Sergeant Crowley and I, through an accident of time and place, have been cast together, inextricably, as characters - as metaphors, really - in a thousand narratives about race over which he and I have absolutely no control. Narratives about race are as old as the founding of this great Republic itself, but these new ones have unfolded precisely when Americans signaled to the world our country's great progress by overcoming centuries of habit and fear, and electing an African American as President. It is incumbent upon Sergeant Crowley and me to utilize the great opportunity that fate has given us to foster greater sympathy among the American public for the daily perils of policing on the one hand, and for the genuine fears of racial profiling on the other hand.Meh, I guess.
We have too much faith in talk,--or rather we have too much faith in big men to control events through talk. The obsession with a "dialouge around race" is nauseating. I can't tell if it's real, or just a notion that (much like "postracial") that cable news hosts put to their guests. But it's an extension of this notion that Barack Obama created this America we see right now, as opposed to him being a product of it.
I've had many "teachable moments" around race in the past fifteen years. Very few of them have been inaugurated from up on high. No president could teach me what I learned walking down Broadway to Canal Street, what I learned out on Flatbush. At least not through words.
We have become obsessed with talking. Everywhere you look someone's talking. We need more listening, more watching, more reflection, and more time alone. One of the reasons I tossed the TV was because I felt like having it the house, was like having a friend over who wouldn't shut the fuck up. Or rather I was unwilling to make him shut the fuck up.
Crowley needs to go do his job (within the law, I might add), and Skip Gates needs to go do his. I guess he is doing his. I feel like America is going to be America. I'm skeptical of the power of figureheads to change things. What I'm trying to say--very inartfully--is that knowledge can't, and shouldn't, be imposed. People in search of teachable moments, ultimately need to--and will--teach themselves. It's all all out there.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
we have too much faith in big men to control events through talk.
Couldn't agree more. Look at the people who think Problem X will be solved if Obama just makes another speech about it. Now granted, there are things I'd like Obama to use the bully pulpit for, but it's naive and ridiculous to think that's all that's necessary.
Cheer up Ta-Nehisi.
Check out the Daily Show's pre-simulation of the "Beer Summit"
The Daily Show: White House Beer Simulation
Well put. One of the things my students learn from my history class is that knowledge alone is not enough --it's what you do with it in your daily life. There's no magic wand here.
Your blog certainly is one of the more thoughtful/introspective ones around. I think it's probably enhanced by the fact that you tossed your TV.
At one point in my life I used to laugh at kids who were raised in homes where the parents had decided not to have any television. Not so much any more.
Here, here, TNC.
more listening, watching, time alone, and especially reflection.
TV.
Meh. I stopped watching TV years ago. Wasn't some sort of moral stand or attempt to "kick the habit". When I was a kid I watched all sorts of TV, and learned a lot going it. Now? It just seems like there isn't anything worth watching.
TV is like the internet. They are both the same. So is our society.
You have to sift through the much to find the diamonds.
But they are there.
Except the diamonds on TV are pretty much available on the internet, which aided my decision.
That said, it wasn't a "moral" stand for me either--I'm WoW gamer for Christ sake's. It just didn't fit my life.
that should have been "muck". sorry.
Hey, mjnewt0n,
"much" is even more apt than "muck"
yeah I saw that too! :)
sometimes I have a little of the "idiot savant" in me. My slip ups work out better.
TNC wrote: "We have become obsessed with talking. Everywhere you look someone's talking. We need more listening, more watching, more reflection, and more time alone."
As a former social studies teacher in Baltimore, I'm not sure how you expect "time alone" to be helpful when, more often than not, a lack of exposure to information and experiences with people that we've developed prejudices against. I agree that the questions about "racial dialogue" or "postracial society" are riduclous, but I see them more as the fits and starts of progress than you might.
The bottom line for me is that nobody ever benefited from learning about how to interact with others by being alone. Even without a TV or radio, or internet to help.
Thoughts?
Well that's true--if you only consider the last three words in the sentence. But, if you read the whole sentence, you'll notice that "listening" "watching" and "reflection" are also listed.
I think is fundamentally wrong--if only because of the "nobody." But more seriously, I would argue that a significant part of the problem isn't simply what we don't know about other people--it's what we don't know about ourselves.
The best thing you can do for the Southerner brainwashed by the Lost Cause isn't send him to Harlem--it's point him toward a more rigorous understanding of his own history. The unavoidable lesson of that is how his history intersects with mine. Talking, alone, leaves aside some essential steps that will insure that you actually have something to say.
As a former social studies student in Baltimore, I learned a lot from talking to others. But I formed a lot of my more profound conclusions, at night, reflecting on what had been said.
It's very hard to get better in a crowd.
Didn't you know you were ever a teacher in Bmore. Nice! Also, I did read your entire post carefully - I agree with your idea, aside from the "alone" part.
I think where I might break from your line of thought is the part where you suggest a more rigorous understanding of someone's own history.
Honest question: can you name someone who was a bigot but changed their ways just by spending time alone or learning something new?
You can teach someone all you want about why the South had it wrong, but if they still consider that hierarchy to be proper, or if they truly believe that they are better than others, you'd be better off yelling at a wall. A rigorous understanding of your own history won't matter if you don't have a reason or impetus to apply what you're learning.
People won't want to learn at all if they don't have that push. I think my brain isn't quite prepped for this kind of convo just yet, and I think we agree a lot more than I'm able to articulate right now... but to sum up: great post, I think it makes sense, and I too hope for better resources and progress!
I don't think the teaching the person more will always work but sometimes it does. I think of a few cases I've heard of where individuals who were very religious who upon studing the Bible, the Apocryapha, and other primary sources from Bibilical times who begin to learn more about the true meaning of their faith and sometimes change their views radically. I think of a man who was on Fresh Air with Terry Gross once who was raised Fundamentalist, went to Thelogy school and was really adamant about Southern Fundalentalism and how right it was. Then after he passed the Masters level he went to some different schools, learned Hebrew, Ancient Greek and Latin and read some of the sources in the original and after years of absorbing and careful thinking grew away from the fundamentalist mindset and actually became and agnostic. I also saw a documentary once with a British Catholic Priest who after going to Seminary decided to learn more deeply about other religions and how they fit in with Chrisitanity and after years of study, though maintaining his religion, began to feel that all religions have value and reflect aspects of the same things thus overcoming his upbringing that people who weren't Catholics, let alone Christian were bound to hell. So sometimes, learning more, being exposed to different things and studying things you think you understand, especially if they were indoctrinated into yo uas a child, can change your attitudes and give you a broader different perspective.
Not to be a nitpicker, but I think we are conflating talking at one another instead of with one another. The TV talks at you. Talking with someone requires listening, watching, and reflection if indeed you are listening to understand rather than listening to talk back.
Some of my most profound moments were when someone said (or wrote) exactly the right thing that either touched me or opened my eyes in some radical way. Like a black female rabbi commenting on heterosexism saying that it was not her place to tell people whom God tells them to love. Word. That crystalized my objection to heterosexism in my church and in my race right there. It was people telling other people what their love was or was not. It can even happen on TV. "The Wire" Nuff said.
Just saying you can't learn tacitly for everything. We don't live 1000 years.
I'm not sure how you expect "time alone" to be helpful when, more often than not, a lack of exposure to information and experiences with people that we've developed prejudices against is what causes the problem in the first place.
Sorry... my brain wasn't turned on at the time of my first post.
I don't know. As an introvert I pretty much need time alone to process anything, including, yes, how to interact with others. So I kind of see "exposure to experiences with people that we've developed prejudices against" and "time alone" as a balance. Time alone by itself won't change you, but may be a needed space to process the other things that help change you.
Maybe mileage varies for people who are more extroverted than me.
This is true, but my whole problem with this idea of unguided alone time is that it's based on the assumption people want to change how they think, and that doesn't even consider the fact that many don't consider their views wrong.
In this respect, I think TNC had it right when he said knowledge can't be forced.
"my whole problem with this idea of unguided alone time is that it's based on the assumption people want to change how they think"
where is this assumption in what TNC wrote?
It's inherent in his suggested solution:
The best thing you can do for the Southerner brainwashed by the Lost Cause isn't send him to Harlem--it's point him toward a more rigorous understanding of his own history.
You can point somebody in the right direction, but unless they want to open their mind, you're not doing anybody any favors. If we agree that knowledge can't be forced on someone, then we also have to agree that people need to want to change or broaden their thinking in order to make alone time beneficial.
no it isn't, "best" doesn't equal a guaranty just the best possibility. Now that's debatable but so far you haven't.
What I read in TNC post was sometimes you need to decrease the "noise" of our society and process what you have learned and apply it to yourself.
Try to understand yourself. Don't be defined by the others.
did you ever notice that when you are alone that you are still in conversation, that's your imagination at work!
And without imagination there is no widening of empathy.
Without taking time to reflect on things, time to notice new aspects/combinations/possibilties, very little will change.
Plus the discipline required to be with oneself is vital to the development of a way of life that isn't dependent on constant and immediate outer stimulation.
yep, rhetoric divorced from life experience is as we say merely academic. I'm still struggling with the idea that we should all be "informed" citizens. Makes some immediate sense but how much depth of knowledge is needed to really make meaningful choices? I'm sure that gossip fills an important social/bonding role but it shouldn't be confused with expertise or education. So absolutely
"more listening, more watching, more reflection, and more time alone" but all of these skills take practice/cultivation, maybe a more important civic duty than watching tv news?
I usually don't post comments, but I've been thinking about this one particular issue for a while.
My work forces me to move every five months or so (I'm in my twenties--I can deal) and currently have ended up in a very rural area. I grew up in downtown Atlanta and went to college in DC...so I can't say this is something I am used to. I have no tv, no radio, and only have internet at work...and it's mind numbingly boring. The first couple weeks it was nice...now its not so much.
I am all for self reflection, but it is also worth noting how awesome it is to have so much modern technology, even if it does hinder personal observation.
We have too much faith in talk,--or rather we have too much faith in big men to control events through talk.
Who's "we"? You must hang out with a different crowd than I do, because that doesn't describe any of the people I know. Nobody I know puts much faith in talking. And they all actively ignore the big men doing the talking.
Of all the friends and family and coworkers and others I talk to regularly, only a handful actually knew anything, or cared at all, about Gates and Crowley. And they all had the same reaction - a resigned shrug and a "whataya gonna do?" expression; maybe a "fuck it, that's the way it goes" comment or two.
The media and the politicians might be talking about talking, but nobody I know is listening.
Right. Fair enough.
I don't agree. You're assuming that we're all autodidacts, which is very generous, but to a fault. "Teachable moments" often need a teacher to guide the student through the moment. Again, not always true, but you may be erring on the side of universal self-actualization.
I agree that talk is cheap. The blah-blah-blah meter has been off the charts on cable news this week. But I'm more optimistic about this specific bond. Gates, on his own, has a very small sphere of influence. Paired with Crowley, suddenly they're the new Odd Couple. Their ongoing dialogue (if it does come to that) could be very beneficial to the diverse masses. Even if it does nauseate some of the populace.
I thought that Obama doing the "let's have a beer" thing was a smart reaction to the situation after he'd been dragged into it. But it's a very, very small thing - kind of a clever tactic. Obama himself played the significance of the whole thing down when pressed by the press. The problem is that 24/7 cable news blows small things out of perspective and proportion while it struggles to make significant issues small enough for them to manage within a pre-fabbed format - like health care reform as a horse race driven by some mythical search for a "center" that Beltway hacks have created via their own dull imaginings. They want things they can grasp without getting up out of their chairs and they're always searching for "new" angles to compensate for their lack of vision and lazy habits.
I think far too much of the Gates-gate narrative on TeeVee played it as a "race" issue rather than primarily a question of good judgement on the part of a police officer - i.e. turning a minor hassle into an arrest situation out of arrogance and resentment. But "race" has more buzz than questions about effective policing vs. cops acting out their attitudes. (But then I'm so "stupid" that I thought the OJ trial said much more about class and criminal justice than race and criminal justice - and said very little about either issue that any reasonably well-informed person shouldn't have already known. Of course I'll never forgive OJ for...uh...giving Greta von Susteren a television career.)
they don't have a dialogue they have press releases, and as such have covered the Prez on his initial response this whole fiasco.
But even if they did what would be new about this conversation that would bring about substantial changes? how would this all play out?
I would submit that we have to look at the word "dialogue" both more broadly and more narrowly. Press releases are a part of the dialogue. Sitting around the patio table with Joe the Veep and having that picture flash across the world is part of the dialogue. The social dialogue that we have on issues that matter to us deeply goes well beyond sitting in a room and having official words.
But (as I've said in another comment, so I'll keep it brief), if "dialogue" is seen as an end to itself, it will be sound and fury signifying nothing (or, very little). No single exchange can bring about substantial changes, but if we allow each exchange to play a role in something larger, to contribute to a wider effort that goes beyond just talking, then dialogue/press releases can play a very important role.
ee, dialogue, at minimum, seems to be centered on being an exchange, no?
Well, I guess the question is between whom? And, I guess, this is part of my sense of a "broader" understanding of the word. Dueling press releases don't serve as conversation unto themselves, but they are intended as an addition to a much larger conversation: the world is telling this story, and I have X to tell the world about that. One presumes that the world, or parts of it, will say Y in reply.
But my larger point is that all of these things, defined narrowly or broadly, can be useful and build toward substantial change, but only if we pick them up and move them forward. If we use them to change the way we look at and interact with the world, rather than say: Ok! That's fixt! And move on.
Also, PS: Thank you for the kind words the other day! I actually took my lunch out to the front porch, to enjoy the sunshine.
"but only if we pick them up and move them forward. If we use them to change the way we look at and interact with the world, rather than say: Ok! That's fixt! And move on."
I think that was T's point here and if not it was mine.
ps glad to hear about the picnic and the light
The wonderful XKCD cartoon on the "Beer Summit."
I'm thoroughly tired of the media coverage of this, given how little of it seemed on point to me. I'll be glad to move on. Right after enjoying what xkcd had to say.
crossposted with albatross ... who at least got the html right!
and @ albatross: Oh, how I love xkcd! I think I would marry xkcd if I could. Can I tell you what? If Randall Munroe were to ever include me in one of his cartoons, Cory Doctrow or President Obama style, I could die a happy woman.
(Note to self: Go do something worthy of Randall Munroe's attention).
Also: I love the notion of the POTUS opening a cupboard and going "uh... we're out of beer."
i have to disagree strongly with the dominant sentiment expressed.
i can think of very little that is more important than the type of interaction you appear to disdain.
i think that dropping an ignorant redneck in the middle of harlem would be the very best thing that person could experience, if the objective was that he/she open up their minds to a different perspective.
yes, a period of introspection is important and can help, but unless that person is forced by the space, the world, around them to actually confront whatever notions they've carried with them for years, they will continue to do so.
in fact, my experience in classrooms indicates that individuals really only alter previously held ideas once they go through a give and take with others. you can provide them with all the reading and viewing material imaginable and they may be moved slightly; but put that person in a group with others who will poke and prod and push and it is then that the person will actually start to change and grow.
consider malcolm x's evolution from nation of islam loyalist to someone who was open to a totally new way of viewing the world. while i'm certain he read and studied and that his views were moved by that activity, what appeared to be most important was his trip to mecca and his interaction with muslims of other races and cultures. while it was not the same as tossing a redneck into harlem, it is of the same kind.
i may be wrong, but i also believe that the subtext of your post is that leaders cannot actually change the world around them through their talk and dialogue and discourse. and that ultimately, they are of little import. or at least, they are not of great import.
i would submit that the last 40 years have been testament to exactly the opposite conclusion.
men like john kennedy, robert kennedy, malcolm x,and MLK were powerful largely because of their ability and willingness to conduct meaningful dialogue and therefore move people in certain directions. eliminate those individuals and all of a sudden progress can halt.
that is exactly what has happened to this country over the last 40 years - by design, imho - as strong voices that could have actually led this country in new and productive ways were eliminated, one-by-one.
by the way, gates' statement was embarrassing and i could not listen to someone who read it on the radio. while no one deserves what happened to him, after hearing that statement, i laughed to myself that i'd probably do anything to make him shut the f#$k up, also, maybe even slapping some handcuffs on him, to achieve that end. all of a sudden, i had a certain amount of empathy for crowley, for the first time.
I think the "beer summit" had the intent of humanizing the people involved, rather than making them into cardboard talking points Even if they didn't apologize, they sat down and had a civilized conversation, and Gates isn't (as far as I can tell) demanding an apology from anyone.
And Obama gets some shine on his "peacemaker" crown, which hopefully he'll continue to use. I like this "lets all sit down and have a beer together" bit of diplomacy. It's more honestly folksy than Bush's aloofness and pretend cowboy nature. Lets see more of it.
On the other hand, what possible answers, or even questions about race relations came out of this? It's like the whole thing was swept under the rug.
"i think that dropping an ignorant redneck in the middle of harlem would be the very best thing that person could experience"
Accompanied by a real estate agent ?
btw, real leaders are never figureheads. unfortunately, we have had many "figureheads" in powerful positions in this country. but real leaders - a man like mandela, for instance - could never be simply tossed aside as mere "figureheads".
unfortunately, our political system is pretty much designed to only allow "figureheads" to emarge.
imho, obama is more figurehead than leader.
unfortunately.
also, i was wrong when i noted that there was subtext concerning the inability of leaders to change the world. after reading the post again, it's obvious that such a view is not mere subtext, but it's right there up front, obviously very clear. it's early here on the left coast and i'm writing this while having my first cup of coffee. my mistakie.
Talk is cheap, like you said, but I think Obama set a hell of an example by bringing both men together to bury the hatchet. Don't you think that we'd be better off if more people followed this example of how to address, if not resolve, differences?
can you give one concrete example of how "men like john kennedy, robert kennedy, malcolm x,and MLK" engaged in dialogue, not a speech or political negotiations, that moved people in certain directions? If you read the bios of the figures that you list they all came to be formed by the kinds of experiences/practices that TNC lists here. Coversation is of course an important part if life but its powers to make changes have been exagerated to the point of being counter-productive. If you think about the things in your own life that shaped your habits/world-view how many of them were dialogues?
easy.
if you read the bios of both kennedy brothers you see that there was a time in the kennedy administration where they were truly uncertain about the direction they would take, regarding the civil rights movement. apparently, through a series of conversations - dialogues - internally, and with civil rights leaders outside of the administration, they decided to put the weight and muscle of the federal government behind the black folks who were being gassed and beaten and arrested in southern states.
initially, it was not certain, at all, which course the feds were going to take.
without that diaglogue, that interaction, history does not unfold as it ultimately did.
a different person, or different people, in the place of jfk and rfk respond differently to the times and ultimately this country would have gone through an entirely different experience.
jfk's speeches, rfk's speeches were important, yes, but ultimately the dynamic between leaders laid the groundwork for events.
jfk always wanted civil-rights but was dragging his heels, had other priorities, and was forced through political tactics/negotiations to step it up. so any others?
what are "political negotiations" if they not examples of dialogue?
"negotiations" necessarily involve a dialogue of some sort. one doesn't sit in a room and have a monologue with oneself and have negotiations. it is a dynamic process. between parties. by definition.
and you even acknowledge that he was actually moved from "dragging" his feet to the action he ultimately took.
that is the perfect example of what i am writing about.
it happened. it is history. you cannot go back in time and change it in order to make a point.
easy.
the truce between malcolm x and MLK.
at one point, malcolm x had nothing but contempt for MLK, but through dialogue and personal interaction, he came to at least respect the man. which was extremely beneficial for the civil rights movement.
btw, i find it incredible that you would even argue against the idea the dialogue between leaders makes a differnce.
some things are pretty self-evident.
this idea is one of them. it's incredible that it's even "controversial" or contested.
i have ideas that are pretty radical in their own way, but this isn't one of them.
or so i thought.
your ideas aren't radical just not very nuanced. The difference between negotiations and dialogue can pretty much summed up in their dictionary defs, but one is an exchange of idea(l)s with the hope/promise of mutual understanding and the other is a contest of agendas. How did the conversation between MX and MLK (as I remember it MX changed his mind about MLK, race relations first and then they talked but it's been a while) make any substantial change in the political, not intellectual, history of civil rights? This isn't an attack on you just asking you to try and see/understand in a more detail oriented way.
lol!
the dictionary definitions you provided are laughable. i won't even waste my time, but i'm sure that i could find different definitions, one's that would support my view if i spent time searching websters.
obviously, you haven't spent a lot of time negotiating. i have.
negotiations get nowhere unless there is dialogue.
and in any dialogue, there is a certain type of negotiation that goes on, as individuals go back and forth and hopefully do something other than shout at each other. if a true dialogue occurs they must do more than just talk at each other. the attempt to split hairs and in a "nuanced" way, indicate that one is necessarily different from the other is hilarious.
you can "define" it however you wish, but to ignore the reality says more about you than it does the differences between the two terms.
and your quote reproduced below definitely shows that you know absolutely nothing about that period in history. i'd suggest that you do a bit more reading about the history of the civil rights movement and the relationship, not only between the two men, but between the movements that followed both. the two men conducted a very public dialogue for years, usually conducted via interviews and public statements by way of third parties, but it was a dialogue nonetheless. statements were made in very public ways, and each responded to the other. as i'm sure they expected.
i do also believe that there was actual correspondence between the men, though i don't have dates and reproductions.
talk about lack of nuance. are you so limited as to believe that public figures do not engage in public dialogues for whatever reasons may prevent them from actually sitting down at a table and dealing with each other in person?
again, some things are so self-evident, that it is silly to even address them. i guess you'll next ask me to explain how MLK's "i have a dream" speech actually mattered.
"How did the conversation between MX and MLK (as I remember it MX changed his mind about MLK, race relations first and then they talked but it's been a while) make any substantial change in the political, not intellectual, history of civil rights?"
from the wikipedia page on negotiations:
"Negotiation is a dialogue intended to resolve disputes..."
which is pretty much what i expected to find.
i could go on and produce more examples of how wrong you are, but what is the point.
nuance? yea, right.
lol!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiation
A very libertarian perspective.
frankie d:
Interacting with people who are different from you, lots of them in lots of ways, that's important. It's one of the things I think is really valuable about college (or probably the military or the Peace Corps or whatever), especially for folks like me who grew up in a pretty uniform place (small-town mid-Missouri). You know intellectually that there are people who are different from you, but you don't really have that intuition till you've interacted with people who really, truly, have different experiences and expectations.
But you get none of that at all from having a two-week tempest-in-a-teapot on cable news. That's about stirring up outrage to prop up ratings, not about really giving anyone any intuition about other people. 24 hour news is junk food for your mind--you feel like you're being informed, but you're really just being entertained, agreeably stirred up or made mad at something comfortably distant or whatever. The outrage of the week is about Don Imus and his nappy-headed ego, or about Gary Condit's dead page/lover, or about Matt Shepherd being murdered by a bunch of thugs, or about Gates being arrested for mouthing off to a cop and having the connections to do something about it. But who is actually changed by that kind of coverage? Who really learns from it? Who ever gets the kind of uncomfortable realization that helps you become a better person, the kind of "Oh, crap, I *do* talk right over all the women in the meeting" insight that actually changes your behavior for the better?
albatross,
when this happened, i posted that obama's involvement would only be meaningful if he actually was willing to exert leadership and actually use this moment as a real "teachable" moment.
unfortunately, he has done his typically gutless move and his actions have allowed events to unfold in the way you describe above. what obama has done is not the kind of leadership that could actually make a difference, but has ultimately resulted in a nice photo-op, which will, from his perspective, bury this uncomfortable issue, for once and all.
what i wrote initially - and it's somewhere in these threads - i still hold to: he could have brought prominent african-american men from all over the country together, had them testify about their experiences with police and racial profiling and use that testimony as the basis for national legislation on racial profiling. this would have kept the issue on the front burner and it would have demanded that obama deal with it for longer than a couple of weeks, but ultimately the country could benefit.
the country would finally deal with a corrosive issue in an up-front and honest way, with obama taking the lead.
but obama is not a real leader. he just doesn't have it in him. or at least he has not shown that he has it in him. so we get what we get from him:
a powerful, simple true statement initially.
a non-apology apology moving away from his initial, powerful statement.
an hour-long photo-op with a couple of statements from the parties involved.
it probably plays for him politically, but it is absent of leadership. which is par for the course for obama.
When I was 15 I was mad at the world for being unfair. At 23 I realized that I was the one who wasn't being fair, and that my anger at the world was a projection of my own inadequacy.
There's media content, and then there's media content. The soundbite style of news is fine for some things. I check in on it from time to time to make sure that nothing major has happened when I wasn't looking, and to get some rough estimate of what the weather is likely to do. The trouble is, there's a lot of time to fill on days when nothing newsworthy happens, and a lot of the content used to fill that time is only a notch or two above the August shark attack story. (We seem to be due for a few of those. It's that time of year.) I consider it a good sign when news sinks to that level. It means that relatively few things are blowing up.
But interesting media content, which is more likely to turn up places other than the news, is a perfectly fine way to make initial contact with things you don't experience in your own life. As a child I got a lot of my ideas of what things looked like -- what kind of clothes people wore in the 1930s, or what Paris looked like -- from television and movies. Then, when I read about the 1930s or about things that happened in Paris, the experience was much more vivid and compelling than it would have been if I hadn't seen the pictures.
As for being alone, that's when you read, right? There's no way to read difficult, complicated things while rushing from place to place or trying to respond to everyone who wants to chatter at you. It takes time alone, without interruptions.
Harvard specializes in big men who think they're shaping the mighty course of events. On average, their big-headed heroes probably do make 5% more difference than the average guy on the street, worth doing, but a lot smaller than they like to believe. I second the "meh."
But I think something is getting done under this dialogue banner.
Sergeant Crowley is not playing the role of the next Joe the Plumber: he's not laughing at all the nerdy elitists. He's also not playing the domestic Dick Cheney, insisting that everyone who disagrees with a cop needs to be locked up. This is good. He's refusing the place he was offered in the script of cliches, and choosing a better one
He still disagrees with the professor about what happened a few weeks back,and especially about whether his own reaction was out of line. But he's agreeing that there are cops who get out of line, and there's a serious racial issue in who those cops mess with, and folks ought to be working on cleaning that up. Most of all, he showed up yesterday and acted like the other folks involved were his moral equals.
Compare that to the last month of Jeff Sessions and Glen Beck and Pat Buchanan and the rolling mob of birthers and health-care-means-death folks, and I'll take it.
When you put it this way, it does speak well of Crowley that he was able to check out and separate the personal from the professional -- sitting down with a fellow he'd arrested one week before (and who wasn't from his neighborhood by any means).
My Dad's views about race changed some only after he started working with a black woman, the first black person he ever really knew personally. They ended up sitting next to each other for fifteen years in their small office, and she became a very dear friend. But I know for sure they never once had a "dialogue around race." Seems to me these personal relationships are what ultimately change perspective and behavior, but the pace is glacial. I do think what Obama did is a good model in general for adults resolving disputes, but the idea that it will somehow change anyone's mind, except possibly the guys around the table, is kind of silly.
I was initially inclined to agree with you about "teachable moments" from on high, but NPR did a piece yesterday on how police departments are reacting to the incident and it was generally encouraging. Sure there are some chiefs who say the lesson to be learned is that you shouldn't talk back to cops, boy, but there are others who are using it as an opportunity to make sure their cops don't get called stupid on national tv.
Anyway, we can hope.
I think the problem is when we treat the talking as an end to itself. "Dialogue" only works if it is seen as a tool, a way to get someplace else. There is value to expressing oneself and to simply hearing the thoughts of the "other side" (whatever "side" that might be -- I will admit that my thoughts immediately go to Israeli/Palestinian coexistence efforts, because that's where I have my greatest experience), but in truth, that can only bring you so far. If you don't move ahead from the conversation into "more listening, more watching, more reflection, and more time alone" -- and, you didn't say this TNC but I think it's inherent to what you did say, more training (of the self, of society) to look for teachable moments -- then it's so much hot air.
I wrote once in the Christian Science Monitor about the hesitancy of white people like myself -- life-long liberals, lots of experience with the Black middle class -- to engage in the conversation, for fear of looking like a fool. It is easily the most shame-inducing thing I have ever written (and I've written about a lot of uncomfortable subjects), but I felt someone needed to say it. Since writing it, through conversations like this one here and at another site, I feel a little less ignorant, and much more willing to admit my ignorance, than I did when writing the piece in question, but the heart of it remains true. And so, though I am not proud of the side of me that this essay reflects, I feel like I've become a part of this little community and it would seem dishonest if I didn't bring it up -- so, here it is, if you're interested: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0713/p09s01-coop.html?page=1
Also: I have to respectfully disagree about the importance of symbols and figureheads and big men (and women).
These are not enough, in and of themselves -- absolutely. But they move the conversation, they move perception, they force things into our heads that we (perhaps) were not thinking about before. Again: To the extent that these things/people are used as tools, rather than a be-all-end-all, they are (to my mind) very important -- e.g.: the fact of President Barack Hussein Obama is not The End of Racism, but the symbolism inherent in his Presidency can help us address racism more openly and with greater courage than we could have even a year ago. It's up to us to do address it honestly.
I have to agree with you there ellaesther. These big so-called national conversations don't do much on a mass scale, true. However, we cannot know how perhaps the gates incident has maybe added a different perspective to someone's thinking about a myriad of issues such as: police conduct, professionalism, race, class, constitutional rights etc. Perhaps a news article about the gates incident, has become a starting point for some people to enter into a dialogue with their friends, their colleagues, their spouses, who knows?
Even on this blog, people on previous posts and comments stated several times, that they found the discussion on here to be illuminating and insightful, even on posts where the comments seemed to be quite contentious. No it doesn't mean we are going to solve all our problems with just comments, blog posts or talking a lot. But we got to start somewhere, and honest, respectful discourse is a good place to start, it seems.
As far as the need for more reflection and less talk, sure I couldn't agree with you more. But talk in itself can be quite helfpul, it's the attitude and energy behind the conversation that matters. Active listening, pausing without just thinking about what you are going to say next, and mindful rumination, in my opinion, can create real insight.
You got it: "We need more listening, more watching, more reflection, and more time alone."
Too often "conversations" about race focus on the other, so to speak, when it's really about you. How you react/behave differently around people who are different from you, how to recognize your unconscious behavior and what you bring to the table are what's really important for this kind of "conversation" to flourish.
Anything that is put through the mill of modern publicity and press relations is going to turn into phony, disillusioning clap trap: our charismatic President can run his mouth off at times--as he does enjoy the spotlight. And, as TNC says (I think), you can't orchestrate anyone else's "teachable moment." But I think he was sorry he seemed to have called a public servant "stupid," knew he couldn't apologize without making it worse, also knew that racial profiling in police arrests is an inescapable reality for black men that can't be just ignored, and that he had to do something. I think it meant a lot to him. Maybe each of our individual reactions to the whole confused and confusing affair was the teachable moment (a phrase Obama tried to disown). Anyway, I'm glad we have a president who continues to be a real person dealing with real issues as much as he can (even if I do disagree with his decisions about half of the time) and I do think there was some true communication achieved in spite of the silly spinning of the whole incident .