My Offense at The Salvation Army’s “Wokeness” Is Personal

When my grandfather, an immigrant to America, died, the family received hordes of messages of grief from local neighbors and from foreign heads of state and everyone in between.  The expressions of sorrow on his passing were combined with proclamations of thanks and honor for his humanity and his philanthropy. 

In America my grandfather learned English, worked his way to receive degrees in chemistry and management, worked his way up to a position of Executive Vice President in a large corporation, and, most importantly to him, spent his life doing work on behalf of others including work with the Salvation Army. 

My grandfather was a lifelong Rotarian, serving Rotary both locally and internationally.   As President of Rotary International, he traveled around the world in the years shortly after WWII.  He spoke of the hope he had for world peace as the United Nations was formed. He was decorated by the governments of France and Lebanon.  He served Rotary throughout his life, but he also served his community.  

He was a member of the Board of Education for 25 years and was also briefly on the City Council.  He was President of the Detroit Tuberculosis Society, served on the city convention bureau, Director and Past President of the Convention and Tourist Bureau, was Director of the Inter-American Center and of the Civic Light Opera Association, member of the Area Council of Boy Scouts, Director of the Boys' Club and Director of the United Savings Bank.  He was a member of the city economic club and the Chamber of Commerce and the State Legislature Advisory Council.  He was an active member of his Methodist church, serving on the Board and as its President.  His hometown named a school after him.  

And my grandfather served as Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Salvation Army. In that capacity, he served his community, including helping in the establishment of a hospital and then group home for unwed mothers and their families. I can remember his care and concern for others.  Going to his house on occasion I would find someone there of different nationality and/or different color whom he was personally counseling and helping with some personal issue.  He didn’t brag about what he did, following the idea that the Army’s work is not glorified but rather approaches areas others never touch and “deals with broken minds and broken people to help them find themselves.  Little of what the Army does ever comes to light.”

The Salvation Army conferred upon my grandfather its Order of Distinguished Auxiliary Service.  He once said “You always feel grateful to the people and the country that made such a thing [his success] possible.  So, when I can I like to pitch in and help make such things possible for others.”

My grandfather did not have a racist bone in his body.  Yet, if he were alive today the Salvation Army would label him as racist simply because of his color and his faith.

The Salvation Army has new materials titled “Let’s Talk About Race.”  LINK  

Its content essentially puts forth the most racist aspects of Critical Race Theory and other similar programs that would divide us by race and hold certain identity groups guilty for what the theory labels as evils of the past.  The document urges Whites to stop trying to be colorblind (that of course means interacting with one another based on the color of one’s skin rather than the content of their character – a complete reversal of the once lauded goal of Martin Luther King Jr.)

The goals of this new program of the Army include: “to “lament, repent and apologize for biases or racist ideologies held and actions committed.”   The resource claims Christianity is inherently racist and calls for white Christians to repent and offer “a sincere apology” to Blacks for being “antagonistic… to black people or the culture, values and interests of the Black community.” 

In an accompanying Study Guide on Racism, the Salvation Army proclaims Whites are racist. “The subtle nature of racism is such that people who are not consciously racist easily function with the privileges, empowerment and benefits of the dominant ethnicity, thus unintentionally perpetuating injustice.” 

My grandfather was not perfect, but he was not ever “antagonistic… to black people or the culture, values and interests of the black community.”  He was not antagonistic to anyone, consciously or unconsciously.  Instead, he treated everyone equally and fairly for the individual that they were.  His humanitarian behavior was in large part formed by his Christianity.  That Christianity was not racist.  Yet today my grandfather would be asked to repent and apologize for his racism and hatred that in reality did not exist.

Because of my grandfather’s commitment to the goals and mission of Salvation Army, I have always donated, both monetarily and in other ways, to the Army.  Just last week I gave them a generous donation and we have a large donation of slightly used clothing and household items ready to go to them.

But those things will not go to the Salvation Army.  Nor will any future donations.  I might assume the Army doesn’t even want them from someone they see as an unrepentant racist.  Would they have turned down all my grandfather’s good works if he did not satisfy their demand for repentance and lament?

My grandfather said of himself that “analysis was his natural bent in his approach to every problem.” I think I inherited that love of analysis from him.  When I analyze what the Salvation Army is currently doing, I am at a complete loss.  Why would a good and humanitarian institution suddenly decide that they have the right to judge and condemn an entire race, not based on any actual evidence but simply on accepting the popular woke theories of racism? 

And how does this help the people whom the Salvation Army serves?  Go online and see how many people are stopping donations.  How is that going to help anyone, especially those who were once served by donations of time and money from the Whites whom the Army has now labeled as evil and in need of repentance?

The answer is that this new wokeness does not serve the mission of the Salvation Army or the people whom it traditionally has served.  It divides people rather than bringing them together.  It serves to feed the hate that is already rampant in our country.

I have no issue with self-examination – of one’s biases and one’s privileges.  But we all have biases of some sort and are privileged in one way or another.  Not all, indeed not even most, use their biases and privileges either consciously or unconsciously to antagonize and hurt others who are not like them.  That the Salvation Army thinks we do, at least if we are White, shows that the Army has lost its way along with its humility, tolerance, and love.

It hurts me deeply as I think of all the good my grandfather did in his work with the Army and his respect for that organization.  It hurts as I think of this man of peace who wanted to bring the world together, knowing that one of the organizations he so respected is now a part of the movement that tears us all apart.  It hurts me deeply to know that this is not some isolated happening, but it is the trend as wokeness takes over our culture.   

Contrary to the Salvation Army’s proclamation, the Christianity that I know, like the Christ upon which it is based, is not racist. I will pray that the racism and equity of wokeness will not survive and that we may soon return to a culture and a country that aspires to tolerance and equality. 

When Justice Disrupts the Narrative

"Justice is not often easy, does not fit the mold of public opinion, and it does not conform to shifting standards.  It answers only to the facts and to the law."                                                                                    -Daniel Cameron, Kentucky Attorney General

Breonna Taylor’s death was a tragedy.  In a way she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron presented a detailed account of the facts of this case, found after a lengthy and thorough investigation, in a news conference Wednesday.  That transcript can be found HERE 

Essentially, police officers were executing a search warrant at Ms. Taylor’s residence.  Note that the purpose, validity, and obtainment of the warrant are separate issues from the actions of the officers who were actually carrying out the warrant.  This investigation addressed the events that actually took place within Ms. Taylor’s apartment. 

Verified facts establish that the officers knocked and announced their presence and, when there was no response, they breached the door.  They were met in the hallway by Ms. Taylor and Kenneth Walker.  Mr. Walker had a gun and fired at an officer who was hit in the leg with the bullet.  Mr. Walker admitted that he shot first.  The wounded officer returned fire as did another officer.  Ms. Taylor was struck by 6 bullets, one of which was fatal.

This evidence in far more detail was presented to a Grand Jury whose purpose it is to investigate allegations of criminal conduct and determine if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and to protect the public against unfounded criminal prosecutions where probable cause is lacking.  The Grand Jury was comprised of fellow citizens of both Ms. Taylor and the officers.  The Grand Jury returned only an indictment against one officer for three counts of wanton endangerment for endangering the lives of three individuals in another apartment.   

No homicide charges were brought against any of the officers.  Such charges were found not to be applicable on the facts of the case because the officers were justified in the return of deadly fire after having been fired upon by Mr. Walker.

Those are the facts.  Yet some people are not willing to accept the facts or not willing to accept what the facts mean in our system of justice.  Justice requires that emotions be put aside and facts be examined objectively (often signified by blind lady justice holding the scales).  Justice is not achieved via emotion or mob rule.

I have no doubt that Ms. Taylor’s family, friends, and others are outraged by her death.  But that does not mean that they have the right to blame those officers who were only doing their job.  It does not mean that they have the right to seek revenge from those who are not responsible for her death.  It does not give them the right to act out their very real pain by destroying others.  And it certainly does not give anyone the right to form a destructive and riotous mob. 

This is an incident unique to itself.  It is not part of some institutional and calculated plan.  It has its own very unique facts which we now have before us.  To use this incident to justify a disregard of actual justice, to use it to justify a disregard of our Nation’s basis in the rule of law is wrong.  Yet the Left seems to have no problem doing this.

As soon as Ms. Taylor was pronounced dead the demonstrations began.  No facts yet, only raw emotion.  Stir up protests, some peaceful some not, around the country, claiming this death is one of many that are not seen as individual tragedies but simply as proving some point about some systemic failure.  That is not justice, not for Ms. Taylor and not for our country.

This evening the progressive Democrat mayor of Albuquerque made a statement about the case.  After saying he was not a lawyer and thus couldn’t comment he then went on to comment.  He asserted that the Brionna Taylor decision is “out of step with what we’re trying to do in America.”

What????  What exactly are "we" trying to do in this country?  If it is to follow the rule of law, let objective facts determine justice, then this case was absolutely in step.  It is not the decision that the mob wanted, it is not the decision that the Left would like to see, but it is the honest decision when one looks dispassionately at the facts.  That is justice.

So what does he mean when he says it is out of step with what we want to do?  And, who is “we”?  I hazard a guess that “we” is the progressive Left that is not interested in rule of law, but rather rule of passion or emotion.  The Left wanted the facts of this case to create a narrative of systemic police brutality against Blacks.  But the facts did not cooperate.

Perhaps the “we” is trying to create a new system governed not by equal justice for all, but rather one in which some people are excused or manufactured into victims based on race while others are condemned based on occupation (in this instance police officer).  Perhaps the decision here is out of step because it does not further the divisive identity group hatreds continually being fomented by the Left.

Real justice does not bend to political desires.  It does not bend to threats and violence.  It does not bend to the will of the mob.  It bends to the law and to the facts.  When the real and honest people of the Grand Jury reviewed the facts of this case, they returned their decision.  It is a just decision, regardless of what the Left would like or the mob demand. 

So now we will watch Kentucky burn as too many people act out their anger and their hurt that they did not get what they wanted, that the decision did not find the police or anyone else guilty for Ms. Taylor’s tragic death.  Justice is not always satisfying; it is not a means of revenge nor an antidote for the deep pain of seemingly senseless loss.  Justice is impartial.  It is based on law, fact, and reason. 

This decision represents a victory for justice, a victory for the rule of law, and as such it is a victory for America.  And when those unhappy with the decision finish acting out, I hope they will be able to objectively realize that it is very much in step with America and her ideal of equal justice for all.

 

Clear as Mud

I recently read an op-ed column that began: “It is clear we have real racial problems in this country….”

Now, as a writer myself I understand that sometimes we begin with phrases like this, often called “throat clearing” phrases, that are simply a way to get us started.  But, that being said, my immediate reaction to this was “No, it is not clear and by the way, do we really have real racial problems in this country?” 

My next thought is, “No, I don’t think so.”  What we do have is a lot of people who don’t have the life that they would like to have and/or who are jealous of some of the lives of others.   We have people who like to blame others for their own discontent.  Those things are, of course, part of human nature.

But what we also have are people who use the discontent of others to agitate and create anger and hate which they then use not to remedy the discontented but to further their own gain.  Indeed, this is the classic tactic of Marxism and Socialism and even of community organizing. Rather than encouraging self-examination or reminding that life is not fair, they will encourage seeing individual dissatisfactions as resulting from a larger, group oppression of some sort. 

Find a common dissatisfaction, find someone to blame, agitate the dissatisfied to attack the one who has been assigned the blame.  The result may improve the lives of the dissatisfied temporarily, but its real goal is to make the dissatisfied indebted to the agitator.

The Democrats have become masters at this.  They create identity groups and then use them until they are no longer useful.  We had the pussy-hat marches a couple of years ago, we had the many LGBTQ protests and demands.  Now we have the BLM organization, pushed by progressives and other Leftists who, seeing an opportunity in George Floyd’s death, have fomented anti-white, anti-law enforcement, anti-rule of law and Constitution, anti-American sentiment, leading to the devastation of many cities in this country.  Their goal is not to end racism but to end the presidency of Donald Trump and to push this country ever closer to a complete restructuring into socialism.

This is not racism.  This is not a racial problem.  This is a political problem created by very skillful politicians.  Now before you come to send me to a reeducation camp, I am not saying that racism does not exist.  It does, it always has, and it always will.  It is human nature to be wary of those different from us, whether in behavior or skin color or dress or any number of things.  Sometimes that wariness will cross the line and become racist.  But that does not mean that the country has a racial problem. 

It does mean that we have fallen into the divisive tribalism of identity politics.  And, if the agitated identity group is a particular race, then that group will see its oppression as racist.  And if their blame target is a governmental system, then they will assert that the system is racist.  But that does not make it so. 

Racism is not just being aware that someone is in some way different from oneself.  Racism is “the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”  There was a time in this country, as well as in much of the world, when Black people were considered in some way less than human or at least inferior enough to justify slave-holding.  There was a time when Blacks could not mix with Whites in any way, not even at the drinking fountain. 

In large part due to our form of democracy and our Constitution we were able to move through and forward from those times.  We acknowledged the errors and did what we could to make the way forward better.  We passed civil rights legislation.  We created things like affirmative action.  We integrated schools.  Some people did better with these new opportunities than did others.

But one group who has always found something to their own advantage in Black issues is the Democrats.  As the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s presented Blacks with opportunities to move forward, the Democrats also saw an opportunity to create a permanent underclass of supportive voters. 

By creating entitlements and encouraging Blacks to become permanently dependent on those entitlements the Democrats were able to keep them “in their place.”  That is, entitlement dependence has a way of destroying motivation and independence.  It becomes necessary to keep the benefactor in power so as not to lose one’s benefits.  And, coexistent with this loss of self is the belief that one is somehow “less than” and not able to do as well as others.  One comes to accept one’s fate as somehow second class.

With that second class feeling comes discontent.  Discontent that is ripe to be agitated into anger and a belief that one has been and is being discriminated against.  And that, I think, is what we are really seeing when we say that “it is clear we have racial problems.”

But that is not a racial problem.  Those who have been enticed into becoming an underclass are now grouped into an identity class and directed toward a target to blame for their discontent.  That target is “racism”, now asserted to be systemic and hence anything or anyone associated with or supportive of traditional American institutions.

This is false racism, and it is a problem.  Those who are against the traditional American system of government are using the cover of racism to further their own anti-American agenda.  “Racism” is the smoke screen; it is the weapon that is being aimed at America.  But America, while it does have racists, is not itself racist.  And, if anyone would read its history and the words of its founders (before those books are all burned along with the statues), they would see that this country’s founding ideals were not racist.  Even if the racism that accompanied the acceptance of slavery was once a part of the system, it is not now. 

I think the better statement would be, “It is clear we have a real anti-American problem within this country.”  That is, we have a significant group who do not believe in or support our form of government and our Constitution.  Their goal is to entirely dismantle it, in essence destroy the soul that is America, and then remake it into something else.  The “racial problems” are asserted and then encouraged; they are a part of the identity politics which are a key tool in the attacks designed to deconstruct America.

So, while there may be individual acts of racism against which we should all speak out, the bigger and more pervasive problem is the misuse of a manufactured and false “institutionalized” racism to attack America.  And, in a way, that is the real racism – the methods used by Democrats to first create a dependent underclass and then to agitate that group into an identity political battalion being used to further the Left’s quest for power and domination.

 

Identity Politics and Victimhood vs. Liberation and Sovereignty

Black Lives Matter leader and Greater NY BLM Chapter President Hawk Newsome stated, “if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.” (Video Interview on The Story, June 24, 2020).  And what is it that Mr. Newsome and his BLM want?  At the end of the interview he stated, “I just want Black liberation and Black sovereignty, by any means necessary.”

Let’s think about that.  Liberation is the act of setting someone free.  I think that was celebrated just a few days ago on Juneteenth, the celebration also known as Freedom Day, Jubilee Day, Liberation Day, and Emancipation Day.  Juneteenth celebrates and commemorates African American freedom.

So, to what liberation does he refer?  Perhaps he has liberation confused with some idyllic Utopia where everyone has everything they want, perhaps even without having to work for it, where no one is biased, where everyone has everything that everyone else has, where no one ever has to compete for and sometimes not get the job, or house, or friends, or family, or whatever else that he wants.  Perhaps he refers to that Utopia that we all know can never really exist.

We will come back to these thoughts in a moment, but first let’s look at the definition of his other key word:  sovereignty.  Usually used in referring to a state, country, or similar entity, the word sovereignty means supreme power or authority; the right to be self-governing.  No, the identity group Black is not a self-governing state and if he seeks it to become so then that idea is quite radical and will indeed require burning down our system as well as our country. 

But, perhaps by sovereignty he intends to mean the right of Black individuals to be responsible for themselves, to make their own decisions and chart their own individual courses in life.   That of course requires choices and decisions and in the real world everyone makes some very good decisions but also some very bad ones.  In either case, when an individual governs oneself that individual must be prepared to take the consequences, both good and bad, of those decisions.

And, if that is the sovereignty to which Newsome refers, then Black individuals received that sovereignty along with their emancipation.  If that is BLM’s demand, then BLM already has what it wants.  So, let’s explore why they feel so oppressed that they must protest and riot for “liberation and sovereignty.”

The key here is identity politics.  It does its best to deny Black individuals the freedom to be individuals.  That is its point and how it serves as a tool for those who seek power via division and, in classic socialist tradition, pitting one group against another.  As the Left has fueled the flames of identity politics for the last many years, Blacks have been pushed and cajoled to see themselves not as individuals but as members of a victim group. 

With Blacks as the oppressed, and Whites or the System as the oppressor, the oppressed Blacks are urged to blame the oppressing Whites for everything within their lives that is less than the Utopia of perfection that we all dream of.  Anything less than perfection is not the fault of the oppressed, but of their oppressors.  The Utopian dream would be possible if the oppressed were liberated from their oppressors.  This is the fairy tale of identity politics.

“Systemic Racism” is nothing more than a false narrative that is used to solidify victimhood of all who are deemed members of that identity group known as Black.  It is a byproduct of identity politics – a means of dividing us to further a progressive quest for power.  To proclaim that some sort of systemic racism is the force that keeps Blacks from being liberated and sovereign is simply another way of claiming, underscoring, and maintaining victim status for an identity group.  

Identity politics, not plantation owners, is what now keeps Blacks enslaved.  Group victimhood diminishes self-worth and destroys individuality; with that comes a lack of motivation and a dependence on those who have convinced these “victims” that they cannot live without the assistance of their victim-makers. 

If liberation is necessary, it is not from the “system”, not from “institutionalized racism” but from politicians who push a victim narrative promising to save those victims, while at the same time turn those “victims” into an underclass of dependent voters who will keep their victim-makers in power. 

Yet no one forces Blacks to be identified by a group narrative.  They, like any other individual in this country, have the freedom to create their own narrative, one in which they are free to see themselves not as victims but as individuals who can take responsibility for their own lives and in so doing enjoy the fruits thereof.  They can do this without envy of or hate for or dependence on some other group.  But this requires accepting the fact that the life they create will in all likelihood not be perfect – there is no Utopia.

Truly accepting one’s own liberation and personal sovereignty requires no small amount of courage.  It is easy to sit back, take no risks, and let others create things that you would like, whether that is a physical creation or the fruits of one’s labor, or a state of mind.  It is easy to accept the narrative that you can do no more than be dependent on others for your well-being.  And, when your life is not what you would choose, it is easy to be prompted into a mindset of victimhood. To break free of that mindset takes courage and independence.

This is not to imply that no people have biases or do not act in a way that is or can be perceived as racist.  That, however, does not prove systemic or institutional bias.  There are hundreds if not thousands of anecdotes about a Black person being somehow slighted or treated badly.  Sometimes that is due to racism, sometimes it is not.  There are just as many anecdotes of non-Black and indeed White people being slighted or treated badly.  Sometimes that is because of their color, sometimes it is not.  Some people will choose to see these as the individual occurrences they are; others will choose to see everything through the glasses of racism.

George Floyd’s murder was horrendous.  But what proof do we have that it was racially motivated, that it occurred because he was Black?  How do we know that his accused murderer was not just a cop who was drunk on his own power?  He had, with police union help, been allowed at least 17 prior times to abuse his power; those abuses were not labeled racist.  Perhaps this was just a bad man who felt like killing that day; do we have any proof that the blackness of Floyd’s skin was the reason?  And if we do, how does this horrible murder in any way prove the existence of systemic racism?

Far more realistic than systemic racism is the existence of identity politics and its use by the Left to turn Blacks and others into a dependent sub-class.  Repeated assertions that some specter known as “systemic racism” is to blame are useful to solidify the identity group and hence keep them as a class dependent on those who proclaim with both words and actions that only with their help can the group break free of its dependent status.  Yet, such promises and their accompanying handouts do nothing more than to keep that class dependent. 

It is this political and progressive if not socialist game that threatens the liberty and sovereignty of every individual who accepts as their own the uni-dimensional identity of a group.   The “victims” are nothing more than pawns in that power game.  Their only use to the victim-makers is the color of their skin; their human individuality has no merit and is of little concern to those who are using them as pawns

The system has already worked to grant to those who choose to take it the freedom and the sovereignty Mr. Newsome and BLM demand.  It is identity politics and its accompanying demeaning of the individual that are the threat.  This key tool of the socialist warrior is being wielded well by the Progressive Left who would indeed tear down the system – the very system that has already given BLM what they seek.

So, I would encourage Mr. Newsome and BLM to reevaluate things.  If liberation and sovereignty are what you want, then I suggest that you already have it.  Victimhood and its oppression are just one of many choices available to you.  Do not take the coward’s way forward, blaming others for the imperfections in your lives and life in general.  Within you is what you need -  the courage that it takes to stand up and be responsible for your own lives, to throw off the dependent victimhood identity and choose instead your own individual, multi-dimensional,  and independent narrative.