Donald Trump, Extremism, & the Aftermath

By Sosamma Samuel-Burnett, J.D.

Founder/President, G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice

 In January 2016, I wrote a commentary about the reasons why then presidential-candidate Donald Trump should not be elected President.  In November 2016, I wrote an open letter to then President-elect Donald Trump with the concerns I had for his presidency.  Now in January 2021, I write about the implications of outgoing-President Donald Trump’s presidency, especially in light of the riots that occurred just one week ago at the U.S. Capitol.  In each of these instances, my comments not only address concerns about Donald Trump but also concerns for the broader context of our country.  And as the U.S. is just a week away from the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden, it is significant that we understand both sets of concerns if there is to be true progress in the aftermath of the recent riots.

Donald Trump the candidate did not have the character, temperament, or political experience to be President of the United States. But he was elected. Donald Trump as president became a divisive and polarizing figure for many.  But he also garnered the support of many others.

To understand the dichotomy of Donald Trump as President, we need to understand the precursors in our country that led to Donald Trump’s election.  Donald Trump becoming President was the result of an amplification of a range of issues that had long been part of America but that are surfacing in more apparent ways in recent years.  He was elected President because of two major factors -- a very disgruntled far Right and a dissatisfied right and center of America.  The establishment had "failed" these segments by not hearing or responding to their concerns.  Working class, rural communities, and others who did not feel an alignment with the view of the Democrats, gravitated to Trump who in some ways spoke their language or at least seemed to indicate an understanding of their points of view.  The disgruntled and the dissatisfied existed before the Trump presidency and under various previous presidencies. But Trump tapped into their emotions and amplified them in a way that other candidates had not recently.  And in the process of doing so, he also tapped into something further and of greater concern -- extremism. 

Beneath the various issues that our country has been facing both before, during, and presumably after the Trump presidency, is also a rising tide of extremism on both the far Right and the far Left.  Trump emboldened, both directly and indirectly, the extremists on both ends of the spectrum with his rhetoric and actions over the past four years, and especially in the past week.  But Trump is not solely responsible for the extremism in the U.S.  The nature of U.S. politics and the nature of our parties and media also contribute to the rise of extremism.

The divisive nature of American politics pre-dated Trump, but over the past four years, the far Right and the far Left have increasingly demonstrated their unwillingness to hear from the other side, to cooperate, and to compromise. As divisions have increased, segments of both the far Left and far Right no longer respect the values, principles, or institutions of our country.  As such, during the past four years in particular, the extremists followed those political divides to increasingly and more openly become associated directly or indirectly with the far Left and the far Right.   As each side has become more radicalized, extremists responses against these values, principles, and institutions have intensified.

 In addition, both the major political parties and media in general have deepened and widened the impact of Trump and the rise of extremism based on their own approaches and rhetoric in response to a myriad of political concerns in the country.  They have repeatedly placed Trump front and center no matter what their position about him.  Taken together with the broader context in the country, the parties and media have sparked extremism on both ends of the spectrum and Trump has been the lightning rod.  Extremism has thus become more apparent in the U.S. in recent years, though these segments have existed for a long time in this country.

Extremism then began to seep into the current political process.  While the Left (and some center and right) rejected the presidency of Donald Trump, the far Left extremists wanted to destroy the Trump presidency.  Similarly, the Right (and some others) rejected the election of Joe Biden, but extremists in the far Right wanted to destroy his election results.  As such, rejection has given way to riots, mobs, and violence.  It is no longer a matter of agreeing, disagreeing, or debating issues.  It is about using force and coercion to get what each side wants – power and control.

The riots that occurred at the U.S. Capitol one week ago were particularly shocking, but they were not a surprise. Extremists on both ends of the spectrum had demonstrated an anarchical and violent streak against our country for some time.  And they often work within the fringes of protest. Anarchical groups like Antifa and radical segments of BLM who were at the center of violent riots in 2020 were an indication that the extremes were now moving out from the shadows of the Left.  And the white supremacists and mob who stormed the Capitol indicated that the extremes on the Right were also pursuing violent means to anarchical ends.  Each instance of chaos and violence furthers the likelihood of a counter incident on the other side and deepens the impact of anarchists and extremists in general.

 In this past year especially, extremists are crossing literal and figurative societal boundaries with significant impact.  By destroying property, defacing monuments, storming the Capitol, threatening institutions and individuals, and causing loss of life, extremists are demonstrating their penchant for lawlessness and anarchy. The recent storming of our halls of government, invading government officials’ offices, and the forced entry to the floor of the House seems surreal unless you realize that these institutions and locations are the very representations of what the extremists want to destroy. When they violate boundaries of civil society, they are pursuing their ends.

 In the aftermath of last week’s violent riots, our government and our people stand in unusual and significant points of decision-making.  Both the government and the people need to determine not only the impacts and implications of the extremists’ actions, but also the bearing that President Donald Trump has in inciting or at least not quelling the mobs.  Vice President Mike Pence now has to exercise his own conscience in certifying the elections and choosing to or declining to invoke the 25th amendment against Donald Trump to strip him of his presidential power.   Congress needs to determine whether to pursue impeachment or censure – both of which require time for investigation and process. In addition, businesses, particularly media entities, are making decisions to censor and block Donald Trump but their actions can also have wider implications for the people beyond Trump’s presidency. 

 While these decisions are challenging, their implementation difficult, and their implications wide, they only address the immediate concerns about Donald Trump.  They do not address the broader concerns about extremism.  And it is likely that whatever decisions are made, they may further deepen the political divides and further amplify the extremes.

 To move forward, not just in a Joe Biden presidency, but for a more free, peaceful, and democratic America for years to come, the United States must recognize the need to fight extremism on all sides. That fight needs to be bipartisan and inclusive of a range of other perspectives.  This requires consensus among various segments of the U.S. on some key pillars for our society:

 1)      Human Rights:  Unless all sides are committed to ensuring human rights, extremists will always have a foothold to violate those rights. By protecting and respecting life, thought, speech, and other civil aspects of society that are inherent in human value and dignity, we position our society for justice rather than extremism.

2)      Rule of Law.  By applying the rule of law, we would hold those that engage in violations of law, including riots and violence, accountable no matter the party, the position, or reason.  While human and civil rights allow us to disagree and event protest, they do not allow us to be violent and destructive.  The rule of law applies boundaries and works in coordination with human rights. As such, the rule of law is a powerful guard against extremist actions.

 3)      Pluralism:  By encouraging a diverse and pluralistic society, we are allowing a range of perspectives and a strong context that even allows disagreement.  A pluralistic society requires room for many voices, even those that we don't want to accept. But pluralism is an extension of human rights and rule of law.  Viewpoints may diverge, but no viewpoint gives anyone the right to infringe on others lives and liberties.  Pluralism allows us to coexist, and when possible integrate, but only to the level that doesn’t conflict with human rights, laws, and values as a whole.  Pluralism grounded in human rights and rule of law also guards against the actions of extremist factions.

 4)      Governmental integrity:  We live in a constitutional democracy and democratic republic.  That means that we the people establish institutions and elect officials. We then rely on those institutions and officials to guide and make decisions on overall policy on behalf of those in our society.  Respecting the structures, institutions, processes, and representatives of our government is essential to making this system work.  But what is also essential is the integrity of those who serve in those roles. We must use the channels and institutions we have and work with our representatives to institute, implement, and enforce just laws and policies. And that can only happen through mutual trust and respect. That requires much cooperation and compromise but also integrity.  It is a necessary combination to ensure that extremists do not step into the voids and exploit conflicts.

 5)      Media integrity:  The Media should report the news and not create the news.  Real, fake, or otherwise, the current news sources are mostly biased and not serving the needs of our society.  The Media can be a powerful force for information and influence, but should not use that power to manipulate and coerce people into certain perspectives.  In doing so, they also open up opportunities for extremists to exploit media outlets for propaganda.

These and other key pillars need to be recognized, promoted, and protected not only by our government, but also by our media and by our people in our many contexts.  While Donald Trump and the current versions of extremism are our concerns today, the issues of extremism will continue beyond his presidency and even beyond Joe Biden’s presidency.  To safeguard our country from anarchy and violence into the future, we must rely on these pillars even when we disagree and even when it’s difficult.  Justice in and for the United States lies in how we respond and rebuild, and how we uphold these pillars, in the aftermath.

Top 10 Global News Stories of 2020

By Sosamma Samuel-Burnett, J.D.

Founder/President, G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice

G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice provides daily Global News summaries of key headlines of critical news stories.  But at the end of the year, I review the Global News and determine our Top 10 news stories of the year. 2020 was a particularly “newsworthy” year, so it presented many challenges to limit the number of news stories for a Top 10 list, especially given many domestic issues and global events that marked the year.  So with this unusual year, I opted for an unusual number for this year’s list.  Here are my Top 11 Global News Stories of 2020 based on their reach, impact, and implications for justice worldwide.

11. Harvey Weinstein/Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell Sexual Assault & Exploitation Scandals:  Starting in 2017, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein was accused by numerous women of sexual misconduct and assault from several previous years. By 2018, he was arrested and charged with rape.  And in 2020 Weinstein was found guilty and sentenced to 23 years in prison – bringing justice to the many women who were abused by him.  Alongside this conviction, another highly notorious sex scandal involved New York billionaire Jeffrey Epstein and former British social Ghislaine Maxwell. They were involved in an extensive assault and exploitation of minors, creating a ring of exploitation with some of the highest-ranking officials, business leaders, and celebrities. Epstein reportedly took his life while in jail on charges and Maxwell remains behind bars with a multimillion-dollar bail. These sexual scandals not only highlight the abuse and exploitation of women and girls but the depth and breadth of this exploitation even among the highest echelons of society.  

10. Royal and Economic shifts in Great Britain: 2020 marked a year when Great Britain saw key shifts in some of its key structures.  Not only did Prince Harry and his wife Meghan previously make headlines for their mixed-race matrimony, but in 2020 they also stepped away from their senior roles as Royals – marking some historic shifts within the royal history of Great Britain. In addition, the European Parliament ratified the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement, marking the United Kingdom’s formal withdrawal from the European Union (EU). The remainder of this year marked a transition period for Great Britain and Europe to determine their economic relations. Both of these shifts mark significant and historic changes for Great Britain with global implications. 

9. Ukrainian plane crash: Early in 2020, a Ukrainian plane crashed in Tehran, Iran, shortly after take-off, killing 176 civilians. The Iranian government first denied then later admitted “unintentionally” shooting the plane, reportedly mistaking it for a cruise missile. The disaster resulted in mass protests in Iran calling for the removal of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

8. NASA-SpaceX  ‘Launch America’: While much of the Global News this year featured stories of devastation, disparity, abuse, and loss, 2020 also had a remarkable highlight. Launch America, a joint initiative of NASA and Space X, was conducted in May. NASA astronauts Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken took off for the International Space Station (ISS) in SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft from the Kennedy Space Center. This launch marked the first time in nine years that astronauts left from the U.S. in a U.S. rocket to reach Earth’s orbit.

7. Hurricanes and fires in the U.S.:  In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world also saw a range of natural catastrophes, especially in the U.S.  Notable was Hurricane Laura that hit the Louisiana Gulf Coast in August – one of 12 record-making named storms hitting the U.S. this year.  Similarly, the U.S. saw a range of historic fires in forests and mountains in Colorado, California, Oregon, and Washington State, with the devastating loss of millions of acres of land.

6.  The Death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Justice Ginsburg was a judicial and social icon, particularly for many women’s rights advocates in the U.S. and around the world, and her death was significant.  In addition, her passing marked a shift in the highest court of the U.S., opening the way for President Trump to nominate a more conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Despite the political concerns over the composition of the U.S. Supreme, Justice Coney Barrett also marks a historic addition of another woman to the high court.

5. Impeachment hearings for President Trump:  At the beginning of this year and before COVID-19 took over media and public attention, all eyes and ears were on the impeachment of Donald Trump by the U.S. House of Representatives led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi.  Later acquitted by the Senate, the President and the impeachment process reinforced the divide between the two parties and within the U.S. public.

4. U.S. Presidential Elections: In light of all the issues and concerns in our world and particularly in the U.S., this year’s presidential elections were one of the most divided in history.  Through a divided process and divisive political exchanges, President Donald Trump and President-elect Joe Biden had a campaign year that was distinct.  Not only did this year’s elections garner the largest number of voters in many years (if ever) in the U.S., but it came in the midst of a global pandemic, with a backdrop of racial, cultural, social, economic, and political turmoil both domestically and internationally.

3. Racial conflicts in the U.S.: The killing of George Floyd by a police officer sparked a fire that figuratively and sometimes literally took flame not only in the U.S. but around the globe. A history of racism, police shootings against African Americans, and a media that captured significant aspects of the violence, together created a furor in many cities starting with Minneapolis.  While the resulting protests were sometimes peaceful and other times violent riots, they all are emblematic of a deeper set of racial tensions that coincide with the concerns of systemic racism, police brutality, economic insecurity, and other disparities.

2. Impact of China on the Globe:  Throughout the year, one of the constants of our Global News headlines was China.  It’s political, economic, and social issues have made a substantial impact on the globe.  From being the site of the first COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan to human rights abuses including gendercide, and economic and political power grabs, China stands as not only a world power but a central concern for the world.

1.  COVID-19:  There is no doubt that the new coronavirus and the resulting global pandemic has been the top headline throughout this past year.  Starting in Wuhan, China, COVID-19 spread across the world, including the U.S.. The World Health Organization declared it a global pandemic, reaching well over 150 countries by March and expected to affect up to 70 percent of the world’s population.  Starting in the Washington State, the U.S. has now become the center of many who are ill, hospitalized, or who have died as a result. The impact of COVID-19 included closing businesses, stores, restaurants, churches, and schools, raising wide-scale economic and social concerns.  It required “pivoting” to online work, education, and events, requiring many to learn new modalities and face the challenges of them.  It required cancellations and delays of sports, including the summer Olympics, as well as concerts, shows, and other arts events, changing how people recreating and interacted with one another, and it exacerbated many of the political, economic, and social ills of the world including increased poverty, displacement, exploitation, abuse, and suicide.  The implications of COVID-19 go far beyond this year, but our global community will forever associate 2020 with this coronavirus.

Justice in the 21st Century: Part 4 of 4 - Crises vs Progress

By Sosamma Samuel-Burnett, J.D.

Founder/President, G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice

2020 has been a really difficult year, perhaps one of the most difficult with overlapping global tensions, challenges, and crises in political, social, and economic sectors.  In previous years we faced human and natural disasters, but now we face crises in ways that we have not experienced before.  COVID-19, racial conflicts, and partisan political divides have been the most prominent of our crises in 2020.  But COVID-19 was not our first global health pandemic; recent racial violence is not the first instance of racial conflict; and the political divisions that our country and world presently face are also not the first of their kind.  What distinguishes these crises in 2020 though is the nature of how these crises intersect and how society responded to these intersected crises.  It is not that they are in and of themselves more difficult situations than before,  rather it is that these crises presented distinctive dynamics for our present era that are creating societal changes.  These crises and their dynamics are defining 2020 and may be redefining our needs and ideas of justice for the 21st century.

So here we are in 2020, in the 21st century, and issues of political division, racial conflict, and global health pandemics have continued and escalated.   We had hoped that the lessons from years of political issues, the strife of the civil rights era, and the losses sustained during previous pandemics would teach us and advance our ability to respond them  in this new century.  However these “plagues” persist, and what’s more, they are taking on complexities that are presenting all new issues that are outgrowths of the original crises.

Further, America, and perhaps the world, has entered the 21st century not fully equipped to handle 21st century crises that have expanded in scale and impact. We have faced earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, famine, persecution, violence, terrorism, war in this 21st century, but we have been ill prepared for neither the direct impact of each of these crises nor  the cumulative impact of each successive crisis.  We don’t have just the crisis itself but the aftershocks – responses and impacts that are not always foreseeable nor intended.  It’s like being awash in the ocean – we may be able to brace the first wave or two, but after several keep hitting, we seem to lose our bearing and our ability to stay above water, and eventually we feel like we are in whirlpool – not quite sure which direction we are going.

While we cannot always predict or control a particular crisis, how we respond to any crisis has as much to do with our actions prior to the crises as it does with what we do during and after the crises.   Who we are as people, as a country, as a civilization and how we collectively respond to crises has a bearing on whether we sink or swim in the midst of cumulative crises.  Our religious perspective, our political positions, our socioeconomic status, our race/ethnicity/gender/age, etc. all factor into our collective approach and resilience to crises.  But while our individual responses may vary greatly based on our personal status and capacities, our collective responses are intertwined with the societal contexts that surround the crises.  Sometimes the response itself is a crisis to such a degree that we may not know where the one crisis started and where the other begins.  As a result, managing crises in our present context can create as much tension or conflict as the initial crises.  We are either not responding enough or hyper-responding – in either case, not correlating the scale of the crises with the response.

We need to understand that some of our current challenges with crises are related to some key characteristics of our country and our world today.  These characteristics weigh on how we see and address challenges of any kind, let alone global crises:

1)     Globalization – We live in a global world.  Many of us in the U.S. tend to think “America” in the midst of crises.  Buy American. Support American. Be American.  While we do want to help and support our own country and people, we have to realize that in a global economy and ecosystem, it is not clear what companies and policies truly benefit Americans.  We have Americans that work in various parts of our world and many international companies that employ Americans here.  Similarly when we are supporting economic empowerment in other regions, we are also providing economic opportunities for our own communities in tangible work, innovation, etc. Similarly, how we approach foreign policy can also have a return impact on our own domestic policy. Globalization connects and integrates our national interests with global interests. 

2)     Underlying political/economic/social disparities:  At the heart of all of our political, economic, and social divides in the U.S. are underlying disparities. And those disparities are not simple to understand or address.  Each country, and particularly America, is defined by a culture that is in turn defined by subcultures based on our context and experiences.  Varying contexts and experiences within a country can vary how sectors view that culture.  As such, the urban version of America is quite different than the rural version.  The America of the working classes is distinct from the America of the wealthier classes.   And the America of people of color varies considerably from other racial groups. Each of these contexts creates disparities and affects our perspectives about our nation and our globe.  There are also intersections between these contexts that create greater disparities and complexities.  For example, since most Americans are White, the poor population in this country is mostly White.  However, a disproportionate number of the poor are people of color.  At the intersection of race and poverty are some key distinctions that make addressing either race and poverty more difficult, and requiring greater awareness and intentionality to address.  Consider the disparities and intersections that exist in places like Los Angeles, Ferguson, and Minneapolis and then consider the issues they have experienced in recent years and months.  These recent concerns are rooted in the ongoing and underlying political, economic, and social disparities between various segments of the population.  

3)     Systemic flaws increased by societal flaws:  Many point to institutional “systems” such as our political, criminal justice, or education systems for the flaws in our society.  Certainly there are many systems worldwide that are fundamentally flawed.  But most of the flaws within these systems, particularly in the US system stem from two sources – historic disparities and present societal flaws. The fact that these two issues have not been adequately addressed makes addressing disparities difficult if not impossible.  For example, some would argue that racism is embedded in our US system.  However, many if not most of the aspects of racial discrimination have been removed in the structures and laws of our US system.  But where we have a break down is the application of the system.  In other words, even if the system is nondiscriminatory, it can function in a discriminatory way.  Police brutality highlights this issue.  Police are a necessary part of our society that is given the responsibility of helping maintain public peace and order.  Police systems and policies are not advocating brutality. But there are flaws in the context of screening, training, and enforcement of officers, which means that the police may not be able to effectively prevent brutality if a particular officer does that.   The flaw in the implementation of the system is significantly increased by the flaw in the person.  The personal flaw was likely developed and exacerbated by the societal flaws of violence and racism that are promoted in families, communities, and media.  While there are flaws in the police system, it is not the flawed system that breeds police brutality.  It is the flaws in the people and their implementation of the systems that cause these negative results.  Even a perfect system would be marred by a flawed society.  

4)     Intolerance of disagreement:  Expression of our views has become a central part of the way many engage in our society, and especially online.  Media and social media are tools for expressing our views on politics, economics, society, etc. However, they are often misused or abused.  Online expression is both indirect and direct and as such emboldens many to speak what they want, when they want, and to whomever they want in ways that would not be acceptable in face-to-face communications.  These online expressions often do not benefit dialogue, exchange, edification, or learning.  Most often these online expressed are used to wield a certain power of our opinions and views – expression is then perceived as the highest level of significance. But there is very little significance to our expression if we don’t allow people to disagree or to evaluate the merit of our expression.  So expression is no longer about convincing or influencing but of insulting and tearing down.  If we don’t feel heard, we feel emboldened to make someone hear us and see us…and more so, to agree with us.  At that point, we are no longer making a point or progress; we are simply imposing an intolerance to disagreement.

The partisan divides in our country are of particular concern for this intolerance.  The idea that if someone doesn’t agree with a particular partisan position, then they are our enemy, is not only wrong thinking, it’s just wrong. We have different parties in our country so that we have different ways to represent our opinions and vehicles to align to our views.  Someone in another party will align with someone else’s views.  Neither party has it completely right, or completely wrong.  But when we convince ourselves that someone from another party is completely wrong, we are preventing ourselves from learning from the other “half” of our country and world, and preventing them learning from us.

5)     News promoting panic and discord:  News was once “news” – a source of information on what is happening in the world.  Especially in the context of crises, the news can be helpful in guiding people and providing information resources.  But news, or more precisely news media, has become a source of panic and discord.  Many news sources are biased and do not present the news fairly or evenly.  And most news sources use crises as way to generate greater viewership.  Certainly there are news professionals dedicated to sharing the real news – but many are enveloped in a media context that doesn’t fully allow accurate information.  That is a disservice to the community in that it can exaggerate or minimize crises and the best ways to respond.  Thus, we over or under respond to what is happening around us.  Either we become so saturated that we can’t seem to respond to a crises, or we become so panicked that we think the crises is the only significant issue before us.   Neither is a helpful approach t in the context of managing crises.  

6)     Lawlessness:  Violence and crimes of many forms are rampant in many parts of our world.  And where there are disparities and crises, violence and crimes increase.  In recent months, certain violence and crimes have suggested a degree of lawlessness in many places in our world.  And in some contexts, that lawlessness has been viewed as acceptable to confront various issues.  But that is a highly problematic approach to addressing injustice.  Violence not only destroys lives, but causes destruction of property, livelihoods, and communities. Rampant violence and criminal activity destroy the rule of law.  The idea of rule of law is that we are all bound by laws and standards no matter who we are and no matter what our circumstances.  Laws are meant to protect both our rights and our well-being.  Rights to free speech, expression, assembly, etc. are protected by law.  But when these freedoms exceed the bounds of law and cause harm to individual and community well-being – such as arson and looting -- they are no longer covered by the laws and are subject to other laws that protect other people.  As soon as we break laws, then we break down how we are supposed to function as a civil society.  The exception, of course, is when the laws themselves are unjust on their face or in their application.  In the 21st century we have fewer and fewer unjust laws on their face, but we have more and more unjust application and consequences.  

7)     Increasing harm and exploitation but decreasing concern: Sadly, as crises rise, so too does harm and exploitation.  Not only do we have issues of violence and crime that is apparent to all, but we have extensive abuse that is often not seen or heard.   Domestic violence, rape, sexual exploitation, human trafficking, slavery and forced labor – all are significant issues in our society and increase significantly when our society is under the stress and strains of crises.  But ironically as these increase, we become less engaged in our concern for these abuses.  The crises themselves overwhelm us or we choose not to engage in order to focus on our personal circumstances rather than those of others.  As a result more people are abused in the context of crises with less concern from those that could otherwise help.  

8)     Godlessness: I am a Christian.  But I don’t need to be a Christian to recognize that the Christian faith, as well as other faiths, has a significant role in society – both for good and for bad.  Most of the civil and human rights advances that we have are connected to the moral principles of Christianity or stemming from people of various faith communities.  Consider any society that didn’t have Christianity – today or in history-- and compare that to the conditions under Christian society.  Pagan societies have always been harsher, crueler, and more unjust.  Having said that, in the name of Christianity, many have also caused destruction – consider the Crusades or imperialism more generally.  However, in those cases, it was not Christianity but the abuse of it that led to those results.  In those instances, God was no longer the center of faith, but rather reference to God was used to gain power.  That is not much different today.  As we become increasingly Godless, we have also become increasingly infatuated with power – in the form of money, status, and leisure.  The more we have the more we can do and say what we want.  That notion that we can do whatever we want is a characteristic of Godlessness. We replace God with ourselves. 

With the backdrop of these characteristics, we have to question whether our current approaches to addressing crises are working for the good of our country or world.  Are we making any progress on major national and global crises? Have any of the political, economic, and social positions we vehemently defend actually advanced our current society?  Have any of the violence and lawlessness addressed racism or issues of the most vulnerable? Have we become more just without God?

At present, there are no “clear” answers because no one is clear on what the problem is.  Even justice has become problematic – who’s justice and for what? We are fighting unknown enemies (literally and figuratively) in unknown territories (literally and figuratively) using an outdated game plan (literally and figuratively).  

But in asking these questions, we may come to the conclusion that we are making the mistake of trying to employ 20th century approaches to our 21st century crises.  The approaches that were tried in previous eras did not protect us from our current characteristics nor from continued crises in our present era.

In the 21st century, we need to realize that there is no singular answer, no singular party, and no singular sector that make things right. Progress takes time and intentionality across many sectors and approaches.  We need a collective and focused effort from everyone in each major arena – political, economic, and social – to effectively respond to crises:  

1)     Political:  Government’s primary responsibility is to protect the people and provide for the general welfare.  That does not mean that we should seek government control or provision of all things.  Protection is from foreign and domestic enemies that could do harm to our people and way of life. General welfare is not the same as a welfare system, but there are many instances when the government needs to provide support, particularly in crises.  More importantly, the government needs to remove impediments to our community’s welfare – allowing people to be educated, work, and advance without stigma or hurdles.   

These concerns are not Left or Right issues – they are collective issues. Neither political party has all the answers or all the correct approaches.  But together they can bring various considerations to light that can help ensure both protection and provision.   So, it is not which presidential candidate or party that makes the difference.  Rather, it is how both parties work with each other, with whoever is elected President, and with the people for common purposes that benefit the community, especially in the context of crises.  Each political segment can then bring varying perspective to problems, while being dedicated to solving the problems together.

2)     Economic:  Because of the range of disparities in our country and the intensity of economic greed, there are some who have been convinced that we should shift to an economic and political system that could potentially have government making decisions on distribution and redistribution of resources to ensure equality and fairness.  But all one needs to do is look at the examples of 20th century socialism in various parts of the world, to know that the idea of government making those decisions only works in theory.  The flaws in human nature and power structures have made it not possible for governments to actually function in a way that fairly distributes or redistributes anything for all.  The answer to disparities therefore is not about having government provide all distribution and redistribution of resources, but rather focusing individual and community efforts on investing and reinvesting in opportunities for economic empowerment and sustainability for all.  

Especially in the midst of crises, fewer economic opportunities in either urban centers or rural areas, results in increasing societal disparities in education and employment, that in turn results in higher levels of poverty and the diseases of poverty including poor physical and mental health, drugs/alcohol, and crimes/violence.  Economic concerns are directly intertwined with societal concerns.  So we cannot dismiss individual and community economic concerns even in the context of public health or other concerns.  

3)     Social:  We need to shift our societal focus from social media to social good.  There comes a point when we have to put down our megaphones – literal or figurative or online.  We need to step back and recognize that we have many voices that need to be heard, and many faces that need to be seen.  Rather than allowing media to sensationalize or social media to turn issues and people into memes, we need to use our media platforms to provide the voiceless an opportunity to share their concerns.  And these platforms can also be a way for those with a voice to learn more about these concerns and to work together with the vulnerable in addressing the concerns.

But to address concerns, we also need to recognize various views and ideas may be expressed, but not all have the same levels of validity or effectiveness.  Some are better or worse in various contexts.   We have to as a society use our faith and morality to discern the collective good and then move toward decisions and changes that pursue what is good, especially through the promotion of civil and human rights.  That kind of decision-making and change moves beyond viewpoints and necessarily takes concerted steps now and in the longer-term toward social progress.  

In this convoluted time, I want to challenge our national and global society to consider these issues and crises from new vantage points – perhaps shifting our paradigm of crises and crisis responses.  We could try to deconstruct these 21st century crises with 21st century approaches and perspectives.  They may not be altogether new ideas but we could employ them in with some new intentionality that could result in greater progress than we have previously experienced.  They may not solve the issues completely, but they may advance us as a people by upholding human rights for all.  When we shift our approaches from politics to sound policy, from economic greed to economic opportunity, personal interest to community good, we can then focus our energies in the 21st century to not only addressing crises but creating true progress for individuals and communities, and true justice worldwide.

Justice in the 21st Century: Part 3 of 4: Revolution vs. Reconciliation

By Sosamma Samuel-Burnett, J.D.

Founder/President, G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice

As we look on the horizon of the 21st century, we can see two paths – one that leads to revolution and one that leads to reconciliation.  The question of which direction we go depends in large part on what kind of world we are choosing to create or recreate for our future. But that future and our chosen path are also shaped by lessons we may have learned from our past.  When we look on that horizon and consider two of our most significant historical and present evils, racism and slavery, we also have to determine which direction we should go, informed by history and present.  Do we fight racism and slavery today through revolution or through reconciliation? 

Revolution is a complex topic and direction.  Revolution means that we are overthrowing “what is” in the hopes of what might be better.  If we feel that what we presently have in political, economic, or social structures and systems are unjust, ineffective, or both, we may seek to tear down those structures and systems that we consider as unjust or ineffective.  Revolution generally provides a process to do that, to tear down or break away from what is.  But it doesn’t usually provide a designated outcome, for that matter something better. The outcome generally is an outgrowth of whatever remains once the revolution is done.  From ashes a phoenix could rise; but often there is no phoenix, just more ashes.  Without something more and intentional, a revolution only overthrows what is, but it does not create what should be. The “more” has to be a concerted effort to formulate structures and systems that are just and effective, or at least better than what was.  But sadly, often that is not the case. 

Consider the result of the American Revolution of 1776 vs. the French Revolution of 1789.  Each of these Revolutions inspired their respective countries, and were decisions based on the unjust nature of the ruling powers in each country.  But in the end, the American Revolution’s outcome -- after much literal and intentional blood, sweat, and tears -- was a constitutional democratic republic.  The French Revolution by contrast resulted in the end of feudalism, but also the end of democracy and the rise of dictatorial leadership, most notably Napoleon.  

Thus, when we consider revolution, we have to remind ourselves that overthrow is not enough. The peculiarity of unjust and ineffective systems is that they tend to replace themselves with more unjust and ineffective systems unless the revolutionaries have an ideal and an intentionality that they are willing to sacrifice and even compromise to get, at least in semblance. The harder work of revolution is not, surprisingly, the revolution or the resulting chaos, but the intentionality that needs to follow to create something new and better.

Reconciliation is no less complex. To reconcile means to put together that which was pulled apart.  In racism and slavery the issue is whether we can actually find the place and space when that pulling apart happened and whether that could actually be put back together again.  In the United States, racial reconciliation may need to go back as far as West Africa where slaves were literally sold by their own people; to Great Britain which established the American colonies to exploit the colonists and slaves for economic and political gain; to the American slave holders and traders who exchanged and treated people as chattel; to today’s leaders and policymakers who utilize modern day methods to oppress people; to businesses and institutions that create barriers for people of color to get an education, find a job, live in a home; to one another and our neighbors who continue discrimination and racism, particularly against Black people who face insecurity, conflict, and violence. The reconciliation that needs to happen is between heritage and legacy, systems and practices, races and races, man and man, woman and woman. Reconciliation would mean that we put together brothers and sisters of all races who should have equal human rights and value that were otherwise prevented by historical and contemporary injustice. But how does such deep and long efforts of reconciliation even begin?  

The starting point for determining whether to choose revolution or reconciliation, and how to begin either, is by first studying and understanding history – not from a politicized lens or for self-serving purposes, but for clarity and information that can breathe wisdom into our decisions.  In determining our path in addressing racism, let’s consider the history of slavery as a reference.

Slavery, bondage, & servitude have been societal phenomenon that started in ancient times and continue today.  It has been part of many if not most cultures, nationalities and religions.  It has been the basis of various forms of disparities, discrimination, and conflict among many peoples worldwide.  In many ways, slavery is a product of civilization. Not that slavery is conceived by or acceptable as part of civilized communities, but that it is an immoral outgrowth of social stratification that often is part of civilization’s structures. That outgrowth is not necessarily politically or socially based, as much as economically rooted and then justified by the culture on that basis, creating related political and social dynamics.  

Dating back as far as 3500 BC to some of the earliest civilizations such as those in Mesopotamia, slavery has been referenced by early writings including the Code of Hammurabi.  Slavery is also referenced in the Bible – particularly with regard to the Hebrew people and their captivity in Babylon and enslavement in Egypt for many centuries. 

In the early Middle Ages, Europe began utilizing slavery more commonly and continued to do so for many centuries that followed. Those slaves included European people and Christians.  But starting in the 1500’s and particularly in the 1600’s, the Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and British engaged in slave trading with West African Kingdoms. However, from the 15th century to the 19th century, many if not most of the European nations began abolishing slavery. 

Great Britain, in particular, has had a long and challenging history of slavery that dates back to the post-Roman era, but reached its height in the Transatlantic Slave Trade of the 1500-1800’s.  It wasn’t until 1805 that slavery was abolished in Britain. Given the vast reach of the British Empire worldwide, that long history of slavery in and by Great Britain has influenced many of the countries that were under its rule, including the colonial United States. 

The history of slavery in the United States dates to the colonial era which began during the British slave trade era.  Ships carrying slaves from West Africa came to the colonies to import and export goods and trade slaves – mostly African and some British.  Slavery increased in commodification as the British Empire grew globally and particularly in the America.  Slavery in America was the central form of labor “necessary” for economic growth, particularly in the South where there were high demands for manual labor for cotton, tobacco and other large scale crops.  Demand for cheap and ample supplies of human labor gave the South and the U.S. in general an unconscionable justification for slavery. 

In 1776 when the colonies waged the Revolutionary War against Great Britain, slavery existed in full force in both regions. And slaves were even employed in the revolutionary battles, only to return to their slave status after the war.  Many of the revolutionary leaders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were slaveholders during and after the Revolutionary War.

In 1787 when America saw the significant weaknesses of its first constitutional structure outlined by the Articles of Incorporation, the Constitutional Convention delegates initially set out to revise those Articles. But after significant debate, deliberation, and compromise, they ended up with a new structure and document, the Constitution of the United States of America.  This document continues to this day as perhaps the most significant political document in human history.  But even with the Constitution’s significance and ideals, slavery was embedded in its structure, still remained in the United States at its ratification, and many of the signatories remained slave holders thereafter. 

The infamous 3/5 compromise in the Constitution is often referenced to signify the devaluing of the slave and of African Americans more generally.  On a technical basis, the focus was less about the value of the person and more about the issue of representation.  The South had many more slaves than other people. If slaves were not counted for representation, the South would be less of a political power in terms of that representation. But if slaves were counted fully, the South would be overrepresented from the perspective of the Northern states. Thus the 3/5 compromise was a way to address that representation issue. While many understand the moral implications of such a compromise, this too was unconscionable but “necessary” justification in that context.   

Four score and seven years later from the founding of the U.S.A, the Civil War was fought starting in 1861.  It is considered the deadliest war in U.S. history – an estimated 750,000 deaths of people from the North and South.  And its also often considered the war to end slavery. But at its core, the Civil War was really about keeping the Union together.  Central issues of the Civil War included the advancement of industry, particularly in the North, versus the furthering of large scale commercial agriculture, particularly in the South.  The Civil War was also about states rights (preferred by the South) vs federal, centralized governance (preferred by the North).  And, the Civil War was also about slavery, whether or not to abolish it.  While the slavery issue was a key part of the Civil War, the other aspects are also important to consider. Those that fought and even died during this War did so on moral terms, but also on regional terms. As such, the end of the Civil War and the end of slavery did not result in the end of debates on regional concerns or the end of discrimination against newly freed slaves.  The effort to maintain the Union did not mean that everyone accepted that unity without conditions and without holding onto their regional and related socioeconomic perspectives. 

Reconstruction and into the Civil Rights Era, we can see the vestiges of both slavery and the Civil War conflicts. Continued political, social, and economic divides meant that discrimination and disparity persisted, particularly for African Americans. Jim Crow laws and segregation in general was another form of slavery – perhaps not in terms of forced labor but in terms of a form of bondage to a society that would not allow full civil and constitutional rights for Black people. 

As Civil Rights and political, economic, and social opportunities have expanded in more recent decades, more people of color in America have achieved the highest levels in arts, business, church, education, government, media, sports, and other arenas -- even going as far as having our first African American President. But there remains a significant concern over disproportionality that dates back to slavery.  While more White people are poor in America overall, a disproportionate number of the poor are people of color. And that intersection of race and poverty raises many other disparate impacts, particularly for Black people, in regard to education, employment, housing, police and other areas. Despite the various advancements in the U.S., the vestiges of slavery persist.

For that matter, slavery itself has not disappeared even today.  As of 2020, slavery has been outlawed throughout the world, but it has not yet been truly abolished.  In many places, including in the U.S., there are provisions to allow slavery as punishment – whether as criminal or economic punishment.  And more so, slavery remains a global human rights crisis in the forum of forced labor and human trafficking.  An estimated 45+ million people are enslaved around the globe today. In West Africa today, slavery continues but especially in the form of child slavery.  The countries with the reported worst statistics on slavery include: Eritrea, Burundi, Central African Republic, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iran, Mauritania, North Korea, Pakistan, and South Sudan. And human trafficking has grown to an international scale with countless of billions of dollars worth of exploitation in every part of the globe and most notably in the U.S., Europe, Mexico, Eastern Europe and Asia.

As we look at our 21st century, we can still see the political, economic, and social impact of our global history of slavery and the influence that it has had on every country, including America’s practices and underlying attitudes.  We can also see the various negative impacts not only on America’s structures, systems, and people, but also in the world around us, since slavery and racism are both far broader and older than America itself.  As we work to address slavery and racism, we must understand how historically wide and deep this issue has been in our country and our world in order to understand the complexities of revolution or reconciliation applied to these issues.

We must also understand that trying to undo systems and structures in our efforts to address racism and slavery is even more complex, and might actually not be in the best interests of the country or its people of any race.  The United States, in particular, has a history, culture, systems, and structures that go beyond the impact or issue of slavery. Both historically and presently, the United States has demonstrated remarkable endurance, achievements, and positive influences on various political, economic, and social fronts nationally and internationally.  The U.S. as a constitutional democratic republic has stood for 244 years since its Revolution, and 233 since its adoption of its Constitution.  The U.S. and its Constitution has directly influenced more than 150 other nations and constitutions. The United States as a political, economic, and social power has had as much, if not more, impact on the world than arguably any society or country before it.  While the United States can be rightly criticized for many ways it has fallen short, those shortcomings do not erase its legitimate achievements.  For all the historical and present bad we have had in the U.S., far more good has come from our structures, systems, and people both in our country and around the globe. Despite its historical and present failures, the U.S.’ successes set it apart as an aspirational model of its constitutional ideals.  

So the question of revolution vs. reconciliation in America to fight racism and slavery hinges on what we have learned from our history, our failures, and our successes. It requires us to ask what we want to achieve in our future and to what degree we can achieve it. 

If we want to achieve a tearing down of the structures and system because of their tainted history, we might be able to do that, but that doesn’t guarantee what replaces it will be better.  In fact, if we look at the history of most other countries, the tear down has rarely been better.  A revolution now may ultimately lead to successive revolutions over time, unless there is truly a better outcome with intention and great effort.  

If we want to achieve human rights, and opportunities, we need to recognize where we have fallen short but also where we have achieved, and determine how to continue forward from generation to generation. That is the essence of reconciliation…but it’s a difficult and long term process.  Reconciliation is not easy, quick, or clear and requires renewal in each generation.

As we stand at this crossroads, we may realize that the evils of racism and slavery may persist not just today, but even into the future.  At this crossroads, we also realize that there are decisions and efforts to be made now with implications for that future.  Our generation, and each successive generation, needs to consider how they will address this issue within their generation and what that might mean for the next generation.  Whatever direction we go, we have to face the facts of history and our current realities to understand where and how we can make intentional and marked progress and not just for today.  We may not achieve an end to racism and slavery now, but our collective decision in the 21s century to work toward that end may allow the next generations to achieve it. 

Justice in the 21st Century: Part 2 of 4 - Narratives vs. Resolution

by Sosamma Samuel-Burnett, J.D.

Founder/President, G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice

To some, George Floyd was a martyr – a life sacrificed in a long line of racism and racial violence.  To others, George Floyd was a victim of police brutality.  To still others, George Floyd was a criminal who had a tragic end at the hands of a “bad cop.”

To some, racism is structural and systemic.  To others racism is a product of culture and upbringing.  To others racism is an isolated issue among a fringe of society.

These are a few examples of diverging statements that have been pervasive in media, on social media, and within many contexts.  Although these statements relate to similar situations, they have varying perspectives and outcomes.  But they all have one thing in common – they represent narratives that not only state some one’s position on an issue, but also reveal one’s overall position on a range of issues.

Political, social, and economic narratives have become common in our society and especially through the media in many forms.  We are conditioned to think a certain way about various sets of issues. That conditioning develops through the news we watch, the books we read, our political and other affiliations, and our social connections.  Over time, we choose the information that affirms our positions, creating confirmation bias. That bias then creates a narrative that provides us with a perspective, a lens, and a language that we use to assess and explain most of what is happening around us, regardless of alternate facts or perspectives. Narratives are significantly shaping our conscience, our conversations, and our considerations. And narratives impact the pursuit of justice.

Narratives can place us in a stance where our responses are not only highly subjective but also highly emotional, and even inconsistent.  George Floyd has been mourned and honored with murals, words and acts of remembrances, a significant funeral ceremony.  However, many other Blacks who were also killed unjustly, such as Ahmaud Arbrey, have not received that same degree of mourning or honor.  That is in part because George Floyd’s death at the hands of a police officer is part of a larger narrative about police brutality and racial violence. And his killing has stirred tremendous emotion from those who hold that narrative. 

Narratives can be based on some level of truth or fact, but they can also extend past facts.  George Floyd was indeed a victim of police violence.  That is a fact.  But whether he was a martyr is questionable.  A martyr typically is one who gives their life willingly for a cause or belief.  There is no indication that George Floyd was doing that intentionally.  The martyr narrative is also challenging in that George Floyd had been engaged in criminal activity both at the time of his killing and also in his past.  Most victims of police violence are not perfect people, and neither was George Floyd.  They are often in the midst of a crime or have a criminal background when the violent act occurs.  But the issue in this case, or any case of police brutality, is not the character of the victim – as there is rarely a “perfect” victim -- but rather the abuse itself.  So the idea of holding up George Floyd as martyr may actually deflect from the actual abuse and what needs to be done about that abuse.

On the other hand, those that hold to the narrative that police in general do not have systemic issues that relate to brutality and racism, but rather the “bad cop” causes the harm, are also missing some of the central facts.  While there are many great law enforcement officers in Minneapolis and around the country, there are also segments of far less honorable individuals that find “cover” within law enforcement.  Derek Chauvin was not the only officer who has had more than one questionable altercation, and the three other officers that were with him were complicit in aiding George Floyd when Chauvin exerted lethal force.  Chauvin’s killing of George Floyd was not a singular act but rather the most recent incident in a series of incidents of police excessive force.  Depending on the narratives we hold, we process such facts differently, and with varying outcomes.

Narratives can also extend beyond a particular issue to implicate other issues.  The idea that police should be “defunded” or their budgets and responsibilities be significantly reduced is a response that extends the scope of George Floyd’s killing or any act of policy brutality.  The narrative that leads people to think that what happened to George Floyd was the result of too much support, funding, or responsibility within law enforcement, takes us away from the issue of police brutality and to the broader issue of the role of law enforcement.  By shifting from addressing the focused topic to the broader, we may create greater issues.  For example, it may be argued that at this juncture we may need more, not less, support for law enforcement to increase training and counseling to address violent events and compounding issues such anger management and post-traumatic stress. Instead we are positioning law enforcement as community adversaries rather than community allies in times of racial and other unrest. 

While major injustices such as racism are very real, narratives circulate and influence how we consider and address racism.  For those who hold a narrative that White privilege is pervasive in society and that racism is structurally and systemically inherent in America, the outcomes of that perspective are vastly different than for those who hold a different narrative on race and racism, even if they agree that racism is a major concern.  What our narrative is on this issue influences how we see one another and our status within society.

The challenge of certain narratives is that they create labels and that are applied widely rather than narrowly, creating increased biases against racial groups.  The reality is that while racism is a considerable concern in America and around the world, most people are not racists.  Neither is every White person nor every police officer a racist.   However, most people, regardless of race, do have racial and other biases.  Being a person of color does not prevent a person from being biased or even racist themselves.  But there are far more people of every race – the reported 99% -- who support Black and other people of color than those who cause harm. 

And, while America has many institutional and societal concerns related to race, most of our constitutional democratic system is not intended to support racism.  Our Constitution, and particularly our Bill of Rights, has been a model of civil and human rights for 233+ years and influenced more than150 other countries constitutions.  Our laws, at least on their face, uphold civil rights on a local and national level.  And when laws are lacking and/or were unjust, those laws, including our Constitutional provisions, are amended or abolished.  In addition, in recent years our government has passed significant civil rights legislation and also ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination – the most significant human rights treaty on the issue of race.  So to say at this juncture that our governing system is inherently racist may not be accurate in terms of how our system is outlined in these laws and documents. 

But, racism still exists in America despite these laws. To understand why there is racism in America, we have to understand not only the current events that spark racial tensions, but also understand the historical and cultural contexts that have led us here.  The history of America is rife with racial disparities and discrimination, cultural, systemic, and structural. That does not mean that the American system is fundamentally racist.  It does mean, however, that how we have implemented this system and lived within it has often been deeply flawed. 

An example of these flaws is the continued implications not only of slavery, but also of what happened after slavery was abolished.  In the South, even after slavery had been abolished, Black people were not truly free.  The reality was that those around them still treated them with racial contempt even by created unjust laws and practices reflecting that contempt.  The situation in the South was so dire that many took great risks to move to the North.  But they often only found another form of racism and classism in the industrial areas and urban centers of the North.  Ending slavery did not protect these individuals from continued discrimination and disparity in the South nor in the North.    

From slavery to the Great Migration Era to the present, race, racial disparities, and racism, have been part of our American society.  While our system and laws have had flaws, what is more flawed is what actually drives discrimination and racism in our country -- the political, social, and economic self-interests and cultural biases that create policies and practices in business, education, housing, and other arenas against people of color.  These impediments prevented many, particularly Black people in America, from achieving their rights and potentials regardless of the ideals within our system and laws.

But narratives related to our history, can also skew how we see that history and how we apply historical lessons to our present justice concerns.  Learning about the limits and flaws of our system and the influence of our self-interests and biases within our nation is important. But understanding those limits and flaws does not negate the many good qualities of America and its people.  Narratives that opt to tear down the system and its historical figures based on personal, cultural, or contextual flaws are missing the greater impact of those who have sought freedom, fought for freedom, and ensured freedom.  Our “Forefathers and Foremothers” may not resonate with everyone because they were flawed people in flawed contexts, but they still contributed significantly to what we can appreciate about America today.  The America they helped create has benefited people of all races and backgrounds, despite the flaws of racism that coincides with those benefits.

While there are parts of our governing system that need reform, tearing down the system as a whole, just like tearing down the statues and representations of it, will not tear down racism.  While there may be some representations that are no longer appropriate, tearing down whole elements of American history only galvanizes those who are already racist, and at the same time removes some of the historical reminders that we need to overcome racism within each generation.  Instead, what needs to be torn down are stigmas, biases, and cultural perspectives that prevent people of color and many others from fully realizing their constitutional and human rights.  

Perhaps the biggest concern around narratives is that they create conflict and deflect us from reaching resolution.  Narratives that give us immediately volatile responses to various issues in our society miss the deeper significance of those issues.  Issues like racism have had long and deep historical roots and complex present dynamics that we need to learn, comprehend, agree upon, and address together – which takes intention, time, and cooperation.  Our energies and our focus should be on resolving the problems, rather than exacerbating the problems.  People will always need to express concern, disagreement, anger, grief, etc. and should be free to do so – an important part of the process of resolution.  But the more volatile the expression, the less likely they will get to a mind-set and a context for cooperation or resolution.  

Racism certainly presents a distinct challenge to seeking justice in the 21st century. But the 21st century also presents much potential for resolution, if we are committed to that end.  To get to resolution, we need to start with a shared reality rather than divergent narratives. The most significant question in addressing racism is asking ourselves “what is justice for all?”  Resolving racism is ultimately about overcoming conflicting narratives to arrive at a shared truth about justice and a shared commitment to achieving it for all.