Home | About the NCC | Education | Justice | Public Witness | Unity | NCC News | Directory | Search | Make a Gift
CWS ORGANIZES PANEL AT U.N. WORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST RACISM Index to NCC/CWS Team Stories/Related Links August 30, 2001, DURBAN, South Africa – As part of its effort to bring a religious voice to the United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Church World Service organized an Aug. 30 workshop on "Racism in U.S. Churches: Past Practices and Current Solutions," featuring speakers from several CWS/National Council of Churches member denominations. With the Rev. John L. McCullough, CWS Executive Director, as moderator, the workshop was envisioned as an opportunity to analyze denominations’ participation in racism and to lift up "best practices" as they work against racism. Here are three panelists’ presentations as prepared for delivery at the workshop: Iris de Leon-Hartshorn, Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Iris de Leon-Hartshorn, Director Mennonites have not been spared from participating, supporting and benefiting from racism. My colleague, James Logan, wrote in his paper "Black Mennonite Protest and Hope in the Context of White Mennonite Racism: A Critical Social-Religious Reflection" the following words: "I think it can be said fairly that Mennonite identity in America has, from the start, been shaped by paradox and irony: From the time Mennonites arrived in North America in the seventeenth century they have been a part of the dominant gang while claiming to be separate from it. While Mennonites claim to have been historically conscious and concerned about issues like racism and missionary conquest, they have, more often than not, been about the business of quietly acquiescing in the racism of the surrounding culture, therefore participating in it. They have too often hindered where they might have helped, and been evasive when they were morally bound to be forthright." Racism within the Mennonite faith tradition is most profoundly illustrated in who has decision making power within our Mennonite institutions. For the most part, with very few exceptions, people of color have not historically nor in the present occupied positions of decision-making and influence. The results of institutional racism of the Mennonite Church can be seen in the following areas:
The above mentioned areas are just examples and in no way encompasses the racism in the Mennonite Church. Since 1996 Mennonite Central Committee has been engaged in an anti-racism training program for all Mennonite institutions. All institutions are encouraged to put together a gender and race balanced team. The team is then put through a 2-1/2 day analysis training on the definition of racism. The team later returns for a four day educating and organizing training in how to work at institutional identity, vision and to put together some concrete objectives in becoming an anti-racist institution. The major strength of this approach has been that it has given our denomination a shared language to talk about racism, a very complex and difficult subject. Where it has failed is in preparing of people of color and "white" people to move the work significantly forward. I believe that is due to two major areas that prevent a more in-depth understanding of racism, which is internalized racist oppression and internalized racist superiority. Let me end this presentation with an actual situation our denomination is working on around short-term missions. In South Texas we have had a history of short-term missions/service for the last fifty years. These opportunities have been transformative experiences for the "white" Mennonites that have come to help build churches, houses and other service type projects. Many times these experiences have impacted "white" Mennonite youth to pursue work within the church. Many Mennonite publications contain written stories of these experiences but rarely will you see stories of what has been left in the wake of short-term missions. There are no long-term transformation stories for the Mexican-American youth in South Texas, except for an exception here or there. You will not see, for the most part, Mexican-American leaders in decision-making positions within the church body. You will see an economically poor community with a high drop out rate and very few options for the youth of those communities in South Texas. About three years ago our anti-racism program did an initial workshop on Internalized Racist Oppression (IRO) in South Texas. Approximately two years later a few leaders within the community started to see the manifestation of the oppression within their own community. Soon voices started to speak out on the oppression of the community in relationship to the church. Let me clarify something here. It is not that the community had not spoken out before, but it was ignored. The reason the church has begun to now take notice and begin serious dialogue around the situation in South Texas is twofold. First, the analysis training has set the ground work to be able to even have these discussions. Second, it was the recognition of people of color within the community to start to recognize their internalized oppression and join in a united voice. The third piece still missing and needing some additional in-depth work is the work "white" people need to do around internalized racist superiority. People of color within Mennonite Central Committee have already developed a 2-day training on IRO for communities of color. We will now go to South Texas in November and work with the Mennonite community on how to further this very important dialogue. I think one of the most important work the community did in June was to meet together and develop a vision for their community. The end result was they could not see how Short Term Missions was an avenue for long-term transformation. They concluded that long term mutual partnerships would have a greater potential for long-term transformation. Being the body of Christ is about being in relationship with each other. Within the Mennonite tradition relationships include accountability. To be an anti-racist church we must push that even further and say we must be held accountable by the oppressed community. In the case of short-term service we must listen to what the South Texas Mennonite community is saying to the larger Mennonite community. I think the work on in-depth internalized racist superiority of the "white" church must happen in order for "white" people to fully understand that racism does not just harm us, people of color, but they too are harmed and in the end the body of Christ is greatly wounded. Dr. Chester R. Jones, General
Secretary Racism and the Church "The issue of race ... is still the unfinished agenda of the church." Bishop Woodie W. White. I We cannot lead others in the struggle of the elimination of racism without a thorough understanding of what racism is. This includes recognition of our own prejudices and racist beliefs, attitudes, or actions. It includes understanding the complexity of the issue and the different manifestations. It also includes acknowledging its consequence on each of us. WHAT IS RACISM? Racism is defined In the Social Principles of The 2000 Book of Discipline, ¶162A as a combination of the power to dominate by one race over other races and a value system which assumes that the dominant race is innately superior to the others.
As Christians, the starting point of our analysis and reflection is our faith. From that point, racism is more than a sociological or anthropological issue, a psychological trauma or a condition that can be resolved with economics or better educational efforts. As stated above, racism is a SIN. It is a SIN because at its root is the denial of God's creation. God created humanity and saw that it was very good (Genesis 1:31). Instead of affirming the created goodness of all humanity, the assumption has been made that one race is created innately superior to all others and is therefore entitled to dominate over the others. Because racism is a SIN, we must acknowledge that controlling it is stronger than our human efforts. This realization must not yield despair, but humility.
It is our responsibility, as stated in the Social Principles, to affirm that all persons are equally valuable in the sight of God. We therefore work toward societies in which each person’s value is recognize, maintained, and strengthened. Although the word "racism" is often used interchangeably with the words, "prejudice," "bigotry" and ‘discrimination," are these words synonymous? If not, what distinguishes "racism" from all of the others? There is the perception that most white persons see racism as individual attitudes and behaviors. Most racial ethnic persons, on the other hand, view racism as systemic/institutional, in the very fiber of society to protect and reward white persons. Both viewpoints matter and are correct. Let us review the following definitions for a better understanding:
With these definitions, we can see that all persons can discriminate on the basis of their prejudice - gender, race, class, culture, ethnicity, etc. Prejudices are carefully taught by actions and behaviors in our homes, schools, churches, and the media plays a large part in the orientation of our opinions. Institutional racism is the context in which individual racists and the victims of racism live move and have their existence. Institutional racism can oppress persons without the intentional participation of individuals in racist behaviors. Laws, folkways, traditions, and language are so tempered and conditioned that no individual has to be a racist in order for the effects of racism to impact the lives of those living under the system. Racism, individual or institutional, is a social construction; it is not an inborn trait. It differs from the more common psychological construction, prejudice, in its focus on racial superiority and its ability to marshal the resources and power to support that assumed superiority. Prejudice is any attitude formed without adequate facts; racism is prejudice plus power and privilege. The relationship between racist attitudes and racist behavior--which are personal expressions--is compounded by institutional racism. Ordinarily, one expects a person who has no racist attitudes, to have no racist behaviors. In the context of institutional racism, such a person may not hold racist attitudes and yet his\her social behaviors may be racist. Proper attitudes are of limited impact in themselves if they remain at the individual level. In other words, not being a racist privately makes little or no difference in the working of institutional racism. II Where do we go from here? What makes a difference to institutional racism is the public and private action of people working toward a genuine multicultural and diverse society. People are different from one another in many ways -- in age, gender, education, values, physical ability, mental capacity, personality, experiences, culture, and the way each approaches work. True multiculturalism and diversity mean acknowledging, understanding, and appreciating differences. An environment is created that recognizes, values, and employs the unique qualities and gifts of all persons who are working together to achieve a common goal. By being flexible enough to meet needs and preferences, such an environment enhances personal value and is motivating and rewarding. Diversity in an organization is a strength, an asset that maximizes creativity and productivity. Building a multicultural organization moves beyond recovering from the past toward building the future of organization and community. Jerry V. Leaphart It is my honor to bring greetings to my fellow panelists and to all those assembled here in Durban for the NGOForum and WCAR from the Wilton Monthly Meeting and the New York Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). I am here because I have what Quakers refer to as a "Leading". In particular I have a leading to take all appropriate action that I can take to help eradicate racism, replacing it with the recognition that human beings are essentially the same the world over and that differentiation between and among persons based upon the conception of "race" is not only a false distinction, but that it is also a constructive distinction that has had enormously destructive effects. According to certain historical information and analysis, the concept of race, as we currently know it, has not been with us for all that long a time period. In Western culture, racism meant nationality until the advent of the era of European discovery and exploration of the so-called new world. Even then, race primarily meant nationality until the advent of the dual scourges of exploitation of peoples native to the Americas by Europeans, followed by the Atlantic slave trade and subjugation of Africans by Europeans. By the nineteenth century, scientific racism, based, in part, on the need to justify the disparity of rights and of treatment afforded to native American races and Africans, had developed false conceptions of racial superiority and inferiority which conceptions were clearly based upon fallacious scientific procedure from the beginning. Yet, irrespective of the obvious flaws in methodology, in the reliance upon unscientific assumptions, the belief in racial superiority for some and inferiority for others persisted through most of the 20th century. And, even now, the belief in racial differentiation is still a powerful thought form that people around the world have a tendency to believe in, irrespective of knowledge to the contrary. The subject of scientific racism is, of course, a large topic and I am neither an expert in that subject, nor is this caucus the proper forum for in-depth discussion of it. From a spiritual and religious perspective, I am attending this caucus as a Quaker representative. Quaker faith and practice speaks directly to the issues of equality and acknowledgment of the need to overcome racism. Here I’d like to quote what Quakers call a Query and an Advice, respectively, that address the issues of equality and of racism: "Query 12: Do we acknowledge the oneness of humanity and foster a loving spirit toward all people? Do we honor Friends traditional testimony that men and women are equal? How do we work to make these ideals a reality? Advice 7: Friends are advised to work toward removing the causes of misery and suffering. They are urged to support efforts to overcome racial, social, economic, and educational discrimination; to bear testimony against all forms of oppression; to exert influence for such treatment of prisoners as may help reconstruct their lives; and to work for the abolition of the death penalty." Thus, even in the absence of a specific spiritual leading, Quakers are directed, by specific tenets of our Faith and Practice, to support the objectives of this conference. I indicated that I am here in a representative capacity. What I actually have is what Quakers call a "Travel Minute". My travel minute states, in relevant part: "With this Travelling Minute, let it be known that Jerry V. Leaphart travels under the loving care and support of the Wilton Monthly Meeting of the Society of Friends. Wilton Monthly Meeting recognizes a strong leading in Jerry Leaphart in his struggles against racism, and fully supports his journey to the forthcoming United Nations World Conference on Racism, to be held in South Africa in late August 2001. We at Wilton Monthly Meeting believe that Jerry's anti-racism leadings will find new applications and directions at the conference. We believe that he \V-el] represents Wilton Monthly Meeting and the Religious Society of Friends. We believe that he will report accurately on his experience at the conference; that we may all learn about anti-racism work on an international scale. Wilton Monthly Meeting fully endorses Jerry v. Leaphart in his travels and his leading. Welcome him." This minute has been endorsed by the NYYM and it so states on the reverse side of it. Quakers, as many of you know, are opposed to war under any and all circumstances. Quakers refer to this as our "peace testimony". Thus, during the American slavery era, Quakers were generally opposed to slavery and were one of the first religions based in America to condition membership on not owning slaves. That happened as far back as 1799, decades before the abolition movement got underway in America. Yet, Quakers generally, with some exceptions, did not fight in the American Civil War, or any other war for that matter. I raise this matter of Quaker principle here as a prelude to raising the question as to whether religion in general was a part of the problem during the slavery era in America and whether and to what extent does religion foster, encourage or enable racism today? I feel an obligation here to limit my remarks to the Quaker denomination because I believe it inappropriate to make remarks that might either be critical of other religions or interpreted as such, whether intended or not. Representatives of other religious denominations may speak for themselves and for their denominations on this matter. I believe, and aspects of Quaker history confirm, that our peace testimony may have had the unintended effect of dampening Quaker opposition to slavery and to curb Quaker involvement in the Abolition movement. Having said that let me note that Quakers, institutionally, and to an even greater extent, individually, were active in the American Underground Railroad that worked to provide safe harbor for persons of color in the process of escaping from slavery. However, the peace testimony was often cited as a reason to temper or curtail that involvement. In the early 1840’s this dilemma led to a split among Quakers in the American State of Indiana, resulting in the so-called "Indiana Separation of 1842". Further, some abolitionists who started out as Quakers found it necessary to renounce their Quaker belief precisely because Quakers were not active enough in the cause of abolition. Now I will speak personally. I believe that current calls for reparations for slavery, its aftermath and reparations for the Atlantic slave trade are today’s equivalents of the movement to abolish slavery. I would like for people of my faith—Quakers—to actively support the call for reparations from governmental sources and to determine if reparations based upon Quaker acquiescence in slavery and its aftermath are in order. I have mentioned that Quaker support for abolition was lukewarm, that that support often conflicted with the peace testimony. There is still more that Quakers need to consider in this respect. Until relatively recently, it was not easy for a person of color to join some Quaker Meetings. Obstacles were placed in the path of African Americans who sought Quaker membership. Time constraints preclude a detailed description of the obstacles, but by way of example, let me point out that the basis for some of the obstacles was to make it unlikely that black Quakers would seek to or be able to marry white Quakers. Thus, within Quakers, irrespective of early recognition of the wrongness of slavery, irrespective of participation in abolition, irrespective of the Query and the Advice I read earlier, racism has existed within Quakerism and therefore, I believe Quakers have a duty to assess whether reparations are in order within Quakerism, as well as a need to support reparations claims through governmental and legal process. Racism is a worldwide scourge. Just recently I learned a little about the conflict between British South Africans and Dutch South Africans, the so-called Boors, and of the ethnic basis of that conflict. I was surprised to learn that the incarceration of the Boors by the British in 1900 may have resulted in the first use of the term ‘concentration camp’ in the sense that that term was used later in the 20th century. Here, then, is an example of ethnic, as opposed to racial discrimination. Or, a return to the meaning of race before the onset of the African slave trade. I have talked about American slavery, an institution that depended upon the Atlantic slave trade, carried out by European nationals, with the concurrence of European governments, at least up to a degree and up to a certain date. Furthermore, African nations and Middle Eastern peoples are implicated in both the Atlantic slave trade and in other forms of slavery. I learned just recently that the Ainu people of Japan, Japan’s indigenous people, have protested their exclusion from Japan’s delegation to this conference. India has actively opposed consideration of the caste system at this conference. Many positions taken by the Chinese have xenophobic aspects as does the debate concerning the meaning and intent of Zionism. We see, therefore, that racism and related intolerances are a worldwide phenomenon. No region, no group of people is free from elements of racism. It is good that this conference is taking place. Much work needs to be done. Let me address, finally, a personal experience with racism. The system of segregation in America remained in effect until at least the middle portion of the 1960’s. Segregation in public facilities became illegal in or about 1964. Prohibitions between interracial marriages ended in 1967. Now, I want to recall what happened to me in 1957 in Cincinnati Ohio. I traveled via railway with my Grandmother from my home in Detroit MI to Georgia that year. In Cincinnati, we had to change trains. I was forced to go into the ‘colored’ waiting room. A room that was noticeably smaller and much less opulent than the ‘white’ waiting room. I have never felt humiliation like I felt it on that occasion. For literally the first time in my life, I was forced to confront being treated differently because of race/color. For as bad as that experience was, it was not nearly as bad as experiencing slavery or sharecropping, much less lynching or rape. Yet, I know that my psyche was damaged by that experience. It is still painful to recall and it is still a factor that motivates me in the endeavor to help eradicate racism. For me, it is the experience that helps me to know the truth of the oneness of humanity and of the correctness of the spiritual leading to impart and to stand for the proposition that we, human beings, are all the same. PEACE BE UNTO US ALL |