Author: Pat Liberty

It seems the loudest voice in the Judeo-Christian tradition is the white “evangelical christian” voice.  The problem is that this voice is not evangelical in the true sense of spreading the life giving word of God.  Neither are they Christian in their following of Jesus’ words and teachings.  They are a socio-political block with a conservative political agenda designed to roll back human rights (especially women’s rights), reproductive rights, care for the poor and disadvantaged and stewardship of the environment while catering to the richest members of society.

As we go to the polls next week, here are some thoughts to ponder:

• “The arc of the universe bends toward justice.” (William Sloane Coffin)
• Love is the essence of every major religious tradition in the world.
• Spirit is the holy in all of us and in creation.
• Creation reveals God.
• We are God’s agents of love, peace and justice in the world.
• The teachings of Jesus are our guide and guard.
• Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew.  There is no room for anti-Semitism in the Christian faith.
• Jesus was a person of color.  There is no room for racism in the Christian faith.
• Mere tolerance is a low bar for people of faith.
• The first and second testaments stand on equal ground.
• The Bible inherently favors the poor and disadvantaged.
• Jesus’ harshest judgements were focused on the wealthy and the religious leaders who colluded with them.
• The Christian life is a life of dissent against the injustice of the world.
• All paths to God are equally valid; those who claim the name of Christian choose one path among many.
• We are called to preach the gospel at all times and, if necessary, to use words (St. Francis of Assisi).
• Healthcare is a right not a privilege.
• Those working full time should earn enough to support their family.
• There is enough for everyone’s need, not everyone’s greed.
• The world would be a better place if humans practiced what they preach when they claim the name of Christian.
• The gospel agenda is non-partisan.
• We cannot give into the politics of despair, fear and powerlessness. 

Vote the values of the gospel.

Not belonging to one of the thousand hate groups active in the United States does not let us off the white supremacy hook. Hate groups are active throughout the United States. The Southern Poverty Law Center has an interactive map you can access here. https://www.google.com/search?q=SPLC+hate+groups+map&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS803US803&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7s4Pct8PsAhUvhXIEHbQYDnIQ_AUoA3oECAoQBQ&biw=1536&bih=754#imgrc=MlL3oj79aDeSOM

In order for hate groups to survive and proliferate, an entire cultural substructure is needed. Each level of the pyramid depends on the level below it (see pyramid here https://www.google.com/search?q=White+supremacy+pyramid&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS803US803&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjD6vfRtsPsAhXvlHIEHTHXDDwQ_AUoAXoECAcQAw&biw=1536&bih=754. ). It’s easy to think that telling an off-color joke or letting a racist relative’s comment pass unchallenged has nothing to do with white supremacy. Such behaviors are, however, a lower level of the cultural substructure that contributes to white supremacy.

It may seem like an overstatement, but after reading Layla F. Saad’s New York Times best-selling book, Me and White Supremacy, it will become painfully clear. This is not an easy book to read, it leaves no place to hide. With deft skill she exposes attitudes from the most blatant forms of white supremacy to the most subtle. Her words are a profound invitation to explore our attitudes, prejudices and internalized privilege.

Beginning with a language correction she expands the phrase “People of Color” to Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC). One of the first lessons is that by collapsing all groups of people into one group, individual cultures and unique traditions are flattened. The traditions of Indigenous Peoples in our land are very different from the experience of Blacks who were brought here as slaves over four hundred years ago. “People of Color,” according to Damon Young in a GQ article in August 2020 says, “People of Color has become a linguistic gesture, trade jargon related to a market tested veneer of inclusivity…it is a white people thing.” Acknowledging that there are many different groups of people with skin colors other than white is a way to begin honoring their unique histories and traditions.

Saad defines white supremacy as a “racist ideology that is based on the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore, white people should dominate over other races.”  (p.12)

This is a journaling book. Engaging the reflection questions at a deep level is the beginning of inner transformation that is the foundation of changing the world. She explores the deepest recesses of the human heart and spirit where racism and privilege hide and exposes them for what they are. Over the course of thirty days Saad systematically peels back each layer.

In Week One she explores white privilege, white fragility, tone policing, silence, superiority and exceptionalism. In Week Two she exposes the topics of antiblackness in general, antiblackness against black women, men and children, and stereotypes, as well as cultural appropriation and color blindness.

Week Three tackles apathy, tokenism, optical allyship, white saviorism and white centering. Week Four explores power relationships and commitments and further breaks the topics into white feminist leaders, how we relate to our own families and friends, what deep values are held and the fears that exist around losing privilege.

Each chapter is a masterful exploration of each strand of thought, perception and feeling that together make up the strong cord of racism and white supremacy in our nation. Lest we delude ourselves into thinking white supremacy is really not a problem, something not endemic to our culture, review where we are as a nation in the white supremacy pyramid. We are frighteningly close to the apex. While we may not participate in violent actions, those actions are contingent on our complicity as articulated in lower levels of the pyramid.

As necessary as it is to protest police officers shooting unarmed black men, it is equally necessary to deal with our own privilege. As troubling as systematic discrimination against BIPOC is in our society, it is equally troubling to explore the attitudes we harbor deep within when we are honest with ourselves.

Saad’s book is one to read over and over again, engaging the questions at a deeper level each time. If attitudes are the first level of the white supremacy pyramid, then changing the pyramid begins with changing our attitudes. Changing our attitudes begins with changing our hearts.

Being “politically correct” has fallen into disfavor. Since the occupant has made inflammatory language acceptable again, people all over the country are asserting their right to “free speech” as a thin veil for judgement and hate speech. The occupant cited political correctness as a “big problem” in the United States. He further posited that he does not have time for being “politically correct” and neither does the country.

The pushback against being “politically correct” was captured in a poll by the Pew Research Center in which the majority of Americans thought people were too easily offended. Fewer than 40% of Americans thought people needed to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people.

The divisions of who thinks what are predictable. Among Republicans 78% say people are too easily offended and only 21% say people should be more careful to avoid offending others. Among Democrats, 61% think people should choose language more carefully and 37% say people are too easily offended. The occupant, in his penchant for dividing the country, has sharpened the lines by his use of inflammatory rhetoric and judgmental actions.

It reflects a growing lack of civility in public discourse. When the example set by the leader is judgmental and lacks compassion, it is only a matter of time before people follow the path set out.

It appears that the tide began to turn in the 1960’s when what Ruth Perry calls the “New Left Movement” used politically incorrect to describe people who were out of step with more inclusive and embracing language as a way of honoring diversity. Conservatives across the country leveled criticism at being “politically correct.” Instead of an invitation to be more open, it became a source of derision toward those advocated a more compassionate language about others.

Nowhere is the argument about inclusivity and honoring differences more obvious than in the shift away from Columbus Day to International Indigenous People’s Day. Cities and towns are re moving statues of Christopher Columbus and teaching a more balanced history of colonization. It is a hot topic and widely supported on both sides of the conversation.

Persistent in the midst of it all is the notion that Columbus “discovered” America. This assertion ignores the fact that what is now the United States was filled with tens of thousands Native peoples. They were systematically slaughtered, imprisoned and removed from their land. The history of how Native Americans were treated during the colonial period is appalling. It is a small thing to shift the focus from the colonizer to the people who were victimized by colonization.

Being “politically correct” is about intentionally choosing language that honors people who are different from you. It is a way of showing respect and decency, something that is in short supply in these days of the occupant’s verbal rampage through all that is compassionate and just.

There is much to be celebrated in being “politically correct.” It simply means to embody words and actions that avoid disparaging, insulting or offending people who belong to oppressed groups. There are many groups subject to discrimination, disrespect or prejudice; age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, physical or mental disability and every “ism” used to describe another.

Holding political correctness as a goal for individual speech and behavior forces us to think about our own often unconscious oppressive attitudes and prejudices. We do well to call out those who use disparaging language and engage in hateful actions toward others. We can help to reclaim a public ethic of compassionate language without ever saying the words “politically correct.” It is simply decent language and caring behavior.

Others may deride or make fun of you, stand proud. Remind them that being “politically correct” is simply a way of not being hateful.

It’s no secret that the Black community has disproportionately less access to good medical care compared with whites. One aspect of this lack of quality care is in maternal child health. Here the double whammy of racism and sexism are painfully at work, yet it is a little known problem outside the Black community.

Unfortunately, it is nothing new. The United States began keeping infant mortality records in 1850. At that time infant mortality in the Black community was 340/1000 as compared to 217/1000 in the white community. Infant mortality dropped among all groups in the early 1900’s. By 1960 the United States had the 12th highest rate of infant mortality among developed countries. Currently the United States is 32/35 among developed countries. The most common factor cited in high infant mortality rates in the Black community is low birth weight. Black infants are more than twice as likely to die as white infants.

Among Black mothers, mortality (defined as death within a year of giving birth) is higher than it was 25 years ago. This translates to 50,000 preventable deaths every year–an increase of 200% from 1993-2014.  Black women are 3-4 times more likely to die from pregnancy related causes than their white counterparts. A recent New York Times article cites pre-eclampsia (gestational high blood pressure) and eclampsia related seizures as the leading cause of birth complications and maternal death. Black women are more than 60% more likely to experience pre-eclampsia and eclampsia than white women.

Sadly, none of this is news in the global community. In 2014 the United Nations Commission for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called on the United States to “…eliminate racial disparities in the field of reproductive health and standardize data collection on maternal and infant mortality rates….” To date, no progress has been made toward this end.

The societal and systemic racism in the United States creates conditions that lead to higher mortality rates for mothers and infants in the Black community. Racial bias means that the concerns of pregnant black women are more likely to be dismissed by their (often white) doctors. Societal bias blamed black women by claiming they were less educated; however, several studies have demonstrated that black women with college degrees are twice as likely to die as white women with less education. Further, such social bias led to blaming black women for the deaths of their infants, when the actual causes of death were due to the larger issue of racism.

Dr. Arline Geronimus of the University of Michigan School of Public Health linked the stress of living in socially and culturally based racism as a central cause of poor pregnancy outcomes. Her research showed that racism (and sexism) creates toxic stress for Black women and this in turn leads to low birth weight, increased strain on mothers and more pregnancy/birth complications.

While much of the occupant’s base is hollering about being pro-life, their “commitment” to being pro-life seems to have more to do with white lives than Black lives. Sadly, this should broker no surprise.

Pro-life is a much larger issue than being “pro birth.” Benedictine sister Joan Chittister cites the difference between being pro-life and pro-birth. Being pro-life means every child is a wanted child and every child and mother has equal access to pre-natal and post-natal care. Every child and mother has equal access to food, affordable housing, healthcare, education and child care. Being pro-life means black and white mothers and their children are valued equally. In her 2004 interview with Bill Moyers, Chittister spoke passionately about being more broadly pro-life than just being opposed to abortion. Sadly, many Americans are much more articulate about what they are against than what they are for.

Just when we think the pain of racism cannot go any deeper, we see yet another facet to America’s Original Sin.

Many of us who were raised in the church were taught that anger is wrong, a sin or some kind of moral failure.  I was taught that “forgiveness” is the response to being wronged and, to make things worse, it was not “ladylike” to be angry. 

It creates baggage.

Jesus, however, got angry.  In the same day he cursed a fig tree, even though it wasn’t the season for figs, he turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple (Mark 11:12-25).  Guess Jesus was having a bad day.  Hey, it happens.

Jesus’ anger is encouraging because it validates that anger is a human emotion, part of what it means to be created in God’s image. So, how do we reconcile the whole “be nice” thing with the reality of being angry?

Simple:  be angry but do not sin (Ephesians 4:26). Yes, there is a difference between being angry and sinning.  There are some things that should make us angry: injustice, abuse, prejudice, all the “isms”, oppression and a host of others.

The larger context of the verse is important.  It’s about stepping out from behind what is false and speaking the truth in love.  We know all too well how anger stews and festers and then comes out sideways in a hurtful and inappropriate way. I’m guessing we all have some experience in that wheelhouse.

Speaking the truth in love is the base for healthy interpersonal relationships. It is also the foundation of a public theology of anger.  It is troubling to see an increase in the kind of vile talk, name calling and vitriol that dominates public conversation.  The occupant has set a low bar for human interaction. As a consequence, we are pretty good at rage, not so good at anger.

If we read our bibles and are paying attention, the values we espouse as followers of Jesus are seriously in jeopardy. But just getting mad and going off on a rant is not helpful, as fun as it may be.

More importantly it shows a lack of understanding of the issues and an unwillingness to engage them in a meaningful way. Genuine anger about an issue is very different than unarticulated vitriol.

Anger harnessed for righteousness changes things.  Anger harnessed for ego destroys things.

There is plenty to be angry about in these days. The feelings of powerlessness can be overwhelming. If we focus on our powerlessness, we remain immobilized. Being immobilized means our egos are leading the dance. We are silent because we are afraid, because it may not make a difference, because we worry about what others may think. These are maladies of the ego, and the ego has no place in the work of righteous anger toward what is wrong. If we allow our egos to win and remain silent, the dominant narrative wins. All that we think is wrong in our society will win. All that we grouse and gripe about will not change.

A public theology of anger is rooted in speaking the truth in love: articulating what is wrong, why it is wrong, and having a sense of righteous indignation that leads to action. Righteous indignation is not self-righteous indignation; it is a spiritually rooted pain for the pain of another.  It has roots in compassion.  It speaks with power and with love and not with vitriol. 

Creating a public theology of anger requires deep righteous indignation at the wrongs perpetrated against those who have the fewest resources to fight back.  It requires harnessing the human emotion of anger to work on behalf of others. So, “be angry, but do not sin.”

There comes a moment in righteous indignation when you can do nothing BUT act, when silence is no longer an option, when the wrong is stronger than fear of failure, when ego takes second place to the inner moral compass. If we focus our righteous indignation at the situation that is wrong, we will be energized to act. These days are filled with rampant injustice. The voice of righteous indignation is urgently needed.

In a well-timed diplomatic announcement, the occupant nearly broke his arm patting himself on the back. Israel, the United States, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain have entered into full diplomatic relations. It is hailed as an historic “peace” agreement, except none of the parties are in conflict with one another which is a pre-requisite for a “peace” deal. It is a business deal and a strategic arms initiative. Coming just weeks before the election, this accord is a strategic political move.  

By announcing this “historic peace agreement”, dubbed the Abraham Accord, the occupant is hoping to boost his failing numbers among the fundamentalist white evangelical voting bloc. The connection between Israel and fundamentalist white evangelicals is rooted in a weird biblical perspective. In the first testament, the Israelites were given the “Promised Land.” Fundamentalist white evangelicals claim to take the bible literally, hence they support Israel’s claim to all the land known as the Promised Land. This includes the West Bank that is currently occupied by Israel over and against the Palestinians.

The fate of the West Bank lies at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Abraham Accord puts off Israel’s dealings with Palestine. This means the annexation of the West Bank remains an option in the accord. Much of the global community is in agreement that lasting peace in the region is contingent on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This means a two state solution.

The Abraham Accord is not so much a peace deal as it is a business deal and an arms deal. The accord was made public by announcing the first direct flight between the UAE and Israel. That is strictly about economics. The UAE hopes to access technical knowledge from Israel. In return, Israel hopes some of the riches of the UAE may come its way. In light of this, the claim that the accord is about peace holds little water. 

The accord is also a strategic geopolitical move as it allows the UAE to buy F35 fighter planes and other high tech military equipment from the United States. The UAE is in a much better geographic position to deal with the instability of Iran than Israel. The strategic military angle dealing with Iranian instability cannot be overlooked. Iran condemned the accord in harsh statements as soon as it was announced. Turkey vowed to cut off diplomatic relations with Israel. While this accord claims to be about peace, there is a likelihood that it will result in long term geopolitical instability.

What is stunning in all of this political wrangling is the absence of the Palestinians. In addition to furthering the divisions regarding who owns the West Bank, there is also a shift in political alliances that is troubling. For many years there has been an unspoken alliance between Palestine and the Arab countries. The essence of the alliance is that Arab countries will not enter into diplomatic relations with Israel until they account for their crimes against the Palestinians and until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is solved. The Arab countries have been mostly silent about the announcement of the Abraham Accord.

The reason any of this matters to us is simple. For years the United States has had a symbiotic relationship with Israel. One can say nothing negative about Israel without sounding un-American. Yet there needs to be a voice that supports the Palestinians and ends their suffering at the hands of the Israelis.

Relying on the promise of scripture that the Promised Land belongs to Israel is a cherry picking festival of biblical interpretation. Though the Promised Land is a central theme of the first testament, there is much more to Israel’s relationship with Yahweh. The central message of the first testament (and the second testament as well) is God’s everlasting love affair with all of creation and all of the world’s people. As the chosen ones Israel has special responsibilities in living into this eternal love affair. When Israel lives in sync with the love of God the conflict will solve itself. When people come before land the solution comes into clear focus.

The central prayer of the Jewish liturgy comes from Deuteronomy 6:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day. Impress them upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up. Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead, inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.”

Love and not land is the overarching message of scripture. Trotting out an economic and military deal and calling it a peace accord is a sham. For the occupant it is part of making America great, but there is not greatness to be found in alliances that cause others pain. For the UAE, Israel and Bahrain there may be increased military security, but it brokers no true peace. Driving a wedge into the Arab countries holds no long term advantage. Icing out the Palestinians in talks about the future postpones the ultimate conflict that needs to be resolved. Peace in the Middle East is about peace between Israel and Palestine.

This Letter was sent to Vice President Mike Pence on September 16, 2020

Vice President Pence:

I am writing to protest your misuse of Scripture during your acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. ( you can read his entire speech by following this link: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/26/politics/mike-pence-speech-transcript/index.html )

As a Christian I am appalled at your use of Hebrews 12:1-2 and 2 Corinthians 3:17. It is an unconscionable misuse of Sacred Text for political purposes and it is wrong. Referring to Old Glory (the American flag) as a substitute for Jesus is wrong. The nod toward christian nationalism is an affront to the Christian faith.

I am an ordained minister and a life-long student of Scripture. The passage from Hebrews 12:1-2 (New Revised Standard Version—NRSV) reads:

            “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.”

It is Jesus who is the perfecter of our faith and we look to Him and not to “Old Glory and all she represents.” We fix our eyes on God and on the living truth found in Jesus, not on “this land of heroes.” We fix our eyes on the words and teachings of Jesus. He alone is the perfecter of our faith and is not to be co-opted as a tool of nationalistic “freedom.”

Your misquoting of 2 Corinthians of 3:17 adds an additional reference to nationalism that further distorts the truth of Scripture. The verse from the NRSV reads:

            “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”

Your slight twist skews the meaning of the verse. The freedom we enjoy is from the Spirit of the Lord. It is a spirit of humility, grace and faith. It is not a freedom to do as we please. It is not a

freedom that has no base in the truth of who Jesus Christ is. It is not a freedom that wins through “might makes right.”  The true freedom that is ours, as Christians, is found in Jesus Christ and has nothing to do with nationalism.

Jesus was hung on the cross because of his refusal to collude with Roman occupation and the nationalism it represented. We, who seek to live after the ways of Jesus, refuse to collude in the ways of christian nationalism. We refuse to collude with the notion that “might makes right.” We refuse to collude with the ongoing exploitation of the poor. We refuse to collude with the ongoing degradation of the environment for the sake of corporations that exploit their workers. Your notion of “freedom” and your willingness to substitute “Old Glory” for Jesus shows the lengths to which you will go for the sake of your political agenda.

In the full authority of my office as a duly ordained Christian pastor, I speak truth to your misuse of scripture to gain re-election. I cannot change your political agenda, as distasteful as I find it, but I do protest your misuse of Sacred Scripture in furthering that end.

In faithfulness to the Gospel I remain,

Rev. Patricia L. Liberty

As we gathered (at appropriate social distance) for the traditional end of summer, there are reasons to remember that the Labor Day holiday is about more than burgers and beer.  

The growth of the labor movement and the evolution of unions in the late 1800’s were predecessors of the holiday known as Labor Day. A series of strikes and disasters galvanized the labor movement and strengthened the move for equality, workers’ rights and better working conditions.

There were several riots and strikes worth noting:

• The Haymarket Riot in Chicago in 1886. It was part of a national May Day rally that was led primarily by immigrant workers. What began as a peaceful demonstration ended in a riot when someone threw a bomb at police. Eight people died.
• The Pullman Strike, May-July 1894. Rail workers went on strike to protest wage cuts and firing of Union representatives. The Federal Government dispatched troops to Chicago. Ultimately what began as a peaceful protest ended in a riot.  During the strike there was a widespread railroad strike and boycott. As a result rail travel was all but stopped. It was the first time a government injunction was used to break up a strike.
• The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in New York in 1911. Forty-five workers died when a fire broke out in the factory. Exits were locked, fire escapes were inadequate and there was no reasonable means of egress for the hundreds of immigrant women working 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week for $15.00 a week. The owners, Max Blanc and Isaac Harris ultimately reimbursed the families of the victims $75.00. They received $400 for each victim from the insurance company. Despite the devastating fire, sprinklers were not installed. The business partners had twice torched the building for insurance money and they wanted to make sure they had the option to do so again. They were among the worst in how they treated their workers.
• The Ludlow Massacre, 1914. Coal miners in Colorado protested for better wages, shorter hours and better working conditions. The striking miners and their families erected a tent city near the strike site, which allowed them to get out of the company owned town. In April 1914 the Colorado National Guard and the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company guards attacked the tent colony with machine guns and fire setters. Approximately 21 people died. Other skirmishes with law enforcement personnel led Historian Thomas G. Andrews to call this the deadliest strike in the history of the United States.

There were many more strikes in smaller factories scattered around the country.  What they all had in common was that workers demanded safe working conditions, humane hours, fair wages, workers compensation for injuries sustained on the job and vacation time.   

Out of this push for organized labor, union representation emerged as the protection for most factory workers. Labor Day, as a legal holiday began on June 28, 1894, though many states passed Labor Day laws for celebration prior to that.

 There are still workers fighting for basic rights: the right to be paid fairly for a day’s work, access to affordable benefits and more. Companies like Walmart, one of the largest retailers in the United States with owners worth billions of dollars, refuse to provide benefits to their employees. They give their employees just enough hours each week so they do not qualify for benefits. Because they are low wage workers they qualify for food stamps and Medicaid. This means that “We the People” are ultimately underwriting the massive profits of companies like Walmart. Other retailers have followed suit. It is perfectly legal, but it is far from moral or ethical.

Yet, during this pandemic, workers such as these (not the CEO’s making millions) are saving the day. Low wage workers show up and check out our groceries, clean hospital rooms, collect garbage, make our pizzas and sell us our wine and beer. Behind the scenes, truckers, warehouse workers, farmers and countless others do their best to assure the food supply remains intact (despite the fact that some people feel the need to hoard and create shortages).   

Laborers are and always have been the backbone of our country. They are the heart of the middle class and represent the largest segment of our society. In the wake of the pandemic, however, more and more middle class workers are falling into the category of the working poor. The ones we depend on the most are the ones who are treated the worst.

Unions are being undermined by the occupant and his cohort in order to favor big business. Corporate profits are at an all-time high, as reflected in the artificially inflated Stock Market. Workers’ rights and benefits are being eroded at an alarming rate. What we can all do is advocate for workers’ rights and shop where workers are treated well. This requires us to be informed consumers.    

Though Labor Day has passed, let this week be a reminder to thank the essential workers on whom we depend for our daily well-being.   

If we wonder how it is that black men continue to be shot at an alarming rate throughout the country, we need look no further than the intertwined history of American policing and white supremacy.

As far back as the period of Reconstruction following the civil war, blacks were arrested for wanting to vote, negotiate labor contracts or exercise their political and social rights. According to historian Khalil Muhammed, working for white landowners was the only thing that was not criminalized. Further, black labor was sold to private contractors and blacks who resisted were arrested.  As a result, blacks were arrested at disproportionately higher rates than whites for simply trying to assert what had been promised them during Reconstruction. The criminal justice system emerged during this time and racial bias was woven into the warp and woof of policing. It served to keep blacks in subordinate roles so they could be exploited in various labor markets.

In the beginning of the 20th century when blacks were migrating north in record numbers, the notion of criminalization followed. Blacks were criminalized at far higher rates than their white counterparts.  As census taking emerged as a metric for monitoring the population, the data bore out the fact that blacks had higher rates of criminalization. It is important to remember that their “offenses” were simply an attempt to exercise the freedom given them with the abolition of slavery. The consolidation of crime statistics brought about by the census fed arguments for diminished equal citizenship, segregation and unequal distribution of goods and services.

During prohibition, boot legging operations and speakeasies were disproportionately located in black communities (even if they were run by whites). This further reinforced the notion that black communities were hot beds of crime.

When the NAACP was founded in 1910, tracking data on lynching in the north was a priority. It resulted in increased attention to police violence. The first race riots took place in East St. Louis in the 1920’s. Riots followed in Philadelphia and Chicago. The first Blue Ribbon Commission in Chicago found that when police had the chance to protect blacks from white mob violence, they chose to either aid or abet the white mobs and disarm and/or arrest blacks. The 1922 report showed that police systematically engaged in racial bias. The recommendations of the report were largely ignored.

This scenario of race riots, investigations and reports had similar findings in Harlem and other cities around the country. The Harlem report was shelved before it was ever made public. Finally, a black newspaper called the Amsterdam published it.

As late as the l940s the NAACP tracked lynching data; many of the reported lynchings involved police officers or police accomplices who aided and abetted in various ways. In a paper titled, “Living Histories of White Supremacist Policing, Towards Transformative Justice,” the history of selective mobilization of police resources was traced and correlations were made with white supremacists in state and non- state actors. Such under-policing shielded white supremacist officers from closer scrutiny and sanctions. Make no mistake; police officers were involved in the denial of basic human rights to blacks.

Under the presidency of George W. Bush the FBI published a study on white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement. The 2006 report, a portion of which has been declassified, stated the “KKK is notable among white supremacist groups for historically having found support in many communities which often translated into ties to local law enforcement. Although the First Amendment’s freedom of association provision protects an individual’s right to join white supremacist groups for purposes of lawful activity, the government can limit the employment opportunities of group members who hold sensitive public sector jobs, including jobs within law enforcement, when their membership would interfere with their duties.”

According to The Intercept, a 2009 intelligence study by the Department of Homeland Security, it was concluded that the greatest danger came from small terrorist cells embracing violent right wing extremist ideology. When the study was released within the Department of Homeland Security the pushback was immediate and severe. It resulted in the dismantling of the one unit that investigated this growing phenomenon in law enforcement.

In 2015 a classified FBI counter terrorism policy guide stated that “domestic terrorism investigations focus on…extremists and often have links to law enforcement.” White supremacists actively seek membership in law enforcement as “ghost skins.” The term is used to refer to those who avoid overt displays of their beliefs in order to blend into society and covertly advance white supremacist beliefs.

Still, each time a black man is shot an investigation or study is undertaken. As we see again and again it brings no systemic change. While individual police officers who commit these offenses need to be held to account, these scattered prosecutions will do nothing to bring about change in police culture.

This is not to say that all police officers are white supremacists. That is NOT the case. All police officers, however, DO exist in a culture of white supremacy within the police department. It is a bias that is as invisible as the air they breathe. They are not conscious of the cultural bias (at least most of them) but this makes it no less influential in the way they discharge their duties.

What is needed is no less than a wholesale culture shift in police work. Separating the intertwined roots of American policing and white supremacy is no small feat. It is, however, absolutely necessary for police to stop murdering black men.