"Don't be a tool" - or - Dialogue about racial equity in Alaska

A few weeks ago, I was waiting in my car for my sister to come out of a grocery store, window down, and two young men, both white, were having a loud discussion about race. I tried (not very hard) to not listen, but as I was in the middle of the unnerving project I’ll describe in a bit, bad manners took over. They discussed different racial problems, whether minorities should be “blaming” everything on race, whether affirmative action was right, and one was vehement that the “Native Pride” hats were racist in nature. What struck me was – they probably would be talking a bit differently if I was part of the discussion. Or even if they knew I was listening.

I don’t mean to say they were racist for discussing this, or that they would for sure even curb away from what they were saying. But the nature of racial dialogue in Anchorage is such that with the entrance of a (somewhat opinionated) Native woman into the conversation, I’m pretty sure there would be either a) holding back from all true opinions out of not wanting to stir something up that can’t be taken back, or b) a blood bath.

Okay, I’m SURE we could remain civil. But experience tells me when people of different races radically disagree about race relations in Anchorage, the conversations don’t generally go all rainbows and bunnies.

I began this blog over three years ago, and one of my first posts was about an incident that happened downtown. A group of us, all Native, were downtown for an event, and were suddenly, and without provocation, verbally abused by a loud, angry man. The comments were ugly, and racist. But my concern was not as much the man, but the reaction of our group:

(We were) A group of young, professional Native people, mostly women, who have every right to be proud of themselves and their accomplishments. Our reaction? We lowered our heads, we didn't meet each other in the eye, we dare not look at another person in the crowd, for the shame of it… We didn't yell back, we didn't argue, we didn't console or comfort each other, we didn't talk about.

Aside from the fact that I just annoyingly quoted myself, in three years, I realize I still haven’t answered for myself the questions I was pondering in the post. Why was this our reaction? What can be done?

But a recent experience has made me look at this in a new way. I was invited to participate in a project hosted by First Alaskans – a project to start a dialogue about racial equity. To start many dialogues, actually, in many different communities around Alaska. I went in to be trained as a host of some of these dialogues, with a large group of supporters.

Here’s where my heart rate starts to rise.

It wasn’t actually the group itself that made me nervous. I think partly from posting here over the years, and partly because I just talk about race a lot with friends as I try to answer my own question, I was pretty comfortable the first day we got together. It was a day to share our own stories, our own ideas about race in Alaska.

 As we went around the large circle for several hours, each person taking a turn, it was at times heartbreaking, at times infuriating, at times inspiring. There were many occasions I could relate to the speaker, and many more that sparked ever more questions.

It was the two days after the initial meeting where I started to wonder what I’d gotten myself into.

In a much smaller group, it started getting a little more real about us hosting these discussions, and here’s where I start to have imaginary dialogues, hosted by me, in which I get run out of town or alternately start a proverbial fire in a community that leads to paintballing and race riots (it’s part of my process.)

While we were being trained, I discovered several people had similar fears.

“How do I walk by these people in the store if this goes wrong?”

“My community is not going to like this kind of talk.”

Yet, we’ve seen that positive outcomes CAN come from racial dialogue. A year ago to the week, I posted about First Alaskans’ effort in a pretty public racial dialogue. Julie O’Malley said it best, but in short, there was some ugly racial comments said about Native women over three years ago by two local radio DJs. The reaction was swift, angry, accusatory, and I don’t know that anyone was happy with the outcome.

But an effort when different racial comments were made by different local DJs was... well, markedly different. Instead of anger, education. Instead of calls to pull ads, a call to talk. The outcome? Much, much better for everyone.

Said O'Malley, "And I left the press conference wishing that more conversations about race in Anchorage could end that way. Because we’d all be better for it."

So, my neurosis about being run out of town pitchfork-style aside, after meeting these empowering, strong, open people, after some truly thought-provoking dialogue led by First Alaskans, after voicing my own fears and hopes (and more fears,) I can’t answer a single question I posed over three years ago with any authority. But I have a little more hope that, with talking, with compassion, with incredible patience, we can turn the direction of racial equity in the state.

Though the two gentlemen outside the grocery store already had it said pretty succinctly:

“But don’t you think some people just really hate people from different races?”

“Yeah… if you’re a total tool.”

He probably won’t be hosting a dialogue, but I really want to hear more of what he has to say.

Changing the way we talk about racism

Interesting piece in the ADN covering a project I'd heard about from a couple people, and saw recently came into more public light. It covers the radio "Cash for Tlingits" incident.

Julia O'Malley's piece in ADN.

Race is not a warm 'n' fuzzy topic at best in Anchorage, and ammunition for even more hurt and anger at worst. If things like this can happen, it does make me a little more hopeful for future taks, though.

Native man wants to forgive attackers in hate crime against him

Reporters interviewed Eddie Barr, the victim of the hate crime captured on video and posted on YouTube. What is amazing about this guy is his total willingness to forgive, despite the fear he has now, and the fact that even during the attack, he was only trying to be a nice guy, and then trying to ask them to stop.

From the KTUU interview:

"I smile a lot you know," Barr said. "People I see, even people I don't know. I smile you know, but when they started throwing things at me for no reason that gets scary. I don't know what's going to happen. I don't know what's going to happen to me."

..."You know I pray for them, though," Barr said. "I'm hoping they'll change their attitudes. I'm hoping when they get older you know they'll forgive me. Maybe I'll forgive them. I already forgive them already."

The Anchorage Daily News has more of a specific play-by-play of what happened. I don't mind telling you that just reading it, I was struggling between disgust, sorrow, and fear.

According to charging documents, Gum and Powers, both white, spewed venom at their victim as they pelted him with bottles and eggs, mocking a Native accent and saying "I want my Monarch (vodka)," while the target of their fury meekly tried to walk away, according to charges filed in court Friday...

The victim stood there, extended a handshake and said, "Please don't bother me."

Gum replied, "If you touch my sister, I will cut you," the charges say. Powers pushed the man again, and, at Gum's direction, kicked the man in the behind. After Gum threatened to kick him in the head, the man protested that he wasn't dumb.

"You are dumb," Powers said, according to the charges. "You're a f-----g Native."

I was eating dinner with a couple of friends last night, and neither had heard about this incident yet. One was Native, one non-Native, and the reactions were interesting when I was telling them about it. The non-Native friend was shocked, and disgusted. The Native friend made a face, gave a sigh, and ate her food in silence.

Not that this is indicative of everyone, but I don't think there's any Native person I've talked to yet that's been shocked. Most seem to think it's disgusting, but inevitable. Although the stories report the "past incidents" of this as being in 2001 and before, I know these are only the "incidents" that have been caught. What the reports don't mention is that most of those attacks, this one included, were only caught because the idiots committing the crime videotaped the attacks. I gaurantee that for every incident on tape, there are hundreds of incidents committed with the victims remaining silent.

I've had racially charged hate spewed at me in this city, without provocation, more than once (I think this is the only incident I've talked about on the blog), and downtown is probably the most unsafe place to be Native in Anchorage, at least in regards to outspoken, public racism. And no - not in a single case was I drunk, homeless or even speaking my mind, three states in which, many times, people seem to think that a Native person must have been "asking for it," and the crime, while regrettable, is understandable.

Anecdotally, I know this kind of thing happens much, much more than is reported. I am not speaking of racially charged crimes in which there is provocation - groups revenging on groups, or people abusing each other. I'm speaking of people who are literally walking down the street, shopping at a mall, sitting down to eat that are attacked, both verbally and physically because of their race. Although I'm sure this happens to many races, the dozens of examples I have are from Native friends and acquaintances in this city, and my own experiences. The things these people were yelling at Barr are disgusting - but I can't tell you a single one I haven't heard myself.

I went on a walk today, and I've got to tell you this was on my mind. This is the first long walk I've gone on alone in quite a while, and I hated the fact that when a car slowed down near me, I turned my face, so maybe they wouldn't see I was Native. I am normally pretty proud of my heritage, and family might be able to tell you I can adventure in strange cities alone with great (probably reckless) abandon, and not think about my own safety (yes, I am VERY unwise this way). So why is it when I walk down a street alone in Anchorage, I don't want people to see my heritage because I don't want a paintball shot at me?

I feel discouraged today, because this seems to be the same old thing, and so many don't even see it as a widespread problem.

Video of interview with the victim, Eddie Barr:

Enough already on the racism defending racism

I have no problems with scrutinizing the Supreme Court nominee - in fact, it is incredibly neccessary. Her words, her speeches, her judgements should be combed through as much as possible so the American public knows exactly who and what we are getting for a lifetime appointment of Supreme Court Justice. Disclaimer: I am not convinced yet she's the right pick - I still want to see a whole lot more about her.



But enough already with the "She can't be unbiased because she's a Latina."



This strikes a very personal cord with me, and probably with a whole lot of minority populations, including women in professional settings. It is a common accusation to throw at someone who is not with the status quo of whatever position they are trying to get.



I heard this argument played out several years ago with regard to Native anthropologists. It was argued that Native people could not judge Native anthropology and archeology without bias, and therefore were not ideal to be working on Native anthropology and archeology projects. As if nearly the whole history of anthropology hadn't been based off of one race and gender's views and assertions, and that shouldn't be something we look at.



I'm fine with scrutinizing Sotomayors words about race, interviewing her about what she means, picking out the whole text of things she says (and not just the two second sound-byte) regarding, well, anything and everything. There are many basing their assertions of her prejudices on her words and judgemets. But to base the argument about however future judgements might go only based on her race is breathtaking in its weighty double standard.



For a few hundred years we haven't questioned at all whether a white male judge can fairly judge between a white male and anyone he is facing in court. For some reason, a latina, a Native person, a black man or Asian woman can't make those decisions objectively - only white men can? I think we would find, should we care to look not even that far back, that there are more than a few examples of just how biased white men can be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we fought a pretty big war here in this country based on the biases and prejudices of white men.



I don't claim that minorities are more unbiased and fair - only that no race is more or less objective than the other. So get that part of the argument out of the whole deal, and unclutter the discussion for much more valid arguments.

And on a similar note, stay off the double standards for her now infamous statement in the first place! I've actually heard many, many times now, "If Alito made similar remarks, he would never have made it."

Uh... he DID make similar remarks. And he was praised for them.

_

First Nations people were "Savages"?

I became aware of this older story only because it was on today's National Native News radio piece.

Basically, an group promoting aboriginal culture in Canada filed a complaint against a member of the International Olympic Committee, Richard Pound. He made a remark, in French, that could be interpreted as calling First Nation's ancestor's "savages." The people filing the complaint are saying that it's actually the whole context of his sentence/point.

Pound's words translated in English, as reported in no2010:

“We must not forget that 400 years ago, Canada was a land of savages, with scarcely 10,000 inhabitants of European descent, while in China, we're talking about a 5,000-year-old civilization,” he said. In interviews with The Globe and Mail, Mr. Pound insisted the term sauvages carries a different meaning in French and English, and that he was using language of the era he was describing.

I am having a hard time finding all the facts out about this - I'm hoping a generous and knowledgable Canadian can point me in the right direction.

Pound's defense of this was the more frustrating part to me:

“I thought that in doing a 400-year-old picture, you use 400-year-old words,” he said. “If that hurts somebody today, I had no intention of doing that.”
“I used the term that was regularly used there by the Jesuits, in the Relations and all the other published material, ‘ les sauvages,' ” he said. “There was no intention of making any racist comments. But you know, as well as I know, what was going on here 400 years ago.”

This, to me, makes me lean toward thinking this guy is extremely ignorant. I mean, n -- r was regularly used to describe people of African descent in America 400 years ago as well as not that long ago. But I gaurantee you that if I use it to describe even the first black Americans ashore, few would view it as acceptable.

Yet I still am unsure what to think about this. I hate claims of racism when there is none - it makes fighting actual prejudice that much harder. But is this the kind of knowledge we want to be passing around? I don't think I'd be as undecided on this if it were an American making a comment in English. Cultural and linguistic differences out of the picture - this is a comment of ignorance. With them added, I just don't know enough about the differences in French/English and Canadian/American.

What do you think?

_