White folks, I’m stumped. Can you help me out? Something I've noticed after years of being fully invested in this work is that a lot of white folks are self-aware. They know when they're operating from privilege. They can name it, dissect it, write beautifully about it. And then they do the thing anyway. "I understand it's a privilege to..." Okay. You understand it. But what's the point of naming your privilege if you're still leveraging it for your own benefit at every turn? That's not humility, that's confession without repentance. It's the same as saying "I know this system harms people" while still cashing in on it because it's easier. Or saying "I know it's a privilege to do this" and doing it anyway because you can. Awareness without accountability is a performance. It's a way to soothe your own guilt without ever changing your behavior. I saw someone post recently about how they moved out of the United States because things are "so bad here." They wrote about how aware they are that leaving is a privilege, but they left anyway. That's the part I can't wrap my head around. If you know it's a privilege to leave, and you claim to be invested in anti-racism, why not stay and fight alongside the people who can't? It's like watching a house on fire and saying "wow, this is terrible, I understand it's a privilege to have an escape route" and then walking out the door while the rest of us are trapped inside. At some point, acknowledging something without acting on it becomes a shield. A way to keep your hands clean while the rest of us are covered in ash. You don't get credit for noticing your privilege if you refuse to disrupt it. You can't hold awareness in one hand and avoidance in the other and call that growth. That's self-preservation wearing progress as a costume. If you know better and keep doing the same thing, you're not doing the work. You're narrating it from a safe distance. So I’ll ask you straight up: what does accountability actually look like for you? Not the version you’d give in a workshop. In your actual, everyday life. What are you doing with your awareness, because naming your privilege isn’t enough. You get to opt out of this whenever you want, and you know it. That’s the whole problem. The real work starts when you decide to use it differently, even when nobody’s watching and even when you could just walk away.

I am still thinking about it, you? @Sarah Jones @Alexander Skye @Davina Kerrelola @Amy Maez

This article explores sentiment about police actions in Britain that made me examine how police are viewed there From the article... Watson has been called Britain’s “anti-woke” police chief after he instructed officers not to take the knee during Black Lives Matters protests in 2021 because it would undermine impartiality. He said he would “probably kneel before the queen, God and Mrs Watson, that’s it”. Speaking to reporters in Stockport, Watson said forces should not “use the language of being anti-racist” because it implies officers have “some activist role”. Of course we’re fiercely opposed to racism but we’re the police,” he said. “We are not activists. If we overstep … this is what then informs the public perception of two-tier policing. ________________ Full article Top officer says anti-racism guidance has fuelled myth of two-tier policing | Police | The Guardian https://share.google/Bwc7BuE5jXPHKGR9j Reflection questions 1. What does "neutrality" mean to you? Is neutrality the same as fairness? 2. Can institutions be neutral about harm? Why or why not? 3. Is racism a political issue, a social issue, a public safety issue, or something else? What leads you to that conclusion? 4. What's the difference between being anti-racist and being an activist? Are they always the same thing? 5. Have police historically been neutral in matters of race? What examples come to mind? 6. When institutions claim neutrality, who tends to benefit? Who might be overlooked or harmed? 7. Should police be neutral about hate crimes, domestic violence, or discrimination? If not, what makes those issues different? 8. If racism causes measurable harm, what role should public institutions play in addressing it? Where do you think the line should be drawn?

All this. Having Thomas Jefferson be an atrocious yet revered (not by me) colonizing ancestor of mine, I strive to be the kind of person that would make him turn in his own grave. Original post from Chamieka House-Osuya 👇🔽 "I don’t usually write on Sundays, but I’ve been sitting with something I can’t put down. It came out of a wonderful conversation I had recently, and I keep turning it over: what would it actually mean for white people to be good ancestors? When I first heard the phrase “good ancestor,” it didn’t feel simple or inspiring. It felt heavy. Not because it’s some new concept, but because it put words to something a lot of us have been going around for years without ever saying out loud. We keep having the same conversations about race and history. They keep falling apart in the same spots every single time. That exhaustion is real and it adds up. It does not level off the more you go through it. It gets heavier, especially when you are being honest and what you get back is defensiveness instead of any real reflection. A lot of white folks hear these conversations and immediately turn inward in entirely the wrong way. They are not reflective or curious, but merely protective, making it about defending themselves instead of facing what is being said. And then we end up completely stuck, because the focus shifts to their fragile feelings, and the actual harm never gets dealt with. It just sits there, unchallenged and unchanged, while everyone argues around it in circles. That is the pull in two directions at once: wanting to be honest about what is real, while knowing how quickly honesty gets shut down when it feels too close. Still, if anything is going to move, there has to be a way forward for the people who are actually willing to do something different. It cannot be a way that makes it easier, but just a way that keeps the responsibility exactly where it belongs. The idea of being a good ancestor does that in a way that feels incredibly grounded and real. Being a good ancestor means not looking away, but sitting with what came before you and being honest about what you’ve gained from it. It is a defining decision point where you either continue what was handed down, or you actively interrupt it.