Eric Holder and Our Racial Potential

Race in the United States is probably the most difficult topic to get our heads around as Americans. There is such a varied experience, plus such emotional history, that it is extremely difficult to develop a unified, national approach in handling the topic of race. Instead, we remain volcanic in our reactions to the role race has played and continues to play in our national history.

Indeed, in just the last few days three controversies about race took center stage. The New York Post published a cartoon mocking President Obama over his economic stimulus and comparing him to a chimpanzee. This morning U.S. Rep. James Clyburn (D, SC) stated that the refusal of federal stimulus funds by a group of southern governors is "a slap in the face" of African Americans in those states. Sandwiched in between Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, gave a speech in which he referred to Americans as a "nation of cowards" when it comes to discussing the topic of race.

As evidenced by the heated exchanges on news programs and angry retorts on editorial pages and in the blogs, none of these three cases has been easy for America to deal with. We have seen ugly, racist stereotypes (the cartoon) and systemic injustices (the refusal to spend stimulus funds in states where African Americans are disproportionately impoverished) resurface, and personal hurt and anger have followed. Once again , white and black fingers have pointed back and forth.

It is clear that the cartoon was racist - and to a certain extent the Post apologized - but only to those who were offended and not intent on taking revenge against them. Sure, there are some folks who would say that the cartoon was not meant to be racist, but the Post's "apology" is nothing but a smoke screen for continued racism.

Clyburn's concern, however, hits closer one of the central issues Holder was getting at, that of the history of race in America. The governors who so far are refusing the stimulus funds have stepped into a racial quagmire by forcing their political ideology upon the systemic historic racism endemic to the south.

Can we discuss the racial issues that persist within the fabric of our American society? Do we avoid these discussions? Do we react defensively?

Oh, how we personalize critique. I am a white man and have had to look inside of myself in looking at the question of power within our society. I have had to work hard to understand that who I am allows me to hold advantage for who I am - white, male, straight, middle-aged, etc.

Too often, white middle-aged men, especially on the news, are asked to respond to questions of race. All to often, they personalize the concern. We white men often take controversial statements personally. The gamut of negative responses to Holder's speech is here, here, and here. What we need to do is take a step back and attempt to develop a broader, deeper understanding of race and power in America.

So, are we a "nation of cowards"? I'd like to look at that for a moment. In order to do so, I would like look beyond that phrase and get a fuller understanding of Holder's speech.

Holder's speech focuses us on the entire discussion around race, as well as offers potential solutions to our racial conundrum. Yes, he referred to us as a "nation of cowards." But, let's look at why he says that. I find three primary terms - education,dialogue, and segregation - as potential elements within a solution to the problem of our ignorance surrounding race, as well as to the question of "cowardice."

Education is the grounding factor of Holder's speech. He is saying that we must no longer leave African American history on the sidelines. It is only through the study and understanding of the history of race in America that everyone, of any ethnic background, can gain a full understanding of who we are as Americans.

It takes courage to make the curricular changes necessary for this to occur because it requires more than just changing textbooks. It means changing the mind set of educational communities, administration, teachers, parents and students. Everyone would need to be brought into the process of making changes. Ultimately, part of the most difficult changes would come during teacher training, sessions that would guide teachers in how to talk about race openly and sensitively, as well how to guide their students in a similar process.

Historically, we have avoided this process. Why? Is there a true philosophical approach here? No, it's because of ignorance and cowardice. Pure and simple, it's hard. Holder is saying: "No cowards need apply." It would be difficult, but it could certainly be done with determination and courage.

Such a process could open up dialogue across communities, both geographically and racially. As this courageous conversation develops and especially as children become increasingly open to such dialogue, it becomes more natural and normal to talk about race. Once people from different races start to test their new skills out with one another, they will begin to see that instead of fearing or demeaning such conversation, they will understand that it can be transformational, on both a personal and group level.

Ultimately, this addresses the problem of self-segregation. Once people become more comfortable with one another, they will find ways to socialize and perhaps live near one another. Again, this requires courage, not cowardice. It would involved risk taking and a changed view of what the future entails for oneself and for ones family.

So, in the end, what do Holder's words mean? Let's look beyond the words "nation of cowards" to find that he is ultimately evoking a need for a new courage in our country. And once that courage, the rejection of cowardice, takes hold, our society has a chance of changing, moving into a new era of race in America.

What term would I have used - coward or courage? Unfortunately, it depends on my level of motivation. I would have probably avoided "coward" and used "courage." But I completely understand Eric Holder's use of the word "coward." He wanted to be provocative; I am less so, and can afford to be. He wanted to push the dialogue towards seeking a new modus operandi in our schools, homes and society.

And if we are unwilling to take risks, go beyond fear and emotions, and open ourselves to new personal and societal possibilities, we will, indeed, end up being - as we have been for far too long - a nation of cowards.