Races must acknowledge differences

Many have argued that the O. J. Simpson spectacle may be a defining moment in American history. Andy Rooney called it the worse setback for race relations in 40 years. Locally, Editorial page Editor Phil Kent has expressed similar sentiments. I take the alternative view. While agreeing that it can be a defining moment in American history, I see it as an opportunity - not a setback.

Racial polarization has dramatically increased, despite decades of preferential treatment for blacks and regular proclamations of universal brotherhood by social, political, and religious leaders of both races. This drastic increase has been largely unnoticed by whites. How is it that they failed to see this important social change? It was notable that during the Simpson trial, whites were astonished at the use of the "race card," and the verdict, while the black response was generally different.

A few examples will demonstrate the contrast:

Robert Shapiro was surprised and shocked that Johnny Cochran played the "race card," while Mr. Cochran had planned to use it from the beginning. What belief system or mental myopia kept Shapiro from seeing this inevitability?

Karen Grigsby Bates, a black Los Angeles writer and social commentator wrote "Up until yesterday the impact of race as an issue in the trial pretty much had non-negative effects. But Fred Goldman's outburst has changed that....Goldman lost a big chunk of moral edge when he played the Holocaust card." Note here that the issue of race was not a problem as long as it was doing its expected job, having "non-negative effects."

Compare the widely disseminated photos of reactions to the verdict. Contrast the tape of the Howard University law students seen rejoicing on TV, with the photograph of the distraught white females in a California shopping center, as shown in Time. Are both these places and peoples part of the same country?

Similarly, the perception of the trial and of the degree of racial polarization was quite different in the two communities. Why were blacks far more conscious of this alienation than whites? What are the primary causes of this difference in looking at ourselves, race and racial issues?

Several factors are involved, but I suggest that most important is what Peter Brimelow called "Adolph Hitler's posthumous revenge on America;" the fear of whites, that by considering race or ethnic differences important or a matter for discussion brands them as budding Hitlerites.

Blacks generally don't have such fear, some because they presume that blacks cannot be racists since they lack power, but the majority because, "Talking about race for people of color...is the natural thing to do...for whites, talking about race is uncomfortable. It's a wild card." as black legal theorist, Professor Lani Guinier, recently remarked.

I suggest that the fear-driven reticence among whites while talking about race is an aberration, and that worldwide, few non-whites suffer this inhibition. It is important to note that this fear controls most discussion, both among whites, and between whites and blacks. As a result, whites are always at a disadvantage in any such black-white discussion. Honesty and lack of fear naturally prevails.

Whites tend to talk around racial issues, denying any special significance with every word. How many of us have overheard restaurant conversation among whites about a racial matter. Doesn't it always end with agreement that, of course, race is not involved, followed by the self congratulation that they are above all that? For some, this comes from an understandable desire to avoid hurt feelings; for others, from a belief that there really is no significance to human differences.

Perhaps we can begin to see a pattern that explains the observed responses and offers a rationale for the differences in behavior. For most blacks, race is personal and a given. For most whites, race is what the other person has and largely irrelevant to everyday affairs. Importantly, the black does not generally see that for the white it is irrelevant, nor can the white see that for the black it is a given.

In a troubled relationship, opportunity for change is created by the recognition of differences and the depth of pain or disagreement caused by misunderstanding those differences.

John Gray's best seller, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus argues that peace between men and women depends on their acknowledgment of each others differences and respecting those differences. To build a framework for mutual understanding between men and women, he effectively uses the analogy that they come from two different planets.

Hugh Pearson, a black editorialist for the Wall Street Journal, wrote in the October 11 issue about the Simpson trial and the growing racial divide, "It is as if [the] two groups are talking past each other, one speaking Greek, the other Swahili." How right he was! Despite the use of a common word set, whites and blacks as groups do speak a different language, both culturally and behaviorally.

While blacks and whites do not come from different planets, they did develop on separate continents and have had unique environmental and evolutionary histories over tens of thousands of years. To expect the adaptive cultural and behavioral differences thus created to be erased within a few decades, or even centuries, by exposure to a shared language and culture is pure idealism. Our current racial dilemma is the necessary fruit of decades of such dreams. The continued attempt to deny or erase our differences is futile. It is time we put pejoratives and taboos aside in the quest for solutions.

Originally published in slightly different form on December 8, 1995 in the Augusta Chronicle, Augusta, GA.
Submitted title was "The Simpson Spectacle: Setback or Opportunity"