Q1
From Jefferson to Ross to Baldwin, one sees a theme of struggle emanating from the issue of race. Jefferson (1781) acknowledged the problems that slavery placed on the nation: he acknowledged that “God is just” and that Americans were asking for His judgment by continuing to enslave their fellow man. And yet he hoped that the masters of slaves (of which he was one) would be so good as to free their slaves of their own accord, so that the order of the nation and of society could proceed in a stable and positive manner rather than an extirpative manner. Then came Ross (2005)—the slavery apologist, who declared that slavery was of God, that slavery was “for the good of the slave, the good of the master, the good of the whole American family.” This sentiment showed that Americans were not in agreement with Jefferson, that God would surely punish the country for its sins. Baldwin’s Notes on a Native Son leaves the reader with the final effect of all this tension: his father was torn apart, eaten up by racism, and it made him mean and psychologically damaged as he believed that all white men were out to oppress blacks. Baldwin had to fight his way through this nightmare of a home life to make his own way in the world, which he had been raised to fear.

The racial content in Jefferson’s Notes consists of Jefferson describing the peculiar condition of slavery and the moral effect it had on man. He showed how masters could lose their tempers and take it out on their slaves and how this could be absorbed by the children, who would grow up and believe that this behavior was acceptable—and all the while God was watching and waiting to see if they would straighten out their problems and finally emancipate the slaves or continue in their immoral manner. Jefferson’s Notes are full of what could be called a guilty conscious. This is just the opposite of Ross’s work. Ross celebrates slavery and implies that God wants this arrangement because it is a beneficial one to all involved. It is the complete opposite view of Jefferson, who, though a slave owner, at least recognized the moral problem. Ross sees slavery as a moral virtue. Baldwin, in his book, treats on the aftermath of slavery—the effects of racism in the lives of real people like his father, who grew up in New Orleans, and felt the sting of racism all his life.

The historical mutability of race is evident in these three writings. Race for Jefferson was something that Americans needed to confront and settle so that the social order of which slavery figured so predominantly did not get out of hand and get the better of all involved and lead to their moral decay. Then in the next century, Ross came along to trumpet and laud slavery as though it were a boon to mankind and even to the slave himself. Thus, whereas Jefferson seemed to recognize the slave as human and perhaps as equal, Ross seemed to see the slave as sub-human and in need of the white master’s tutelage and mastery while at the same time the white master and his family could benefit immensely from the slave’s labor—so it was a win-win for both: the slave had a home and the master and his family lived in abundance. Then in the 20th century, the reality of slavery and racism finally hit home with full force as Baldwin recounted the effects of racism on the mind of his father, how it ate him up and tortured his mind; how it finally bled into him, and how he had to let it bleed out in his work Native Son, so that the ghosts of the past could finally be expelled and exorcised. Jefferson called it and predicted that God’s hand would not be held back for long: Ross ignored it, and Baldwin showed that the hand was striking down even now, as blacks and whites...…find ways to “learn ethnographic research skills to document, analyze, and contest the stigmatization of language practices in a predominantly Latinx community where linguistic diversity is often viewed as a problem from mainstream perspectives” (Rosa, n.d., p. 112). By coming together as a community, the teachers and students helped to show that language represents an opportunity rather than a barrier to communication and relationship building.

The work that Eberhardt (n.d.) and others are doing with the Oakland Police is another example and shows that when people of different groups come together to learn to understand one another, identify like-minded or shared goals, and do something for the good of the community that can impact lives in a positive manner it is truly a win-win situation for all because it bridges gaps and fills divides with human warmth, affection and good will. By working with the police to reduce racialization and stop racial bias among policing practices, the community members get to develop a stronger community based on respect and appreciation that flows in both directions.

Considering the communities that I am a part of, I can think of one change that a police force could make to reduce the influence of racialized bias—and that would be to practice more community-based policing. This practice involves the police actually get out of their cars and mingling with the people of the community they are there to serve. Instead of hiding behind sun glasses and sitting in cars to catch speeders or wait for a call to come in, they are out and about on their feet, meeting and greeting the community so that the community can put a human face on the police and so that that police can put human faces on the people of the community. Instead of thinking of people by the color of their skin, the police will get to know the people based on who they really are, and the same goes for the community: they get to see the police for who they…