaid or paid in cash under the table. They were the basis on which all other classes of people stood. In the beginning, this was slavery. The way in which poor and working class whites benefited from slavery and continue to benefit from “the underclass” in American society today is they have always been given the benefit of the doubt and considered, at least, one step above whatever the current underclass is: The Overseers. I often marvel when I walk into a fast food restaurant and the workers and/or customers are primarily black or of color, but the manager and assistant manager are white. It brings to mind images of slavery. There’s just no horses and whips, but verbal threats, write-ups and firing for minor issues. 

During slavery, free labor was the funnel to untold riches by plantation owners primarily in the South. Right now, that underclass is immigrants from South of the Border. Those who picked fruit and worked in hotels for low wages, often paid in cash. Unfortunately, without those willing to do such work, the American economy is being affected because native-born Americans are often unwilling to do such work. Without a permanent underclass, the powers that be are going to have to make some decisions. However, it currently looks like we are heading toward recession due to the haphazard economic decisions of the current administration.

I, by no means, am supporting the existence of a permanent underclass in the US. It is inherently racist. I am merely stating the outcomes of the lack of an underclass. The bottom line is the 1% who control 40% of the wealth of this country are not going to be willing to give up that control. It is in their best interest to pit the poor and working class against the underclass of the day. When that happens, no one is  worried about what they’re doing to the economy. 

Below is the link to Mark Desmond’s article:

#smallactsofracism

#yourcolorisyourpower

I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.
~Maya Angelou

This is the first post on my new blog. I’m just getting this new blog going, so stay tuned for more. Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates.