I am a moderate, liberal, Black man who was born in the 60s, in a small rural town in South Carolina. I have voted democratic most of my political life. Classically, my hometown in South Carolina has a railroad track that runs through the middle of the town and during my childhood there, the White people lived on one side of the tracks and Black people lived on the other. Some of my playmates were the White kids that my next-door neighbor, Mrs. Sug, kept for some of the families in town. I went with her many times when she cleaned the churches and houses on the White side. I occasionally picked cotton with my great-grandmother and her sisters when I stayed with them waiting for my grandmother and grandfather to come home from working as a cook and janitor in the town schools. My schools were not integrated until I was in the third grade, approximately, 1971. I remember sitting in the “coloreds only” section when my grandmother took me to the doctor. My father, who grew up in a nearby town, worked along with his father in the 1950s as a sharecropper. Strom Thurman (google him) was the governor of South Carolina at the time. “Jim Crow” was alive and well when I grew up there. Growing up, my uncle Clyde wore daishikis and wore an afro pick with a black fist in his hair. He shared books with me by Langston Hughes, Angela Davis and Stokely Carmichael to name a few. Because of it, I grew from an early age to love history, particularly what is called Black history. I share all this to give perspective on the viewpoints that I hold.
I have a practice over the years of getting into lengthy online debates with right-wing conservatives. My friends and family alike, ask me why I bother? Why do I waste my time with those who are never going to change their minds? My answer varies. Sometimes it is like sparring for me. It keeps me sharp. I learn what the go-to responses are from the conservative side on a particular topic and how to best respond. Other times it is truly just to learn why and how conservatives think about things. When others were so surprised when Donald Trump won in 2016, I was not. I had been sparring with all degrees of conservatives that summer and was enlightened by what I learned.
I give a lot of the credit for my comfort with holding compelling, though not always productive conversations with conservatives, to a friend who I have known for over 30 years. He is an older white man who grew up in Queens, New York, with who I worked with as a telecommunications engineer for many years. I’m not sure how old he is, but he’s old enough that he calls me, a sixty-one-year-old man, kid. And for the record, he probably will disagree with me calling him this, a right-wing conservative. He considers himself moderate but it’s all a matter of perspective. I know that he considers me a left-wing liberal.
Over the years, he and I have had some pretty intense conversations, usually about society and politics. We’ve debated over Reverend Al Sharpton, Pres. Barack Obama, and Pres. Donald Trump to name a few. I am intensely opposed to his point of view and he mine, and at least on my part, extremely appreciative that he never hesitates to engage with me and be totally transparent. I think he appreciates me also. He doesn’t have a filter. If you saw his Facebook page, you might think him a racist. I do not. But we judge so harshly today in my opinion. There is so little room for gray. He is a republican and proud of it. He has very strong views on patriotism, government, immigration, and American citizenship. It is through my many conversations with him that I think that I have grown to understand the nuance of American society. It is, no pun intended, not black and white but so many shades of gray. It is also through my conversations over the years with him that I have grown to get a better understanding of the white-conservative viewpoint on race and politics.
An important key to our interactions over the years is, no matter how intense our discussions or disagreements, we have always kept it respectful and cordial. For example, I recently shared with him the link to my blog entitled, “Are Raced-Based Initiatives Illegal?” https://mytwocents.press/2024/03/08/are-race-based-initiatives-illegal/ . My reply to his first response was, “Hey ____! As always thank you for replying. I always appreciate your willingness to engage and give your honest unfiltered opinions.” In turn, he responded, “Hey kid, good to hear from you”. This leading exchange established a foundation where, because it started with respect, any topic can be broached. This is how, after 30 years of disagreeing vehemently at times, we have remained friends.
After reading my article, he had a simple response,” Well, I disagree with legislation that gives preference based on the boxes that a person checks. Enforce the laws that are on the books and penalize those who don’t.” He continues, “I know, this is not done as it should be. Look at the border situation. There are laws, but they’re being ignored. There are things that I agree with and things that I don’t. For me, it’s more about why/how it’s done.” That is a typical response from him. He tends to keep things simple and see things as they stand, on their own. It’s interesting to me that he states, “it is about the why and how it’s done.” In my experience with him, he usually cares less about the why and how, only that it is.
When I debate with him, I must pick my battles. We could go down a rat-hole very easily, and for this conversation, I wanted to discuss his viewpoint on race-based preferences, period. I knew if I commented on his other statement regarding the border, I would have been stuck in a conversation on immigration. Immigration is a hot button of his, so I kept my first response simple. I asked, “do you not agree with the Civil Rights Acts?” I asked him this because, since he disagreed with legislation based on checkboxes, or in other words, race-based preferences, I was curious how he rationalized any of the Civil Rights Acts which were all based on race. He responds, “My stance on the legislation is that its intent was to ensure that all were treated fairly. And yes, I do not deny the racial issues that prompted the legislation.” He added that last bit because of previous discussions we’ve had regarding the conservative habit of denying that there are and were racial issues. At least to the severity that we liberals claim.
In my experience, he, as other conservatives that I have debated with, tend to keep things simple. They don’t dig too deep into things. I think that this process allows them to keep the discussions at face-value. They think that we liberals over-complicate things. My problem with that method is that the nuances are missed. To say that it was just to make treatment fair, does not examine why it was necessary to make things fair in the first place. In his simple response, he neglects to delve into what fair means, so I ask him.
I responded with, “Ok. We agree that the goal of the law was to make things fair. But how does it make it fair? The laws had to grant Black Americans access to the civil rights that had been denied to them but also had to provide equitable access to the tools that gives us entry into the economic process. These tools are voting, education and jobs. They provide the pathway to acquire homes and property which are the lynchpins to generational wealth. We live in a capitalist economy. Life in America is an economic competition. Wealth gets passed on from generation to generation. I was an athlete my entire young life and my chosen sport was track and field. If someone “false started” in the race, or if the starting gun malfunctioned, if anything happened that created a scenario where someone got an unfair start, the race would be called back and started over. If the offender “false started” again then they would be disqualified. To take the analogy a step further, in a relay-race if the first leg of the team “false-started” then the entire team would be penalized, even though the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th leg did nothing wrong. That was the only way to make the race fair and to make sure every runner or team got an equal shot at winning. American society is a relay race. Unfortunately, by no fault of yours nor mine there was a major “false start” in the beginning of this American race called slavery. The race started at the beginning of the 13 colonies, around te 17th century, for White Americans, but Black Americans didn’t officially start the race until after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Though it is impractical to think that this race can be started over, or that anyone could be disqualified, the Civil Rights Law’s attempted to bring fairness to our American process. Fairness isn’t just making sure that it doesn’t happen again, but to bring equity, and correction. Like, in the case of the relay race, fairness entails involving the runners in the middle and end of the race though they were not the guilty parties. Why? Because they benefitted from the false start in the beginning. In the case of race-based laws, like the Civil Rights Laws, there is no way to correct offenses caused because of color, without recognizing the color of the citizens involved. The boxes must get checked to do this.”
His response to this is also common to conservatives in this discussion. It comes from a place of frustration. He responded, “How do we know when enough boxes are checked? Who’s responsible for the count? I mean there’s been a black President, the current VP is a person of color, the Joint Chiefs Chairman is black, there are several black Senators/Congress folks, black governors, mayors, police commissioners, DAs and so on. You’ve got the NFL and the NBA, TV actors, actors in TV commercials, musicians, etc. Across the work force there are many blacks, as I experienced through my work life. In fact, I got my job out here through a black coworker of my wife. My supervisor was black, as well as service techs. So, how many more boxes need checking?” I categorize this as the “how much more do you want?” Or the, “when is enough, enough?” response.
My response, “Those questions are a good example of what the problem is. So basically, you are asking when is it enough? That is the kind of question you ask when you feel that someone is constantly given something. That is what I feel is White Americas problem. Y’all think that Black Americans were given something by the Civil Rights Laws. There is not one thing on that list that was given to Black Americans. The Civil Rights Laws were to stop America from taking from us. The only thing it gave us was access to rights that we should have already had as American citizens. You think that the Civil Rights laws gave us affirmative action, equal opportunity employment, welfare, college and university access, fair housing, or voting rights? No, these things were already here and being accessed by, guess who? White people. You ask when is it enough? My question is when is it enough for White America? White Americans have gotten preferential treatment to these same civil rights since the ratification of the Constitution. The Constitution wasn’t written for Black Americans. That is what the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were for. And just like now, when we were given access then, we excelled. We voted and won seats in congress, owned land, property and had businesses, but just like now, White Americans got angry and asked when it is enough? They burned our towns, took our property and all the gains from those laws taken away in a matter of decades. Through the 1950s and 60s more laws had to be written to restore these rights, and just as you so eloquently stated above, Black Americans have excelled since then. Today, White Americans are angry again and trying to take it all away. Throughout American history, economists have estimated that trillions of dollars of generational wealth have been stolen from Black Americans. So, when do we know when enough boxes are checked? When America admits what was taken and has a serious conversation about how to provide restitution. Until then, America is not even close to having made amends.”
This is when I expected him to give his usual closing statement, and he didn’t disappoint. He responded with, “We’ll have to agree to disagree. And my questions still stand.” I usually end it right there. When he gets to the point where he agrees to disagree. But this time I didn’t want to let it go, especially since he inferred that I didn’t answer his question. I commented, “You asked me, when will there be enough checked boxes and who will count them, but you don’t believe there should be checked boxes so there is no answer that I can give to you that you will find acceptable. But let me ask you this. What exactly in my statement did you disagree with? Did you find the information inaccurate?
This is where I got a rare gold nugget. A bit of internal thought that most conservatives with whom I have debated refrain from saying. Oh, I have seen them write it to one another on their conservative sites, but never to me. He said, “I might be wrong, but it seems to me that your solution is $$$. That basically comes down to today’s white Americans paying for something that they had no part in.” And here is the nugget. “To be brutally honest, it’s time for Black Americans to revel in the gains that they’ve made, many of which I mentioned, and move forward.” In other words, just get over it and move on.
It is so rare that they say it to me in a conversation, where I get the chance to respond to it. So, I took the opportunity and concluded our discussion with, “Yes, I think money should be discussed, but accountability and acknowledgement are also a part of the resolution. As far as White Americans paying for something that they had no part in, that thinking is also a part of the problem. Though White America and Black America are at the center of this racial issue we are all Americans. This is an American problem. America wronged a segment of its citizenship and never addressed it. It is America that owes, and there is no statute of limitation on that. If White America can stop thinking that every time the issue of the treatment of Black Americans comes up, it is an attack on them, maybe we can get this thing resolved. Regarding Black Americans reveling in their gains, one thing has nothing to do with the other. The fact that there are Black Americans who have achieved, does not wipe away the crime that was committed against us. That thinking also points to the fact that White Americans feel that the gains of Black Americans were a result of what America gave to us. If a person who is robbed continues about their business and gains things after they were robbed, that does not exonerate the person who robbed them. That’s what civil cases are for. A case can still be brought against them for restitution.”
Well readers, thank you for letting me share with you one of my conversations with a conservative friend. I think this is a conversation that we should be having all over America. It’s not to prove that anyone is right or wrong. In all the years that my friend and I have debated, he has never said that he was wrong or even said, “Ed, you made a good point”. Honestly, that’s never what I’ve looked for. What it has established though, is a pathway to an honest dialog between us. Because of it, my friend would occasionally reach out to me and ask questions regarding black culture. We all live in our own ethnic bubbles in America. It is a very segregated country. We get our information regarding each other from media which often is just propagating stereotypes. Isn’t it better if we ask each other? It’s one of the ways that America can get in touch with itself. America is woefully ignorant of its history. I have said many times that Black History fills the gaps that are in American history. It answers the questions to why we are where we are as a society. The fact that there is a serious fight to keep that information out of our books and schools is an American tragedy, but that is a whole other topic. Let’s talk to each other, people. America can’t heal until it understands and admits who it is.
Edward Odom
