Radical violence in the United States -- particularly connected to the institutionalized racism that takes place in a variety of ways (not simply with law enforcement, but certainly most visibly with law enforcement) -- has reached epidemic levels. Our social fabric is entirely frayed, and there seems to be no real way forward.
There have been, of course, certain very localized attempts to solve this racism. For example:
But those localized efforts lack the larger vision necessary to develop a collective accounting of racism and its effects on our various social and cultural institutions.
This is why so much white guilt continues unaddressed. Younger generations, when confronted by the realities of that racism, then demand that we remove statues, ban flags, change names of military installations, etc. Those generations don't realize that those actions really don't address the white guilt over racism and its historical constructs.
So what do we do?
On the face of it then, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) process appears to me to offer both the promise of beginning an honest discussion on race relations in the United States, and the potential for reconciliation in its aftermath. A TRC, in short, seems like an obvious solution. Thing is, what would that look like in the US?
For starts, some TRC background.
On the face of it then, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) process appears to me to offer both the promise of beginning an honest discussion on race relations in the United States, and the potential for reconciliation in its aftermath. A TRC, in short, seems like an obvious solution. Thing is, what would that look like in the US?
For starts, some TRC background.
The South African TRC is widely praised for its emphasis on restorative justice. Unlike previous truth commissions in Latin America, it didn't offer widespread amnesty to perpetrators, but instead enticed them to come forward and admit their guilt in exchange for amnesty case-by-case. The TRC formed committees that ensured that both rehabilitation and reparations would be provided on an individual basis. Live broadcasts of South Africans -- black, white, Indian, and colored -- testifying before the commissioners in a court-like setup were shown internationally. It wasn't long before the world, and most importantly South Africans, came to learn of the many hidden atrocities that had been endured under the apartheid system. There's no doubt that the South African TRC process resulted in a model of public reconciliation which deserves attention from all areas of the globe, including those in the US who are searching for a mechanism to ameliorate a legacy of systemic racism. However, it's essential to recognize that the South African TRC favored an individualized approach that placed victims and perpetrators at the center of the process, rather than the apartheid system and its structures of governance, and that this framing may limit the applicability of the South African model to other settings. That, it seems to me, is the fundamental difference between what happened in South Africa and what is happening now in the US.
Although the South African TRC labeled apartheid as a "crime against humanity", it didn't formally address the system of apartheid and its legality, but rather the individuals who were affected by it. In other words, although the TRC was branded as a national activity, in reality its focus upon "victims" and "perpetrators" individualized the process of reconciliation and allowed the system of apartheid, and those who worked within it, to remain in the shadows, hidden from clear, burning light of public scrutiny. Any TRC model that bypasses the role of institutions and structures of governance and focuses only on individuals is going to be heavily flawed if it is deployed to address structural racism in the US. That history is just so deeply embedded. The South African model, then, is just too flat for the US folks.
Which is honestly a good thing for Americans. I don't think the US has to look as far as South African for a better model.
The Canadian TRC model is a unique process: It is the first that takes place in a society not undergoing fundamental government transition, as
seen with the rest of TRCs. In this, at least, it offers the US a basis for comparison. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada began its work in 2009 and is focused on the Indian Residential School (IRS) system and the abuses perpetrated by the church- and government-run institutions against First Nations, Metis and Inuit children. The Canadian TRC model, like South Africa's, can be characterized as very top-down, confined as it is to a mandate that results from the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement, a lawsuit settlement reached between the Canadian government, the Counsel of the Churches that ran the schools, the Assembly of First Nations, Aboriginal Peoples organizations and IRS survivors. The Canadian TRC has treated the IRS system, much like South Africa and apartheid, as a crime against humanity and has not been shy to label the system as one that perpetuated cultural genocide. At the same time, however, it repeats the same mistake: The structures of governance that created the IRS system have not been critically examined.
Moreover, the IRS system is individualized as an isolated occurrence,
and thus separated from other anti-Aboriginal policies both before and
after the IRS system was in operation. In the same spirit, it has
engaged First Nations and Inuit communities on a case-by-case basis,
compartmentalizing the process as opposed to allowing the communities to
lead the process themselves in a more culturally and historically
nuanced way. Again, this is not to say that the Canadian process is
fatally flawed. The acknowledgement of the abuses that took place in the
IRS system is an important first step to an improved relationship
between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities. The problem that
remains is that the majority white, non-Aboriginal populace has been
largely disengaged from the process -- something that could also be
detrimental to an American process, if this model were adopted in the US. I think the Canadian model offer a little more help for what an American TRC model might look like, but I'm not sure that their model captures the best of what a TRC might accomplish in terms of racial equality and naming racial injustice and violence.
However, I think when we take both the South African and Canadian models in mind, there are some principles that emerge.
1. The government needs to be placed under the cold, clear lens of public examination. South Africa and Canada have emphasized the provision of healing and
restorative justice measures for individuals, while the governments that
instituted the oppressive structures and policies are not under the
same level of examination. The structures of apartheid created the environment within which the racial violence took place. The same has been true in the US. From political expediencies to such simple things as the infrastructure of city water systems (Flint, Michigan, anyone?) to the way in which law enforcement departments have been historically established and operated, the systemic racism in the US has made possible any number of violent acts against indigenous, brown and black bodies for over 400 years. In fact, the problem is even deeper. Just ask immigrants from Scotland and Ireland in the mid-1800s to Chinese immigrants in the 1880s to Italian immigrants in the 1920s. We need public accounting of the public structures that make dehumanization in the US a real thing. Long-term reconciliation in the American populace is impossible without a look at the public structures of race and in/out group social psychology.
2. An American TRC process demands a recognition of the country's diverse social fabric. An American TRC cannot address a single crime or a single group isolated from all the rest. That's what makes defining truth and reconciliation in the US seem like it's impossible. And it's the toughest challenges for any American TRC process. It feels like a subjective and sensitive thing, therefore it feels like it's out of reach. But we're actually seeing communities do that very thing! Marginalized narratives are being heard in a way that hasn't happened in American history. (That, I think, is the genius of #BlackLivesMatter and #BLM.) It is keeping the government out of the process of defining those terms. Because, let's admit it: The American government's definition of truth and reconciliation is slanted toward those who hold all the power. And it tends toward a uniformity that doesn't account for American diversity.
3. That's why, at least in an American context (think the Greensboro TRC of the late 1970s or the more recent 2012 Maine Wabanaki-State Child Welfare Truth and Reconciliation Commission) an American TRC requires grassroots beginnings and social embodiment. Any American TRC that will be effective requires respecting the historical and cultural nuances of specific communities. It's a key indicator of engaging in a mutually respected long-term
reconciliation and a more collectively understood truth. It's why I think
that the more a TRC is tailored for the
very society it seeks to examine, the more likely it is that people will
engage with such a process.
So what's the solution? What does an American Truth and Reconciliation Commission look like?
It means a nationwide TRC simply isn't feasible. A single reconciliation process that encompasses an entire country, especially one so large as the US, may be placing too much faith in the top-down TRC model. Instead, it would be better to follow the examples of Greensboro and Maine, and allow multiple reconciliation processes to occur, which are tailored by the local people.
It means a nationwide TRC simply isn't feasible. A single reconciliation process that encompasses an entire country, especially one so large as the US, may be placing too much faith in the top-down TRC model. Instead, it would be better to follow the examples of Greensboro and Maine, and allow multiple reconciliation processes to occur, which are tailored by the local people.
For example,
a national fund for regional grassroots truth, reconciliation, and
healing activities could be instituted that would support initiatives at
a local level between the states and civil society groups. In other
words, the TRC models seen in Greensboro and Maine could be tailored and
replicated across the country, instead of investing too much in a
single process. Separately there could be a Commission of Inquiry and
Reform tasked with identifying and addressing the impact of
institutionalized racism at the state and federal levels -- within enough
time and with enough funding to be comprehensive. As so many TRCs have
seen their recommendations and official reports collect dust on
government bookshelves, such a commission could be the "teeth" for the
recommendations of the reconciliation processes and be given the power
to effect structural changes. However, that's a very preliminary impression that would need lots more fleshing out before it might become a socio-political reality in the US.
But I think the most important take-away from what we're seeing in the protests is that any American TRC would absolutely require -- without hesitation or qualification in any way -- the role of children and teens in the process. That's because education is fundamental for addressing the historical realities of what took place. Therefore we need to support youth leadership initiatives that will train young people to continue systemic change in the future.
There's no doubt to any rational person's mind that the sociopolitical and cultural mindset that allows a law enforcement officer's knee to become the murder weapon against a black man's body can continue. And it's to our children's credit that they know this and have been among some of the loudest critics in our local communities and that young Gen Z activists have led the way in the nonviolent protests that resulted. We should be humbled by their example, and judged by the inability of those in power to effect real and lasting change through grassroots TRCs. There's no doubt that the United States needs to begin a conversation
around long-term reconciliation, and it requires both the systems and
structures of government, and an aware and committed population, to
facilitate it. But for a conversation to happen, someone needs to speak
first -- and our youngest American members of the bodies public and politic have been doing that.
We need to listen.