Word Definitions - Systemic Racism

The head of the RCMP got herself into trouble when she fumbled the question as to whether or not there was systemic racism within her organization. She should not have answered the way that she did. It is clear to most people that in all parts of our society, and in fact, in all societies racism exists and it exists at a systemic level. But the commissioner was quite right in suggesting that she was unclear as to what the phrase meant; that she had heard a number of different definitions of the phrase. Her suggestion that we needed clarity as to what we were talking about is what we should expect from the leaders of our various public institutions. To blame everything on the system - will not fix the problems that exist.

  The phrase systemic racism suggests that the actions of the individual are shaped, manipulated or controlled by the system that they work in; that the entire system around that officer is structured in such a way that treating people differently because of the colour of their skin is okay. The phrase also suggests that any racist action is beyond any one individual's control.  For example - if a police officer is more likely to confront an indigenous individual or a person of colour and is more willing to escalate that confrontation into aggressive physical restraint - it is because his training has taught him to do that and the entire command structure (including any disciplinary review process) supports such actions or is it because the officer believes (and has always believed) that some individuals are inherently guilty of some crime and less likely to be a good citizen and that there is no point trying to be "nice". The officer acts as a racist because he is a racist.

 We can fix the former. We can review training, who and how people are supervised and work on creating a culture where such attitudes are not allowed. It will not be easy and unfortunately, it will not be nearly as quick as people would like but it is very doable. However, if the main problem is that the officer's core values suggest that some people deserve less than others and that some people are more likely to offend - then all of the training in the world will not change that officer's mind. Just get rid of him/her. Pay them off and get them out of the force. The longer they stay - the more they will pollute the minds of younger officers.

 So many of the reports that I read in the press labelling actions as systemic racism strike me not as the fault of the system but the fault of the individual who committed the act or at worst the actions of a few managers. There is much that needs to be done. There are, within Canada, numerous examples of how various systems have slowly evolved over the decades to be restrictive and punitive to people who can be identified by the colour of their skin. Those individuals will experience more barriers to education, jobs, housing, social mobility and will face higher rates of incarceration or mistreatment by police. Those barriers can be identified and taken down. We can not as easily change the deeply held values, supported by their faith, their family and their chosen community, of those officers who are racist.

 When we allow people to confuse systemic racism (which puts the blame on something else) with individuals who are racists - we make far too easy for those individuals to spew their filth onto our streets. It is time we start to assign responsibility to the act upon the individual who did the crime - not on some rather nebulous system.

 

Word Definitions - Crisis

My somewhat ancient (it almost qualifies as an antique as I have had it for over 40 years) Concise Oxford Dictionary defines crisis as "Turning point, esp. of disease; a moment of danger or suspense in politics, commerce etc." There are other, more current definitions available via the internet including those from Mirriam-Webster and Cambridge Dictionaries that are more detailed and that suggest a slightly more onerous tone.The Cambridge Dictionary, for example, includes " experiencing a time of great difficulty, danger or suffering". In the past few decades, the definition of a crisis has expanded. Despite this expanded definition, if one reads any newspaper - it is clear, The word "crisis" is greatly over-used. y newspaper, it is clear - the word crisis is greatly over-used.

The word crisis implies something that is or has just happened, something that is current and I think something that is a new situation. Using the word crisis to discuss the woefully inadequate long term accommodations for seniors is not accurate. Governments, administrators, family and residents have known for years that there were problems in many of those homes. We all ignored the reports and the recommendations. How some seniors are supported as they become elderly and frail may be a national shame. It is clear, at least to some, that we need to invest more money into long term care including into oversight, but it is not a crisis. It is a chronic problem that has festered for years. Adding to the word crisis to the label makes it appear as if someone will have to do something about it, or at least they are thinking about doing something. We should have done something about it 20 years ago.

Similarly, there has been much talk in the last week about the "opioid crisis", specifically in BC. This renewed media interest was stimulated by the report that in May, more people died from a drug overdose than those who died as a result of the COVID-19. This is a frightening and shameful statistic and the news should be published and discussed. But the fact that the number of people who are dying is increasing does not reflect a crisis. The use of illegal drugs is a chronic problem, the use of opioids has been an issue that has needed to be addressed for years. We have, as is the case with so many other issues, ignored the warning signs, ignored the reports and the comments from people who understand the issues. This nation could have years ago invested significant dollars and expertise into preventing the social circumstances that lead to people becoming more likely to become addicted. We chose not to. We chose not to invest in programs that would have given more opportunities to young people who lived in difficult situations. The fact that they are dying is not a crisis - it is a reflection on our unwillingness to invest in the solutions.

Again it appears as if people are using the word "crisis" in an attempt to get people's attention. To make it seem as if someone will have to do something about it. By using the word crisis it makes it seems as if it is not our fault, that we could have done nothing about it, that it came upon us all of a sudden and we are shocked. That is all unadulterated crap. If we had bothered to get out of our safe, comfortable shells, if we had decided that we are our brother's keepers - then there would not have been the need to define the far too many deaths from the misuse of opioids or the numerous deaths within the long term care systems as a crisis.

These things are not a crisis - they are a manifestation of our inability to do what needs to be done.

Cameras or more Social Workers?

As part of the renewed interest in the police and the obvious systemic injustices within our legal systems, one of the quick fixes that have been suggested is that all police wear cameras. The assumption is that the police if all of their actions were recorded, would be better behaved, less likely to do or say things that are inappropriate or just plain wrong. If something did happen that needed to be investigated - then we would no longer need to accept the word of the officer - we would just have to watch the movie.

Cameras are an easy and quick fix. But like all easy fixes, wearing a body camera will not address any of the real issues. The cost would be prohibitive and I suspect that the results with the inevitable technological failures would not be anywhere as useful as people think.

According to the CBC "Since 2000, there has been an average of 27 police gunshot deaths a year" (1). On the surface that seems like a remarkably small number especially as compared to the approximately 1000 individuals killed every year by police in the USA. But what is important is not how many were shot and killed, but rather who they were. Not surprisingly almost all who were killed were male and almost half were white. However, the number of indigenous and black people killed was disproportionate to the relatively small number of such individuals living in our communities. What is particularly alarming is that in BC, 34 % of the individuals were unarmed, 64% were in mental distress and 75% had discernible mental health or substance abuse issues

 The issue is not whether or not police wearing cameras would reduce the misuse of force, but rather are we sending out the wrong professionals? If the latter is true - then the question becomes - who is the right person to send out. An even better question should be what could we have done to prevent the individual from being in crisis? A corollary to the above question is - how much are we prepared to spend on such things as mental health or drug abuse prevention? Unfortunately, we do not have very good answers to any of the above questions.

 It has been argued that social workers or nurses might be the more appropriate professionals to deal with at least some of these critical situations. The assumption is that nurses or social workers are less likely to be racially biased may not be true - it is an assumption that has never been tested (consider all of the social workers who willingly participated in the 60s scoop of young indigenous children or continue to support the various foster care programs for such children).  Furthermore, not only have we demonstrated very little interest in developing strategies that are effective in dealing with mental health and substance abuse issues, taxpayers have clearly demanded that both they are kept safe and that they pay as few taxes as possible.

 On the other hand, the issues have been discussed and examined for far too long. It is time to be proactive. It is time for the government and the communities need to look at effective solutions that are implemental in the short term. There is not a single solution that will address everyone's concerns. What is needed in parts of Vancouver is profoundly different from what is needed in the more northern part of the province. Different skillsets, different professionals, different teams need to be considered on an area by area basis. We need to get rid of the rhetoric that is driven by the anger in the US and look for solutions in our towns and cities.

That will require those who control the law enforcement budget to meet with those who are living in those communities, to listen to them, and to allow a significant portion of that money to be allocated to at the very least, creating a different response system.

 (1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/police-related-deaths-canada-bc-vancouver-boyd-edey-database-1.4603820

 

 

Protest #3

I would have thought that perhaps the protest against systemic injustices, that constant subtle and not so subtle discrimination that affects the lives of so many people of colour would have either slowly been reduced in its intensity or become even more violent. That is -  either people would get bored with the topic and move on to the next issue of the week or that their level of frustration and anger would increase as some institutions over-reacted (again). Instead, there seems to still be a number of marches and while the number of people has remained consistent, the destruction of property and the rage seems to have lessened or at least it is not as obvious. Which is good news. Those who have been oppressed may be tired of hearing the words "meaningful dialogue", but no one listens when too many people are screaming.   I wonder how many of those who are marching know the roots of the modern protest movement.

A few decades before the US's war between the states, a young man, who at best could be described as an aspiring writer, wrote an essay on civil disobedience. In it, he argued that men (he was a chauvinist as were most men of his era), if they disagreed with the actions of their government, had the responsibility to refuse to follow that government; that a citizen was not obliged to support their government when they knew they were wrong. The writer disagreed with the USA's intervention in Mexico and therefore refused to pay a portion of his taxes. He was fined, refused to pay the fine and was sent to jail. A relative paid the fine and he only spent one night in jail. Like so much of Henry David Thoreau's work, his essay on civil disobedience did not attract a lot of attention during his lifetime.

Almost fifty or so years later, a young lawyer from India was working in South Africa independence movement -specifically trying to ensure that individuals of Indian descent were not discriminated against. On his way to Britain to discuss these issues, he read a copy of Thoreau's essay on civil disobedience. When he returned to South Africa and later to India, Gandhi used Thoreau's work as part of the philosophical underpinning of his non-violent protesting.

A few decades later another young man was doing graduate studies at Boston University. He read about Gandhi's peaceful protest and the power of gathering so many people together in a non-violent way. He read about Gandhi's connection to Thoreau. If you read some of Martin Luther King's speeches, you can hear some of Thoreau's words. It took just over a hundred years before people listened and understood what he wrote.  

I think most of the above story is true. I have always liked it for the synchronicity of it all. I have liked it in part because it took two men of colour to interpret the words of a reasonably privileged white man. But there is something else to the story that is worth remembering. All three of the individual took action on their own. They did not wait for someone to pave the way or to make it safe for them to protest. They did not expect anyone to do what they did. They did it because it was right.

Gandhi simply said that he was going to the sea to make salt (something that was not allowed). He did not ask his fellow members of the Ashram to come, he just said he was going. King did not moan about the police and their dogs blocking his way crossing the bridge in Selma, he did not expect anything of anyone. He just walked across. Thoreau did not ask anyone to pay his fine or to not pay their taxes.

The extraordinary thing about these three men is that they did what they did because it was right. The fact that two of them were followed by thousands of other individuals is irrelevant. They would have done it if they had been all alone. They did not blame others for their actions or lack of actions - they just stood there - convinced that they had the obligation to disagree with their government when they knew the government was wrong.

Protest #2

During the last week in the USA and to a lesser extent in other parts of the world there have been loud demonstrations protesting the systemic racism within the US's justice system. I hope that someone, somewhere is planning on looking at these most recent protests to consider their effectiveness. Some will argue that because the State has increased the charges against the police officer who was recorded kneeling on the neck of the individual, the protest has been at least partially successful. I would argue that they have been a dismal failure. I would further argue that virtually all of the protests in the last 20-30 years have been generally unsuccessful. It is true that some protests have generated a positive response from the various governments. But that response has been limited, short term and ineffective in dealing with the systemic issue. Someone needs to examine why.

Two of the most successful protest movement of the 20th century were the Civil Rights movement and the student protest against the Vietnam war.  What successes those movements had were not accidental. Those who wish to protest in 2020 need to understand why.

Rosa Parks' decision to sit at the front of the bus was not totally spontaneous. The roots of her momentous and courageous act lie in part with some of the black soldiers coming home from WWII. Those soldiers had been exposed to other cultures, they had developed new skills, they had developed a sense of their value and they came back determined to change things. As well, there was, especially in the southern US, a very strong network of churches who were committed to change. For a decade after the war, groups coming together to discuss change and strategies to achieve it. There were weekend training sessions, supported in part by those churches, that allowed people to be together and to talk about what they could do. Rosa Parks attended at least one of those weekends. Leaders within the various communities got together, got to know each other. They shared their dreams and their aspirations with each other. It was hard work with no results for years. They were planning and preparing because those individuals knew that to change even a small part of the world was hard work.

The student movement of the 1960s was different. There was not a long history of oppression. In fact, the majority of the students who protested came from the white elite (look at any picture of a protest in the 1960s and see how many people of colour you can count). The students did not have decades to plan or to even find common ground. For the most part, they did not share common life experiences.  But generally, they were successful in getting thousands of young people marching down the streets of various cities across the US, not just one or two times but for a number of times over many years. How?

Francesca Polletta, a sociologist has suggested in one of her books, Freedom Is an Endless Meeting that some homogeneity in terms of philosophy and action was achieved by those who were serious about the need for change, by working very hard at it. They spent countless hours, days arguing about how decisions would be made, why they were doing what they were doing and how they could do it. Informal groups across the country met and argued, debated the issues long before anyone got on the streets. Even though many of these groups had no formal connection to each other - many of them came to the same conclusions about such things as consensus building and community action. They did so because they worked at it.

Both of the above groups, no matter how loosely organized they may have been, knew what they wanted. They had the intellectual resources, the practical training and the sense of "collectivity" that is crucial for any successful social action. Their accomplishments were not an accident. They worked at it. Before any protest can be successful, everyone needs to understand the objective and agree at a basic level of what and how they are going to achieve it. They must all be prepared for the long uphill struggle.

I see no evidence of any of this in the most recent protests.