At the usual warp speed of demagoguery, the tragedy of the Charleston church shootings is being used to support the points of view held by interest groups. As usual, it has become ammunition for the usual crowds: “Blame American culture”; “Blame hand guns”; “Blame white men.”
I feel compelled to respond.
My qualifications: I lived through the era of integration. I was raised in New York, moving to South Carolina during my high school years. I attended college at the Citadel, in Charleston, SC. I am a white male. My extended family is of blended race and culture: white, African American, Cuban, and Mexican. I have African American friends whom I love and without whom my life would be sadly diminished.
First, I would address the racial issue. Jon Stewart, in his opening monologue for the Daily Show, addressed the shooting tragedy and labeled it as racism and pointed out the persistence of Civil War reminders in the south. He, despite being white, cleverly exempted himself from the racist label by expressing anger and by suggesting it was a southern phenomenon.
I would respond that, while growing up, I heard the ‘N’ word spoken more often in the north, than the south. My mother, a Virginia native and powerful supporter of integration, would have beaten any of her three sons had we used that word. Charleston integrated its schools far sooner than Boston. The good people of Boston also rioted when busing was begun to achieve racial balance in the schools.
The larger race issues are, of course, ignored. We have an African-American president (he couldn’t have been elected twice without the votes of white people) and the black population is more engaged in the business and government of our country than ever before.
I attend two churches, depending on whether I am working out of town or not. Both churches are mixed race. Even the church in Charleston where the attacks occurred- predominantly black, but still mixed race. These are hopeful signs. It is the very fact that our culture is getting better that such an attack is viewed with such horror. Labeling this attack as racist actually harms race relations.
But, the question must be asked: is this even about race? Is there a ‘vast White-Wing Conspiracy?’ The first thing that bothers me is the lack of a coherent definition. ‘Racism’ should be the phenomenon of negative treatment of one race by another. The truth is that rarely do we label as racist those attacks perpetrated by blacks against whites. We are far too quick to label as racist any behavior or comment by a white person against a black person.
I lost a high school friend who thought I was racist in daring to be critical of President Obama. Jesse Jackson once tried to produce a tortured definition whereby racism could only exist when a racial majority attacked a racial minority. That definition fell apart when it could not be applied to the apartheid government in South Africa in the era before Nelson Mandela.
The term ‘prejudice’ might apply here, but that does not automatically reflect racism. James Baldwin, an African American writer of the 60’s who emigrated to Paris, suggested in his writing that ‘ni—rs’ exist because humans need them. We create a despised class. Hutus and Tutsis massacred one another in Rwanda. Both groups were black. Their enmity preceded the appearance of white men in Africa. I have been to both countries on the island of Hispaniola, Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The citizens of DR look down on Haitians, and there are color distinctions within DR itself. This is prejudice without a single caucasian factor.
If we were all the same color, this kind of tragedy would continue- the only change would be that the sickos among us would have to pick out a different physical characteristic for their hatred. One century ago, a country without any black skin folks, Germany, somehow determined that Jews should be the target of their violent hatred. The Nazis did not have the convenience of skin color for identifying their victims and had to work harder to be evil.
I have another question: a survivor of the shooting related that, during his rant, the killer spoke about black folks ‘raping our women.’ That being the case, why did he choose a church for his attack, a place where such behavior would have been condemned? He could have chosen a location far more likely to include African Americans who had been involved in criminal acts.
One commentator said that the church was chosen because it was a symbol to the African American community. I don’t think this lowlife possessed that kind of abstract symbolic thinking. He probably selected a church because of cowardice: it was one place he could go where the victims were unlikely to be carrying firearms and capable of blowing him away.
I am an unapologetic Christian. I state here that this individual murdered My Charleston brothers and sisters and that my sibling relationship with them was ordained by a colorblind deity. Our mutual hope for salvation resides in a Messiah whose pure Israeli heritage would have given him a skin that was neither black nor white.
This was not an act of racism. It was an act of Evil. I understand how confused the humanist/atheist crowd must be when such events occur. Because they deny the ultimate Good of a Creator, they must also reject the existence of pure Evil. I just wish they would shut up and let me and my Christian family grieve the slaughter of these beloved people.
Dennis Garvin is author of a book ‘Case Files of an Angel’ and co-author of ‘Growing Up in Stephentown.’ Both books are available online at Amazon.com or Barnes& Noble.com
.
