| Helene
D. Gayle, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
"HIV/AIDS: Discrimination, Stigma and Shame"
January 31, 2001
Helene Gayle: Throughout my work
in AIDS, one of the most frequently asked questions I get on the
subject of HIV/AIDS in the African American community is why has
it taken so long for the African American community to respond to
AIDS? More recently, with the publicity around President Mbekis
comments about HIV/AIDS and my role on his advisory panel, I am
frequently asked the same question regarding the South African response
to AIDS. When I was first pondering what I could discuss in this
presentation that relates to some of the themes of this series,
Phil Nieburg and I got into a discussion about President Mbekis
response to the epidemic in his country. During our discussion,
I started to explain why his response was in fact very understandable,
despite what I might think about its correctness. In the course
of talking, it struck us that this was in fact an issue that raised
several important and interesting public health and broadly speaking
ethical issues and thus, this presentation theme was born.
So
in the next 30 minutes or so, I will try to lay out an argument
for how racism, stigma, shame and marginalization have had a unique
role in shaping the societal and individuals responses to the HIV/AIDS
epidemic and hopefully how this understanding can lead the way to
a more effective response in the future.
I will
try to cover:
- Overview
of the epidemic in African Americans and South Africans
- Parallels
in the experience of racism for African Americans (slavery and
segregation) and South Africans (apartheid)
- The
impact of racism on population self-esteem, stigma and marginalization
- How
self-esteem, stigma and marginalization influence population
and individual response to outside threats such as AIDS, and
finally
- How
that understanding work to develop more effective responses
to the HIV/AIDS epidemic
To
begin with there are clear similarities and parallels between the
African American and South African experiences of institutionalized
racism.
Slavery
and segregation in the United States and apartheid in South African
stand out as two of the most extreme forms of long-term systematic,
racism.
In
both instances, for the purpose of economic advantage, an entire
belief system, that of black inferiority, and reinforcing social
structures, apartheid and slavery and segregation were developed
to maintain economic advantage of one group over another. Although
there are many definitions of racism, for the purposes of this talk,
the one I find most useful is:
- Beliefs,
attitudes, institutional arrangements and acts that tend to denigrate
individuals or groups because of phenotypic characteristics or
ethnic group affiliation.
-
The hallmark of this definition is human degradation and the destruction
of self-esteem.
-
What is essential to racism is the lower of one groups self-image
and self-esteem generally for the purpose of domination by another.
The
intent of racism and the long-term impact has been well described
by many. Once such description is by psychologist Naim Akbar
who wrote "The shrewd slave masters were fully aware that people
who still respected themselves as human beings would resist to the
death the dehumanizing process of slavery. Therefore, a systematic
process of creating a sense of inferiority in the proud African
was necessary in order to maintain them as slaves. This was done
by humiliating and dehumanizing acts such as public beatings, parading
them on slave blocks unclothed and inspecting them as cattle or
horses.
Many historians and slave narratives report
how young children were separated from their mothers because the
mothers love might cultivate some self-respect in the child.
.These things, combined with the insults, the loss of cultural
traditions, rituals, family life, religion and even names, served
to cement the loss of self-respect. As the slave master exalted
himself and enforced respect of himself, he was increasingly viewed
as superior to the slaves.
Succinctly
put by historian, Carter G. Woodson in his book, Miseducation of
the Negro, wrote "
..to handicap a student for life by
teaching him that his black face is a curse and that his struggle
to change his condition is hopeless, is the worse kind of lynching.
It kills ones aspirations and dooms him to vagabondage and
crime."
This
dehumanizing treatment had the desired impact to a great extent,
stripping the Africans imported to America of a sense of self-worth,
instilled a sense of inferiority relative to whites and develop
for whites a privileged existence and a sense of superiority. This
social order came to be viewed by the bearers of the American tradition
as a truism. Hence the words of the founding fathers and politic
greats like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln who wrote the following
words at that same time that they were talking about liberty and
equality for all.
- In
the words of Thomas Jefferson: "Comparing them by their faculties
of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory
they are equal to the whites, in reason much inferior, as I think
one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending
the investigations of Euclid: and that in imagination they are
dull, tasteless, and anomalous.
- He
went on further to say: They secrete less by kidneys, and more
by glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable
odour
They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome.
But that may perhaps proceed from a want of forethough, which
prevents them seeing a danger till it be present
.Their griefs
are transient. I advance it therefore as a suspicion, that the
blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by
time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments
both of body and mind.
Despite
his role in ending slavery, Lincoln was evidently not motivated
by a commitment to equality of the races:
- Among
other things Lincoln stated: "I can conceive of no greater
calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and
political life as our equal
..
- And
in case anyone didnt get the point, he said: "I agree
with Judge Douglas that he (Negroes) is not my equal in many respects,
certainly not in color, and perhaps not in moral or intellectual
endowment.
- And
finally : "I have not purpose to introduce political and
social equality between the white and black races. There is a
physical difference between the two, which, in my judgement, will
forever forbid living together in perfect equality: and inasmuch
as it becomes a necessity that there should be a difference, I,
as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong
having the supremacy.
All
of this must be taken into context, given the times, but nonetheless,
this is part of the historical legacy and the historical wound.
Images
that reinforce black inferiority-such as little black Sambo, Tarzan,
etc.- continued through the history of this country and have only
recently been vigorously challenged.
The
legacy or apartheid was equally cruel and destructive. Contrary
to the simplistic classification of race in the United States (one
drop of black blood classified one as black), South Africans had
a race structure that included 10 different races, all in a hierarchy
that clearly spelled out ones social order relative to whites.
The
Boers or Afrikaners advanced an ideology of racial inferiority that
laid the foundation for apartheid. According to the Boer idea, the
kaffir (Afrikan word for nigger), the Hottentot and the Bushman
belong to a lower race than the Whites. They carry, as people once
rightly called it the mark of Cain: God , the Lord, destined them
to be the "drawers of water and the hewers of wood", as
presses[servants] subject to the white race
.People can only
control a Kaffir or a Hottentot through fear; he must always be
kept in his place; he was not to be trusted; give him only a finger
and he will take the whole hand. The Boer does not believe in educating
him; yes, I do not believe that I go too far when I express my feeling
that the Boers as a whole doubt the existence of a Kaffer- or a
Hottentot-soul.
Finally,
although I have highlighted the experience of African American and
South Africans because of very intentional impact on self-esteem
and inferiority, African colonialism generally had a similar effect
and has probably also influenced the response of other African nations
to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In the book African Perspectives on Colonialism,
author A. Adu Boahen says the following about the impact of colonialism:
- "The
final and worst psychological impact has been the generation of
a deep felling of inferiority as well as the loss of a sense of
human dignity among Africans. Both complexes were surely the outcome
not only of the wholesale condemnation of everything African,
but, above all, of the practice of racial discrimination and the
constant humiliation and oppression to which Africans were subjected
to throughout the colonial period. The sense of human dignity
seems to have been regained, but the feeling of inferiority has
not entirely disappeared even after two decades of independence.
The
sense of shame and inferiority did take hold. In a classic experiment
in the early 1950s, the husband-wife team of psychologists Kenneth
and Mamie Clark demonstrated the impact of longstanding racial discrimination
and negative imagery. This study was an important part of the foundation
for the Brown vs. Board of Education segregation case that ultimately
lead to desegregation of schools in this country. They used two
different methods of measuring self-esteem and racial identification,
a coloring test and a doll test. Both showed a preference among
black children 5-7 years old for white skin or white dolls and that
preference was more pronounced for children with darker skin. So
for example, when asked whether they would prefer to play with a
white doll or a black doll, over half of these black children rejected
the black dolls and preferred the white doll. Although, I couldnt
find the citation for this, I know that this study was repeated
within the last 15 years and the results we not markedly different.
The
literature is full of similar examples of internalized racism and
low self-esteem on the part of the recipients of racism.
All
of these suggest that racism had its desired effect of developing
a feeling of inferiority among Blacks and allowing Whites to have
a sense of relative superiority.
Let
me turn to another consequence of racism, marginalization. In the
book, about the AIDS in the African American community, Boundaries
of Blackness, author Cathy Cohen, advances the theory that marginalization
has had a major impact on shaping the response of African Americans
to the AIDS epidemic. Marginalization refers to people who have
systematically and continually denied access to dominant resources,
barred from full participation in dominant institutions and defined
as "others living outside the norms and values agreed
upon by society. A condition of marginalization is deficiency in
economic, political and social resources used to guarantee access
to the rights and privileges assumed by the dominant group members.
Additionally, marginalizations carries with it the sense of social
ostracism and stigmatization and evolves from involuntary vs voluntary
separation from dominant society. The shared experience of the marginal
group including their inferior or subordinate identification,
reinforces the importance of this identity in determining the common
interest and view of reality. Some examples would be African Americans,
Native American/American Indians, South African blacks and Untouchables
in India.
In
her book, Dr. Cohen goes on to describe consequences of marginalization,
two of which I will describe in more detail because of their relevance
to this topic:
- First,
an altered worldview a worldview develops from the position
as an outsider: one who is fully familiar with the workings of
the dominant society but denied access to full participation.
When information is processed through this framework, one come
to understand the central components of the dominant society,
but usually approaches its institutions, organizations and leaders
with distrust and skepticism. Life experience tend to reinforce
this view since the dominant society generally deals with the
marginalized populations in ways only further destroy a sense
of trust.
- Second,
the development of indigenous institutions, information and leaders.
Because dominant society institutions, information and leaders
are inaccessible to the marginalized group, these groups tend
to turn inward, redirecting their resources, trust, loyalty towards
community-based institutions and relationships that directly address
their needs. They rely on indigenous organizations, leaders, networks
and norms to provide some version of the resources and information
unavailable from the dominant society. Through this evolves a
political and group consciousness that is derived from these alternative
structures. Marginal groups, having been conditioned to view dominant
structures with distrust, turn instinctively to the indigenous
sources of information for ways to understand and process their
experiences.
Given
some of this backdrop, lets examine the responses and reaction
to the AIDS epidemic.
It
is not surprising that a people that already bears the mark of stigma
would be less than eager to be linked to another source of stigma,
discrimination. Sexually transmitted infections have always been
shrouded in stigma due to their association with behaviors considered
to be deviant or immoral. Similarly societies have historically
reacted with fear to disfiguring, debilitating and fatal diseases,
such as leprosy, tuberculosis and cancer, and have often translated
this aversion into discriminatory actions against the affected.
HIV/AIDS presented the world with a condition that combines both-
stigma and fear. In the case of Africans and Africans Americans
who already bear the burden of longstanding racial stigma and discrimination,
the HIV/AIDS epidemic compounded this with the initial discussion
and blame attached to origins of AIDS. In the beginning of the epidemic
there was almost fanatic level of interest in the origins of AIDS.
Much of it put in the language of blaming population groups for
this disease, gays, Haitians, Africans were the early targets, Ultimately
the weight of evidence suggested origins in Africa. However, the
fervent scramble for answers, often in less than scientific rigorous
ways, lead to a public relations nightmare and a not unexpected
backlash from Africans.
In
this context let me read you a few quotes that illustrate this fact:
The
following quote from the book Aids, Africa and Racism foreshadowed
the reaction and counter reaction that occurred with the scramble
for origins of AIDS.
- "Once
question of blame and responsibility for the disease intruded
into the public discussion, it was clear that AIDS would become
political in a way that is unprecedented for a disease in modern
times. The vehemence with which homosexuals were attacked for
the disease
obscured the reality that this was a new and
very dangerous epidemic disease for which no on could be held
responsible in any real sense
Neither blame nor guilt
is a useful response to an epidemic."
However,
in the next breath, this same author states:
- One
suggestion was that the African monkeys, possible carriers of
AIDS, were imported into Haiti and kept as pets in male brothels."
Statements
like these heralded the era of the blaming and shaming. We would
soon witness a torrent of theories that all intentionally unintentionally
furthered notions of shame and blame of Africans and linked Africans
to monkeys and perpetuated ideas of hypersexuality and immoral behavior
of Africans.
The
book Blaming Others is full of statements from respectable media
and journals such as this one from a noted AIDS researcher in the
quoted in the New York Times:
- "I
think AIDS is an old Black African disease which was introduced
somewhere or other into an amplification systemfor example
the promiscuous segment of the homosexual community"
To
many peoples ear the sense of respect and sensitivity just
dont come through.
Further
as theories developed, they focused on a connection between AIDS,
monkeys and African.
- "Monkeys
are often hunted for food in Africa. It may be that a hunting
accident of some sort, or an accident in prepartion for cooking,
brought people in contact with infected blood. Once caught,
monkeys are often kept in huts for some time before they are
eaten. Dead monkeys are sometimes used as toys by African
children"
Clearly,
an image that would make one proud to embrace this disease.
This
commentary appeared in respected journal Lancet:
- "Sir:
The isolation from monkeys of retroviruses closely related
to HIV strongly suggest a simian origin for this virus. He
goes on to say that several unlikely hypotheses have been
put forward such as in his book on the sexual life of people
of the Great Lakes areas of Africa, Kashamura writes (English
translation) "to stimulate a man or a woman and induce
them to intense sexual activity, monkey blood was directly
inoculated in the pubic area and also the thighs and backs.
These magical practices would therefore constitute an efficient
experimental transmission model and could be responsible for
the emergence of AIDS in man.
Even
statements that many scientists would interpret as neutral sharing
of information have contributed to negative imagery around AIDS
and Africans.
First
the statement by co-discoverer of the HIV, Bob Gallos statement
"Virus closely related to HTLV, but distinct from it, have
been isolated from Old World monkeys. This and other facts led us
to propose that the ancestral origins of HTLV is in Africa."
Then
a commentary by an African scientist as follows: While this may
seem like an unassuming straightforward scientific statement, given
the socio-historical context, this is heard by the everyday African
person as "We (European scientist) conclude that AIDS originated
from Africa because we found AIDS virus in monkeys and Africans
are closer to monkeys.
And
finally an abstract in Social Science and Medicine plays on the
images of hypersexuality of Africans in a summation of their "research".
-
Previously we have reported populations difference in sexual
restraint such that higher socio-economic status>lower socio-economic
status, and Mongoloids>Caucasoids>Negroids. This ordering
was predicted from a gene-based evolutionary theory
in
which a trade-off occurs between gamete production and social
behaviours such as intelligence, law abidingness and parental
care. Here we consider the implications of these analyses for
sexual dysfunction, including susceptibility to AIDS. We conclude
that relative to Caucasians, the populations of Asian ancestry
are inclined to a greater frequency of inhibitory disorders
such as low sexual excitement and premature ejaculation and
to a lower frequency of sexually transmitted diseases including
AIDS, while populations of African ancestry are inclined to
a greater frequency of uninhibited disorders such as rape and
unintended pregnancy and to more sexually transmitted diseases
including AIDS.
Perhaps,
extreme, but nonetheless, published and considered reasonable by
some, that there is in fact a genetic basis for unacceptable social
traits.
Okay,
lets turn to the issue of marginalization and its impact
on the response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic particularly related to
belief in alternative views.
Marginalization
is the breeding ground for myths and alternative hypotheses. Reviewing
the two outgrowths of marginalizationaltered worldview and
reliance on internal, indigenous sources of information, it is not
difficult to see why the myths around AIDS and dissident views could
appeal to people who have experienced extreme marginalization, even
in the face of what others who have had full access to information
and have a sense of trust for the dominant society, would view as
incontrovertible evidence.
Think
for a moment about the legacy of the "Tusgekee" syphilis
study and its longstanding impact on trust between African
Americans, the government and the medical establishment. Tuskegee
alone did not create the mistrust, but rather served to confirm
the long-held, deeply entrenched, experienc-based beliefs about
medical racism. In the aftermath of the Tuskegee study, AIDS was
an obvious candidate for concerns about genocide in marginalized
communities with a longstanding mistrust of the dominant society.
The
following is a quote from an article in Essence, a magazine, whose
readership primarily consists of middle class African American women,
hardly a fringe group, entitled AIDS: Is It Genocide?
- "As
an increasing number of African-Americans continue to sicken
and die and as no cure for AIDS has been found some of us
are beginning to think the unthinkable: Could AIDS be a virus
that was manufactured to erase large numbers of us? Are they
trying to kill us with this disease?
Several
surveys of African Americans confirm this belief.
- A
1990 Survey by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference:
35% of Black church member that responded to the survey believed
that AIDS was a form of genocide.
- Another
New York Times/WCBS TV News poll done in the same year 10%
of Black Americans thought that the AIDS virus had been created
in a laboratory in order to infect Black people and another
20% believed that it could be true.
It
is not surprising that the life experiences of people who have been
marginalized would have skepticism about dominant views.
Author
Lorene Cary in an essay in Newsweek "Why Its Not Just
Paranoia" states:
- "We
Americans continue to value the live and humanity of some groups
more than the lives and humanity of others. That is not paranoia.
It is our historical legacy and a present fact; it influences
domestic and foreign policy and the daily interaction of million
of Americans. It influences the way we spend our public money
and explains how we can read the staggering statistics on Black
Americans infant mortality, youth mortality, mortality
in middle and old age and not be moved to action."
Now
let me return to the issue of South Africa and AIDS and President
Thabo Mbeki. Tbabo Mkebi, a highly educated and dedicated member
of the African National Congress or ANC, the ruling party of South
Africa and committed to developing a new South African that can
help lead the way for an African renaissance. President Mbeki talks
of an African on the verge of a bright future with great possibilities
with Africans redefining the direction and fate of Africa. The ANC
now seems like just another party to many who have not followed
the history of South African politics, but it is important to remember
that it was a banned organization, that waged armed conflict at
some points, who leaders were all jailed or exiled. Thabo Mbeki,
himself spent almost 28 years outside of South Africa.
In
his speech in 1995 "A National Strategic Vision for South Africa"
He
outlines certains imperatives that must be taken into consideration
as they chart their course forward:
- First
is the challenge of unemployment and poverty
- Second
is our trade opportunity with the European Union
- Third
is the challenge posed by AIDS
- Fourth
is our need to ensure that we are investor friendly
- Fifth
is the role of information in the global economy
- Sixth
is the concern about the speed of delivery
- Seventh
is the work under way within the National Economic Development
and Labour Council formulate an accord of growth and development
between government and our social partners.
- Finally,
recognize the dangers of fragmentation
Overall,
his imperatives highlight the importance attached to poverty alleviation,
economic development and the important role that AIDS plays in that
regard. Taking this into consideration, the impact of racism and
apartheid and what we have discussed about stigma and marginalization,
we have a man who is the product of a dissident background (ANC),
wanting to chart the course for a new South Africa with a priority
on poverty alleviation, but who also recognizes the impact that
AIDS can have on undoing economic advances. Given all of that, it
is not totally surprising that many of the dissent theories would
have an appeal.
- First
they start by questioning the status quo and conventional wisdom
- Secondly
they raise the issue of the profit motive of the "AIDS
establishment"
- Third,
they question the sexually transmitted nature of the disease
and the issue of hypersexuality or deviant sexuality of those
who get the disease
- Fourth
they posit that poverty and disease of poverty are truly the
cause of so-called AIDS
- Fifth,
they highlight some of the flaws in early AIDS research, especially
around testing and estimates of numbers of people infected with
HIV and
- Sixth,
they highlight the imperfection and side-effects of current
AID treatments
By
contrast, at least on the surface, the "orthodoxy" has
featured blaming and shaming prominently in their explanations about
the disease and have up until recently offered a hal-hearted response
to a global catastrophe.
The
editorial in the New York Times earlier this month entitled Suffering
in Black and White: "The World Comforts the Forgotten (Some
more Forgotten than Others)" is illustrative.
The
author had written an article about the unfortunate situation of
AIDS orphans in Romania who had previously had access to antiretroviral
drugs and were now deprived of those drugs because of financial
crisis. The author had spent four years in Africa and then went
to work in Kosovo. He describes the difference in response to European
crises compared with those in Africa. He points out the difference
in response to refugee situations in Kosovo compared with those
he had witnessed in Africa, including the amount of resources spent
and difference in attitudes. In his article he describes his thoughts
about writing the article about the Romania children:
- "And
I immediately had an unworthy thought: Oh boy. After years of
covering AIDS in Africa, where millions of children dont
have a prayer of getting the same drugs---not to mention the
children dying of curable things like sleeping sickness or malariaI
finally get to write about white kids with AIDS. Now well
see what happens."
- He
goes on to write "And it did. Offers to help buy drugs
for those poor white children have poured in."
- A
caption in the article reads: "If youre a child with
AIDS and you live in Europe, the world will feel your pain.
A final
point on the what could easily be perceived as a disregard for the
lives of Africans with AIDS is the article last week in the Canadian
press by Steven Lewis, former of UNICEF and Canadian Ambassador
to the UN.
He
said many things in his article, but a few stood out for me:
- Here
in the wealth West, we have antiretroviral drug cocktails which
prolong life, improve quality of life, and serve, as it is,
to save life. We have the drugs. We use them. In the developing
world, where 95% of the new infections occur, virtually everybody
HIV positive is doomed to a gruesome and painful death. The
numbers of people who can afford the drug cocktails are so infinitesimal
as to be invisible.
- But
its worse, much worse. Neither the pharmaceutical companies
who have the drugs, nor the governments who have the money,
nor the governments who could amend their laws to make cheap
generic drugs available, are prepared to prolong or to rescue
African lives.
- Admittedly,
it would be no easy matter to monitor and treat large populations
of infected people through health delivery systems that are
often in tatters. But you could still reach a significant number.
The fact that were not prepared to try is a miserable
commentary on the human condition. Let me put it as simply and
bluntly as possible. The drugs exit and the money is available
to prolong and improve the lives of millions. Some would live
a full life-span.
- Jeff
Sachs, the noted Harvard economist, says that there are generic
drugs which could be imported from India to treat the majority
of HIV-positive Africans for $350 per person per year. If we
have the political will, this is no question that we have the
money.
- Then
why isnt it being done. And because its not being
done, why doesnt it amount to murder? Mass murder.
It
is no mystery why on this issue, there is much reason to be mistrustful
and question the motives of established AIDS thinking and practice.
Add to that the many reasons historically for mistrust and it is
not difficult to understand the response of some Africans and African
Americans to this issue.
It
reminds me of a statement a colleague of mine made, that he may
have actually turned into a title for an article, So much concern
for AIDS in African, but not much concern for African with AIDS.
Okay,
let me close with a few words on what where we go from here. To
understand is not to condone. Clearly anything other than a full
and robust response to HIV/AIDS based on sounds scientific evidence
is not acceptable today anywhere. But understanding can go a long
way towards figuring out a way to really work collaboratively to
respond to this issue. So what do we need to do to shift the paradigm?
First
we must see ourselves as allies and partners, albeit, partners that
may be coming with different historical baggage.
What
must whites dolisten, believe and be open or whites need to
get with it. In the book I Heard It Through the Grapevine: Rumor
and Resistance in African American Culture-underscores the importance
of listening and not ridiculing the theories that may seem far-fetched
to those in the mainstream.
- Rumors
reveal much about what African Americans believe to be the state
of their lives in this country
- Such
views reflect Black beliefs that White Americans have historically
been and continue to be ambivalent and even hostile to the existence
of Black people.
Demonstrating
a real openness to listen and try to understand the view of the
world from the perspective of a population that bears the historical
burden of racism, stigma, shame and marginalization is a first step
towards developing true partnership. Acts like the Presidential
apology for the Tuskegee study went a long way towards giving black
people a sense of greatly needed validation of their experience.
The very act of saying Im sorry has an important healing effect.
It says, no youre not crazy, this really did happen, it was
bad, it was disrespectful and I acknowledge your humanity by acknowledging
that your feelings matter. This is in contrast to the debates about
the use of the Confederate symbol in state flags in southern States.
Those in favor of keeping the old flag continue to put out the message,
that only our feelings count, your are too sensitive, it really
wasnt that bad being denigrated and humiliated and called
3/5ths of a person. Your feelings, black people, dont matter.
Most
white people would prefer to ignore or actively deny that there
is racism. If you are the average white person in America, it would
be useful to acknowledge that at the very least, you are probably
fairly uninformed about the Black people in your midst and have
probably not totally escaped internalizing some of the racism of
this society.
There
are numerous polls that show that the majority of Black people think
racism is still a problem in American, but the majority of white
people think that it is not. Every time you deny racism, you are
saying to someone Black, that their view of the world is wrong and
your is right. In other words, I am white so I am right. You are
Black so you are wrong. There is much that individuals can do to
help the healing process.
More
broadly, in all parts of society, efforts should be made to demonstrate
political commitment by putting the necessary resources and policies
to make a difference and demonstrate a belief of the equal value
of black life in America and throughout the world.
If
Whites need to get with it, Blacks need to get on with it. Slavery,
segregation, apartheid and colonialism are over. Only Africans and
the descendents of Africa can work through the issues of stigma,
shame and low self-esteem and move on. This is not easy, the impact
is not imagined, the playing field is not even and racism is not
over. However, as a world society we are not where we were even
20 years ago. We have to be willing to let go of anger and be willing
to drop some baggage. A lot has been written about breaking the
chains of mental slavery. That has to be done. We can build on indigenous
structures to build greater sense of self-esteem. We can insist
that we be treated as whole citizens. Effectively utilizing the
indigenous structures that have developed in response to marginalization
can be a powerful force for positive change in African American
community and in Africa. We have a lot of strength. It is what has
helped us withstand the difficulties of an alienating, often hostile
environment. We can build on those strengths. For example, one of
the most positive developments in our work in HIV prevention has
been developing capacity of community-based organizations to work
within their own communities. This is helping to empower communities,
building important links and greater trust with dominant society
structures and builds on relationships of trust already in the communities.
More still needs to be done. However, only by setting the goal of
addressing past wounds and moving on will this be accomplished.
The past is real, but the future can better.
Let
me end with a quote from Albert Einstein that aptly characterizes
the challenge we are faced with:
- We
cant solve the problems of the world by thinking on the
same level that we were thinking when we created them.
It
is clearly time to move to another level in our understanding and
in our response.
Return to UVA NewsMakers Home
|